GRE考試形式：中國(guó)大陸地區(qū)、香港、澳門、韓國(guó)目前執(zhí)行分開考試的形式。由機(jī)考（分析性寫作）和筆試（語文、數(shù)學(xué)）組成。
However, reflecting on these three functions makes clear that the art critic actually offers
very little to society. The first function is better accomplished by docents and teachers, who are
more able to enhance a layperson's appreciation and understanding of art by providing an
objective, educated interpretation of it. Besides, true appreciation of art occurs at the moment
we encounter art; it is the emotional, even visceral impact that art has on our senses, spirits,
and souls that is the real value of art. A critic can actually provide a disservice by distracting us
from that experience.
The critic's second function that of evaluator who filters out bad art from the worthwhile is
one that we must be very wary of. History supports this caution. In the role of judge, critics
have failed us repeatedly. Consider, for example, Voltaire's rejection of Shakespeare as
barbaric because he did not conform to neo-classical principles of unity. Or, consider the
complete dismissal of Beethoven's music by the esteemed critics of his 6me. The art critic's
judgment is limited by the narrow confines of old and established parameters for evaluation.
Moreover, critical judgment is often misguided by the ego; thus its value is questionable in any
event.
I turn finally to the critic's third function: to provide useful feedback to artists. The value of
this function is especiaUy suspect. Any artist, or anyone who has studied art, would agree that
true art is the product of the artist's authentic passion, a manifestation of the artist's unique
creative impulse, and a creation of the artist's spirit. If art were shaped by the concern for
integrating feedback from ali criticism, it would become a viable craft, but at the same time
would cease to be art.
In sum, none of the ostensible functions of the critic are of much value at all, let alone of
lasting value, to society. On the other hand, the artist, through works of art, provides an
invaluable and unique mirror of the culture of the time during which the work was produced a
mirror for the artist's contemporaries and for future generations to gaze into for insight and
appreciation of history. The art critic in a subordinate role, more often than not, does a
disservice to society by obscuring this mirror.
Issue 61
"People who are the most deeply committed to an idea or policy are the most critical of it."
The speaker claims that people who are the most fmnly committed to an idea or policy are
the same people who are most critical of that idea or policy. While I find this claim paradoxical
on its face, the paradox is explainable, and the explanation is well supported empirically.
Nevertheless, the claim is an unfair generalization in that it fails to account for other empirical
evidence serving to discredit it.
A threshold problem with the speaker's claim is that its internal logic is questionable. At first
impression it would seem that firm commitment to an idea or policy necessarily requires the
utmost confidence in it, and yet one cannot have a great deal of confidence in an idea or policy
if one recognizes its flaws, drawbacks, or other problems. Thus commitment and criticism
would seem to be mutually exclusive. But are they? One possible explanation for the paradox
68
is that individuals most fmnly committed to an idea or policy are often the same people who
are most knowledgeable on the subject, and therefore are in the best position to understand
and appreciate the problems with the idea or policy.
Lending credence to this explanation for the paradoxical nature of the speaker's claim are
the many historical cases of uneasy marriages between commitment to and criticism of the
same idea or policy. For example, Edward Teller, the so-called "father of the atom bomb," was
firmly committed to America's policy of gaining military superiority over the Japanese and the
Germans; yet at the same time he attempted fervently to dissuade the U.S. military from
employing his technology for destruction, while becoming the most visible advocate for various
peaceful and productive applications of atomic energy. Another example is George
Washington, who was quoted as saying that all the world's denizens "should abhor war
wherever they may find it." Yet this was the same military general who played a key role in the
Revolutionary War between Britain and the States. A third example was Einstein, who while
committed to the mathematical soundness of his theories about relativity could not reconcile
them with the equally compelling quantum theory which emerged later in Einstein's life. In fact,
Einstein spent the last twenty years of his life criticizing his own theories and struggling to
determine how to reconcile them with newer theories. 感謝您閱讀《GRE作文范文大全（30） 》一文，出國(guó)留學(xué)網(wǎng)(liuxue86.com)編輯部希望本文能幫助到您。
However, reflecting on these three functions makes clear that the art critic actually offers
very little to society. The first function is better accomplished by docents and teachers, who are
more able to enhance a layperson's appreciation and understanding of art by providing an
objective, educated interpretation of it. Besides, true appreciation of art occurs at the moment
we encounter art; it is the emotional, even visceral impact that art has on our senses, spirits,
and souls that is the real value of art. A critic can actually provide a disservice by distracting us
from that experience.
