Thank you very much to read my essay. I have no idea how to make a further improvement. I will be appreciated by your suggestions!
TOPIC: ISSUE144 - "It is the artist, not the critic,* who gives society something of lasting value."
*a person who evaluates works of art, such as novels, films, music, paintings, etc.
WORDS: 562 TIME: 00:42:10
We human beings always feel our oats when talking about arts. It is generally acknowledged that artists are the ones who create values of our civilization. However, when we emphasize the effect of artists, we should not put away another side, the critics.
It is admitted that artists earn fames by their various art masterpieces which are shining in our long history. To reason from the past to present, the value of every prominent artists are striking. In the era of Renaissance, the painting of Mona Lisa, by Da Vinci, one of the primary Italian artists in Renaissance, has been viewed as invaluable not only because of the vibrant characterization, but also the mysterious smile which have attracted the world's attention for centuries. Another Italian artist, Michelangelo, spread the idea of rebirth, the central thought of Renaissance, by David, the sculpture which expressed the tension on the impending war. Both Da Vinci and Michelangelo are regarded as cultural gurus at that time. Hundreds of years later, another group of artists, the Beatles, played the similar role in 1960s, although the media had changed to music. The Beatles transformed the common entertainment, rock music, into a introspection of the social upheavals. From then on, we never think of the Beatles as music singers, rather social and spiritual leaders who brought out that generation from confusion and turmoil. As indicated above, I can conclude with confidence that artists add valuable elements to the human civilization.
On the other side, critics always appear to be the opposite of artists. Film reviews by critics are always filled with challenges and book reviews sometimes ruin a new book. One may argue that critics just want to get famous by showing out their different opinions and they have no value to the social culture. Yes, some of the critics are acerbic excessively, however, most of the critics contribute to the development of art. As the famous actor, Will Smith, once said, "when I was surrounded by applaud and praise, I would prefer to look at what the critics said. From their criticism, I feel excited because I am sure I can do better." That it is, with professional knowledge, the critics always motivate artists to become better. In this way, critics are not totally valueless; they help the artists create more valuable work to the society.
Moreover, I must emphasize that we should not forget the effect of critics in the spread of art works. When common people visit the art museum, it is not surprising to discover that we understand little about the paintings. They are so abstract that we can hardly touch the idea of artist. Yet with the help of critics' reviews, we can easily find some hints to appreciate those paintings. It is the critics that translate the art language into our common communication, so that the ideas of artists reach every corner of the world. Only through the review of critics, can we comprehend the human fine thoughts; only through critics, can the influence of art spreads all over the world; only through critics, can artist gives society the lasting value.
In the final analysis, we had better not over-emphasize the importance of artists at the expense of critics. If the artists' ideas were seeds, the critics were just like winds which dissimilate the seeds of ideas to further and further place.
Hi, good essay. I saw two minor things for you to consider that may help the reader make more sense of the points you are making. :)
"However, when we emphasize the effect of artists, we should not put away another side, the critics."
For this sentence, it looks like "the critics" was just tacked onto the end of the sentence. I would recommend something like...However, when we emphasize the effect of artists, we should not put away the side of the critics.
"Another Italian artist, Michelangelo, spread the idea of rebirth, the central thought of Renaissance, by David, the sculpture which expressed the tension on the impending war."
This sentence does not flow from your point on Michelangelo to David.
Perhaps: Another Italian artist, Michelangelo, spread the idea of rebirth, the central thought of Renaissance. David (David who?), created the sculpture which expressed the tension on the impending war.
We human beings always feel our oats when talking about arts. --- What does "feel our oats" mean? I don't know that expression.
It is generally acknowledged that artists are the ones who create the values of our civilization.
It is admitted that artists earn fame by their various art masterpieces, which are shining in our long history.
On the other side, critics always appear to be the opposites of artists. Film reviews by critics are always filled with challenges, and book reviews sometimes ruin a new book...
In this way, critics are not totally valueless; they help the artists create more valuable work to for society. --- nice! good point.
Moreover, I must emphasize that we should not forget the effect of critics in the spread of art works. When common people visit the art museum, it is not surprising to discover that we understand little about the paintings.--- good point!! You know, a lot of great artists are making music and visual art in every city, but they are unknown because they have not been discovered by critics in the industry.
I recommend a longer conclusion paragraph. It is good to have a long, thoughtful conclusion. In this essay, you could combine the short last paragraph with the one that comes before it.
:-)
