ivertian

I nedd some examples to make my essay more convincinig, plz help me. Since no guarantee is provided for any critic to be able to know if a piece of art, an exhibition or an artist will stand out in the history as "great", it seems that it is the artist not the critic who gives society something of lasting value. However, the issue is far from that simple one. From a perspective of the initial mission of art criticism, the lasting value of art for the society partly depends on the art criticism, which is the study and evaluation of art. This criticism usually involves the use of aesthetics or the philosophy of beauty. So, since art is something so complicated, art critic serves to be a guidance, under whose conduct can a society understand the value of art. Given the reality that few is able to interpret works of art by themselves, without art critics, art would be pointless to a society, let alone any lasting value will be left. e.g? However, when viewing from the tendency from late 19th century on, in which art criticism has been frequently divided into different disciplines and become more and more abstruse for laypersons, any significant value that art critics could offer to society begs question. Firstly, frequently using very different criteria for their judgments, critics disappointed us so much that we would rather turn to an ordinary teacher for guidance believing that critics never enable us truly appreciate art but distracted us from art. Moreover, the artist usually needs positive opinions from the critic for their work to be viewed and purchased, and this is the initial part of purpose of art criticism. But some critics are unable to adapt to new movements in art and allow their opinions to override their objectivity, resulting in inappropriately dated critique. e.g? To sum up, the critics should have been given society their lasting value in appreciating and evaluating works of art, but the fact is that art criticism to some extent have done disservice to art as well as appreciators. While artist provide to society something of lasting value, critics must rethink the original intention of art criticism.

Thanks very much for your rating :)

I feel dificult to think in English:( , would anyone give me some advices? Issue 133 "The problems of modern society have led many people to complain: 'We live in terrible times.' Yet, given the choice, no one today would prefer to live in any other time." There is a tendency nowadays that many people complain that they live in terrible times and given the choice, they would prefer to live in any other time. While I strongly oppose those people for their opinions could do nothing but impede progress of our society, I find that they are not mistaken but confused. Through superficial comparison, one may conclude that modern society is undoubtedly superior to any previous one. Democracy is superior to monocracy, industrialization bring us material affluence that agricultural times could never do, our working conditions are more comfortable and we are working more efficiently, it is far more accessible to gain any information via modern media than the merely books and newspaper times… such examples of comparison are infinite. Yet once considering the problems born of modern society, one may complain that we live in so terrible times that he/she would rather live in the past. Nearly all the merits of today bring out problems that never happened in the past, which always lead people to regard themselves unfortunate than their predecessors who didn’t have to confront those terrible problems. Industrialization provide us affluence in material as well as squalor in spirit, efficiency hasn’t liberate us from the burden of heavy labors but make us like cogs in a precisely operated and never-stopped machine, too much information overload us who are confused about how to dispose… in one word, we have been thrown into a dilemma. To get rid of the confusing comparison between the modern society and the past, more rational analysis is needed. First, we should be conscious that our predecessors may have been confronted with the same dilemma. Peoples in the monocracy society, since they couldn’t know such things as democracy, would prefer to live primitive society in which they could gain freedom. That is to say, were you possible to live in the past, you would complain no less than today. As through democracy we gain our freedom, someday we would solve the problems now we have no way to. Second, no type of progress would bring us a certain benefit without any relevant problems. Our society is progressing painfully at the price of the emergence of new pressing problems. Third, since to live in other times is nothing more than an illusion, the most realistic and courageous people would prefer to adapt to the modern times. In sum, those who claim that they would rather live in the past have been misled by the existing pressing social problems. Given any choice, by which I mean the choice of reasoning rationally and objectively, no one would prefer any other times.