0910AW 同主题写作第四期 ISSUE144 by Galloper B05 晓东（i2000s）

i2000sUID: 2108019

有些论据实在是想不出合适的例子，我用*标出了。
能给加一下最好了~~
谢谢咯！

144 It is the artist, not the critic,* who gives society something of lasting value.

Date: 2009-06-12  Words: 616


This issue is not only a fair of who, the artist or the critic, gives something of lasting value to the society. More broadly, it relates to the debate on how we could ensure the arts with long lasting value to our society.

Generally speaking, it is the artist who creates the art works which contains value intrinsically, and the critic who translates the value of art works to publics. If there's no artist to shape arts divining from his seasoned mind and via his art expression ability, there would no art works the critic can employ his fastidious insight to comment on. Artist gives the source of value. Although created for years, the great painter Da Vinci’s Mona Lisa's Simile, the subtle sculptor Michelangelo’s David, the talent musician Beethoven’s The Ninth Symphony, the best director of Oscars prize winner Robert Zemeckis’s
Forrest Gump, and many other works of artists are still instilling beauty, inspiration, ambition and other spiritual resonance into our hearts. But without the critic, the value of some art works may be not even passed on to any other single man, not to say the realization of lasting value to the society. For instance, the drawings of Van Gogh, a great painter in 19th century Europe, didn't receipted by the populace until the critic introduced the beauty of Van Gogh's drawings late before he was dead. And in most of his life time, for no one understood his works, he even only sold only one of his voluminous works. It's clear that the critics help the artists realize the value of their works. Further more, art without critics may lose their way to sanctity. It's the critics' honor to call some vulgar Graffiti painting on New York streets to a halt, and to sentence the plagiaristic works to death. Critics choose the real value of artists' works, worthy popularizing, into publics' sight and earshot.

However, the critics do not always show the society with valuable critique, they may bury the value of artists' works into dust, and even bury the spirit of artists into earth. As the saying goes, "Slanders by many mouths can meld metal". For too many criticism focused on, the ***. What's more, the critics may be driven by underhanded profits or personal enmities, and spell the artists into inferno. **** Who can criticize the critics when they publish their irrational criticism? And who can ultimately make the value of art works or the critique transfer to others for a long enough periods?

Definitely, it is the reader, the auditor, the audience, the publics, ultimately receiving both the criticism and the art works, who can justify whether the artist or the critic is worth respect in the end. Both the artists and critics cannot warrant their works or critiques give the society lasting value. Such justification has to hand on to us, the final art critics and the members of the society. If we lack fundamental art appreciation ability, we might trap into the tussle between the artists and the critics, and even might fuel the distorted criticism. On one hand, we should learn some art aesthetic acknowledge, at lest before we judge the art works and the relevant critiques in public. On the other hand, we should encourage those artists and critics, who bring to our society heat-stirring artistic enjoyment or disinterested critiques. In fact, it's a good news that we have Oscars prize for the great artists, meanwhile, the Pulitzer prize for the excellent critics. Only when our society establishes a disinterested and balanced feedback circle among the artists, the critics and the publics, will our society receive more everlasting value from art, no matter who gives it.

xiaobao963UID: 2596307

This issue is not only a fair of who, the artist or the critic, gives something of lasting value to the society. More broadly, it relates to the debate on how we could ensure the arts with long lasting value to our society.（第一段可以表明一下你的立场）

Generally speaking, it is the artist who creates the art works which contains value intrinsically, and the critic who translates the value of art works to publics. If there's no artist to shape arts divining from his seasoned mind and via his art expression ability, there would no art works the critic can employ his fastidious insight to comment on. Artist（格式不对） gives the source of value. Although created for years, the great painter Da Vinci’s Mona Lisa's Simile, the subtle sculptor Michelangelo’s David, the talent musician Beethoven’s The Ninth Symphony, the best director of Oscars prize winner Robert Zemeckis’s（这句话的主谓宾在哪？）作者能个写出这么多名人的名字，真让人佩服。Very good.
Forrest Gump, and many other works of artists are still instilling beauty, inspiration, ambition and other spiritual resonance into our hearts. But without the critic, the value of some art works may be not even passed on to any other single man, not to say the realization of lasting value to the society. For instance, the drawings of Van Gogh, a great painter in 19th century Europe, didn't receipted by the populace until the critic introduced the beauty of Van Gogh's drawings late before he was dead. And in most of his life time, for no one understood his works, he even only sold only one of his voluminous works. It's clear that the critics help the artists realize the value of their works. Further more, art without critics may lose their way to sanctity. It's the critics' honor to call some vulgar Graffiti painting on New York streets to a halt, and to sentence the plagiaristic works to death. Critics choose the real value of artists' works, worthy popularizing, into publics' sight and earshot.(例子相当充足，very very good)

However, the critics do not always show the society with valuable critique, they may bury the value of artists' works into dust, and even bury the spirit of artists into earth. As the saying goes, "Slanders by many mouths can meld metal". For too many(应加复数名词) criticism focused on, the ***. What's more, the critics may be driven by underhanded profits or personal enmities, and spell the artists into inferno. **** Who can criticize the critics when they publish their irrational criticism? And who can ultimately make the value of art works or the critique transfer to others for a long enough periods?