The critic's second function that of evaluator who filters out bad art from the worthwhile is
one that we must be very wary of. History supports this caution. In the role of judge, critics
have failed us repeatedly. Consider, for example, Voltaire's rejection of Shakespeare as
barbaric because he did not conform to neo-classical principles of unity. Or, consider the
complete dismissal of Beethoven's music by the esteemed critics of his 6me. The art critic's
judgment is limited by the narrow confines of old and established parameters for evaluation.
Moreover, critical judgment is often misguided by the ego; thus its value is questionable in any
event.
I turn finally to the critic's third function: to provide useful feedback to artists. The value of
this function is especiaUy suspect. Any artist, or anyone who has studied art, would agree that
true art is the product of the artist's authentic passion, a manifestation of the artist's unique
creative impulse, and a creation of the artist's spirit. If art were shaped by the concern for
integrating feedback from ali criticism, it would become a viable craft, but at the same time
would cease to be art.
In sum, none of the ostensible functions of the critic are of much value at all, let alone of
lasting value, to society. On the other hand, the artist, through works of art, provides an
invaluable and unique mirror of the culture of the time during which the work was produced a
mirror for the artist's contemporaries and for future generations to gaze into for insight and
appreciation of history. The art critic in a subordinate role, more often than not, does a
disservice to society by obscuring this mirror.
Issue 61
"People who are the most deeply committed to an idea or policy are the most critical of it."
The speaker claims that people who are the most fmnly committed to an idea or policy are
the same people who are most critical of that idea or policy. While I find this claim paradoxical
on its face, the paradox is explainable, and the explanation is well supported empirically.
Nevertheless, the claim is an unfair generalization in that it fails to account for other empirical
evidence serving to discredit it.
A threshold problem with the speaker's claim is that its internal logic is questionable. At first
impression it would seem that firm commitment to an idea or policy necessarily requires the
utmost confidence in it, and yet one cannot have a great deal of confidence in an idea or policy
if one recognizes its flaws, drawbacks, or other problems. Thus commitment and criticism
would seem to be mutually exclusive. But are they? One possible explanation for the paradox
68
is that individuals most fmnly committed to an idea or policy are often the same people who
are most knowledgeable on the subject, and therefore are in the best position to understand
and appreciate the problems with the idea or policy.
Lending credence to this explanation for the paradoxical nature of the speaker's claim are
the many historical cases of uneasy marriages between commitment to and criticism of the
same idea or policy. For example, Edward Teller, the so-called "father of the atom bomb," was
firmly committed to America's policy of gaining military superiority over the Japanese and the
Germans; yet at the same time he attempted fervently to dissuade the U.S. military from
employing his technology for destruction, while becoming the most visible advocate for various
peaceful and productive applications of atomic energy. Another example is George
Washington, who was quoted as saying that all the world's denizens "should abhor war
wherever they may find it." Yet this was the same military general who played a key role in the
Revolutionary War between Britain and the States. A third example was Einstein, who while
committed to the mathematical soundness of his theories about relativity could not reconcile
them with the equally compelling quantum theory which emerged later in Einstein's life. In fact,
Einstein spent the last twenty years of his life criticizing his own theories and struggling to
determine how to reconcile them with newer theories. 感謝您閱讀《GRE作文范文大全（30） 》一文，出國(guó)留學(xué)網(wǎng)(liuxue86.com)編輯部希望本文能幫助到您。