It is the artist, not the critic, who gives society something of lasting value. * critics: a person who evaluates works of art, such as novels, films, music, paintings,etc. 写的时候只有一个心得，就是自己的字汇真的很少 光是要写"有很高的价值"写来写去都是同样几个字... 换句话说要怎麽练习啊 T_T I disagree with the statement that it is the artist instead of the critic that gives society something of lasting value. An artist is the one to make some ideas come true, and thus the value of the ideas can be seen. However, for a value to be long-lasting, a critic is also needed to examine the art works and decide which ones deserve the highest value. There are some cases where artists and critics are equally important. For example, in the field of painting, we need creative artists to create great works, while the critics evaluate the works. By doing so, the artists know what to improve in their following works, and the public have different viewpoints to appreciate these painting. In music, we do need both excellent artists and critics. Take myself for instance. Before I buy a CD, I would read the commend by the critics and see if it is the kind of music I like. People have deeper understand of a great work because the introduction by critics. It is almost impossible for people to read every novel published, but a critic probably can. There are a variety of novels published every day. Some of these novels are influential, and others may not be worthwhile to read. How can people know which novel to read? A critic in the field of novel has the responsibility to read, to analyze and propose his opinions about the novels. He can act as the filter of novels, telling the public which novels are good to read, and thus the valuable ones can be known to people, being influential in the society. Critics usually influence the field of novel more than the writers do by creating the trend, that is, to declare what is the most popular genre and what is not. No matter how good a film an artist creates, it will not be highly-esteemed to the society unless it is accepted by it. A critic of films usually plays an important role, too. Many of the movies are too obscured for the public to understand. Although people know that these movies are of great metaphor and high reputation, they are not interested to see the movies because of the lack of understanding. Can a movie which is not appreciated by most people be of lasting value? I do not think so. Without the introduction and introspection of a film more friendly to the society, the film can not have its impact on people. A critic is the one to introduce a work to the world. On balance, works cannot be created without artists, but to make in of lasting value is critics' duty. Only after a work is well known to the public because of the critics' introduction can it be everlasting. --

※ 发信站: 批踢踢实业坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 118.166.249.8