Definitely, it is the reader, the auditor, the audience, the publics, ultimately receiving both the criticism and the art works, who can justify whether the artist or the critic is worth respect in the end. Both the artists and critics cannot warrant their works or critiques give the society lasting value. Such justification has to hand on to us, the final art critics and the members of the society. If we lack fundamental art appreciation ability, we might trap into the tussle between the artists and the critics, and even might fuel the distorted criticism. On one hand, we should learn some art aesthetic acknowledge, at lest before we judge the art works and the relevant critiques in public. On the other hand, we should encourage those artists and critics, who bring to our society heat-stirring artistic enjoyment or disinterested critiques. In fact, it's a good news that we have Oscars prize for the great artists, meanwhile, the Pulitzer prize for the excellent critics. Only when our society establishes a disinterested and balanced feedback circle among the artists, the critics and the publics, will our society receive more everlasting value from art, no matter who gives it.（收尾有力度）

kittyharuUID: 2539664

This issue is not only a fair of who, the artist or the critic, gives something of lasting value to the society. More broadly, it relates to the debate on how we could ensure the arts with long lasting value to our society.

Generally speaking, it is the artist who creates the art works which contains value intrinsically, and the critic who translates the value of art works to publics. If there's no artist to shape arts divining from his seasoned mind and via his art expression ability, there would (be) no art works the critic can employ his fastidious insight to comment on. Artist gives the source of value. Although created for years, the great painter Da Vinci’s Mona Lisa's Simile (又是个拼写错误哦，嘿嘿), the subtle sculptor Michelangelo’s David, the talent musician Beethoven’s The Ninth Symphony, the best director of Oscars prize winner Robert Zemeckis’s Forrest Gump, and many other works of artists are still instilling beauty, inspiration, ambition and other spiritual resonance into our hearts. But without the critic, the value of some art works may be not even passed on to any other single man, not to say the realization of lasting value to the society. For instance, the drawings of Van Gogh, a great painter in 19th century Europe, didn't receipted by the populace until the critic introduced the beauty of Van Gogh's drawings late before he was dead. And in most of his life time, for no one understood his works, he even only sold only one of his voluminous works(两个only…?). It's clear that the critics help the artists realize the value of their works. Further more, art without critics may lose their way to sanctity. It's the critics' honor to call some vulgar Graffiti painting on New York streets to a halt, and to sentence the plagiaristic works to death.(这一点我还真米有想到，谢谢了！) Critics choose the real value of artists' works, worthy popularizing, into publics' sight and earshot.
好壮观的一段，晓东我简直想膜拜你。

However, the critics do not always show the society with valuable critique, they may bury the value of artists' works into dust, and even bury the spirit of artists into earth. As the saying goes, "Slanders by many mouths can meld metal". For too many criticism focused on, the ***. What's more, the critics may be driven by underhanded profits or personal enmities, and spell the artists into inferno. **** Who can criticize the critics when they publish their irrational criticism? And who can ultimately make the value of art works or the critique transfer to others for a long enough periods?
其实我觉得这一段的例子确实不好找，因为那些艺术家及其作品既然已经被埋没了，我们又怎么可能知道呢？如果我们能举出例子来不是说明他们的作品还是有影响力的么？那我们举的例子反倒没有说服力了。

Definitely, it is the reader, the auditor, the audience, the publics, ultimately receiving both the criticism and the art works, who can justify whether the artist or the critic is worth respect in the end. Both the artists and critics cannot warrant their works or critiques give the society lasting value. Such justification has to hand on to us, the final art critics and the members of the society. If we lack fundamental art appreciation ability, we might trap into the tussle between the artists and the critics, and even might fuel the distorted criticism. On one hand, we should learn some art aesthetic acknowledge, at lest before we judge the art works and the relevant critiques in public. On the other hand, we should encourage those artists and critics, who bring to our society heat-stirring artistic enjoyment or disinterested critiques. In fact, it's a good news that we have Oscars prize for the great artists, meanwhile, the Pulitzer prize for the excellent critics. Only when our society establishes a disinterested and balanced feedback circle among the artists, the critics and the publics, will our society receive more everlasting value from art, no matter who gives it.
这一段的内容感觉比较新颖。充分发挥公众的作用。
呃。。。我联想到了超女。。。虽然我对那个没兴趣。。。哈哈

总评：
挖掘到了我没挖掘到的东西，膜拜中。。。
句子也很好
整体结构感觉有点头重脚轻，是不是第二段可以分成两段写比较好
还有就是那麽多人名，你提醒了我，我只知道汉语怎么写，唉。。。
还有就是，字数是不是有点多了，怕到时候45分钟写不完

总之，格子很佩服晓东~
共同进步~~~！