issue144 by dingyi

dingyi0311UID: 2627919

I agree with the speaker insofar as the artist is the person who gives the society something of lasting value, anyway, the art such us the paintings by van Gogh, music by Mozart, and dramas by Sharkspear are indeed created by the artists but the critics. Yet we need to bear in mind that the critics play are pivot role in bringing and deciphering the arts to the ordinary people. Without them, even the most previous art cannot be recognized and protected, never mention the lasting value.

Indeed, the critics are of importance in rendering the art with something of lasting value. the masterpieces of Shakespears are carefully denoted by many critic, their efforts tell an ordinary reader what kind of skill was used to make the story processed dramatically, what the implicit meaning of the words speak by the leading role in the novel, and provide important background information such as the social setting of the story and the possible relationship between the people in the novel. Therefore the merit of the arts can be explicitly presented and understood.

However, the critics who focus on the defects of the art will ostensibly shadow the real value of some arts. When we surf on the internet and have a glimpse on the comment on the movies made by the critics, we may find that most of them have passion in finding the mistake from the new movie. frequently there are comments that the cloth of the actress are broken in the fight, how it fixed the next second, the hero in the movie lost his gun, how it possible that the gun return back to his hand automatically, or that the actor wearing a watch with modern fashion in a movie telling the story of the independent war of American in the 1777 DC. People have read this comment will have no interest to watch these movies. After all, nobody is willing to waste time on the rubbish. Moreover, people have known the mistakes will subconsciously focus on them but the essence the movies want to present to the audience. Finally, the true merit of the movies is not access to the audience.

Moreover, the critics themselves have their own limits; the value of some arts cannot be recognized by the critics themselves. The merit of paintings by Van Gogh was not detected by the contemporal critics. Only one of the works by him was sold. The problem is that his impressionism art reflect his benevolence the critics themselves could not dig out the merit of his painting. They fail to notice that the iconoclastic way of presenting the reality, the superealitism, created by him. It is only after his death that his creativity and greatness was acknowledged by the critics.

in conclusion, it is true that the artist, not the critic, who gives society something of lasting value. However, the importance of the critic should not be omitted.

wu-intrepidUID: 2659758

I agree with the speaker insofar as the artist is the person who gives the society something of lasting value, anyway, the art such usas the paintings by van Gogh, music by Mozart, and dramas by Sharkspear are indeed created by the artists but好像这个不大通，改成and not 会不会好一点 the critics. Yet we need to bear in mind that the critics play are pivot role in bringing and deciphering the arts to the ordinary people. Without them, even the most previous art cannot be recognized and protected, never mention the lasting value. Indeed, the critics are of importance in rendering the art with something of lasting value. the masterpieces of Shakespears are carefully denoted by many critic, their efforts tell an ordinary reader what kind of skill was used to make the story processed dramatically, what the implicit meaning of the words speak by the leading role in the novel, and provide important background information such as the social setting of the story and the possible relationship between among 吧the people in the novel. Therefore the merit of the arts can be explicitly presented and understood. However, the critics who focus on the defects of the art will ostensibly shadow the real value of some arts. When we surf on the internet and have a glimpse on the comment on the movies made by the critics, we may find that most of them have passion in finding the mistake from the new movie. frequently there are comments that the cloth of the actress are broken in the fight, how it fixed the next second, the hero in the movie lost his gun, how it possible that the gun return back to his hand automatically, or that the actor wearing a watch with modern fashion in a movie telling the story of the independent war of American in the 1777 DC. People have read this comment will have no interest to watch these movies. After all, nobody is willing to waste time on the rubbish. Moreover, people have known the mistakes will subconsciously focus on them but the essence the movies want to present to the audience. Finally, the true merit of the movies is not access to the audience.这例子蛮有意思 Moreover, the critics themselves have their own limits; the value of some arts cannot be recognized by the critics themselves. The merit of paintings by Van Gogh was not detected by the contemporal contemporarycritics. Only one of the works by him was sold. The problem is that his impressionism art reflect his benevolence the critics themselves could not dig out the merit of his painting. They fail to notice that the iconoclastic way of presenting the reality, the superealitism, created by him. It is only after his death that his creativity and greatness was acknowledged by the critics.这个..如果吹毛求疵的话，最终不还是评论家说了算，可能例子不是很鲜明，这点蛮难讲的，可以避掉.. in conclusion, it is true that the artist, not the critic, who gives society something of lasting value. However, the importance of the critic should not be omitted. 结尾太简单啦，字数要扩充下啊

dingyi0311UID: 2627919

谢谢了啊