In order for any work of art-for example, a film, a novel, a poem, or a song--to have merit, it must be understandable to most people.
It is debatable whether to have much merits, a piece of art should be apprehensible to most people. I assert that a piece of art does not have to comprehensible to a number of people to have positive influence for several reasons.
To begin with, it not a valid argument that for a film, literary works, and music to have positive impactc, they ought to be comprehensible to many people. Depending on social millieu, some incredible work or art is considered worthless and even harshly criticized by experts. However, it is not reasonable to regard those art works unbeneficial. Take El Grego, a prominent spanish painter in 16th century for example. He is a pioneer of dramatic expressionism; his works are featured as charismatic and bold. Unfortunately, Grego's art pieces are lowly valued during his time, and most of his art works were disdained by his contemporary artists and critics since his pieces did not fit in the mainstream trend at that time. People valued realistic pieces highly, and they had difficult time apprehending Grego's art; nevertheless, in 20th century, Grego's art works were reevaluated, which shifted his status as one of the most influential artists of all time. This example elucidates that depending on varying situations, a work of art can be deemed either worthless or invaluable; therefore, the criteria the statement insists is not a valid standards when evaluating value of a piece of art.
Moreover, some art works are simply made difficult to comprehend owing to their much sophistication. Films, novels, poems, and music that exploits unfamilar skills, words, and topic, or works that are intricate in nature could seem hard for ordinary people to approach regardless of their values. Classical music, for instance, are deemed beautiful in sounds and to be possessing high value by experts, are often not easy for many people to apprehend. Compositions of Vivaldi, Beethoven, and Mozart are famous and of high demand for the longest time, but if their works are easily understandable is questionable. Their enduring fame is not built on how easily accessible they are, but their elegance of melodies and coherent sound of thier pieces. Had those musicians only considered popularity followed by easy comprehension, their compositions would not have endured for centuries.
Admittedly, however, there are still some advantages in works that are comprehensible to most people. For instance, may people sympathize with Taylor Swifts' love songs and their lyrics and genuinely enjoy her songs. It is, nonetheless, difficult to portrait that those songs have values that will last for centuries. Even though popular songs that are understood by many people, fade away eventually and more rapidly than ever nowadays. Thus, I disagree with the given statement.
All in all, it is not a cogent notion that in order for any work of art to be have benefits, many people should be able to comprehend it.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Sentence: To begin with, it not a valid argument that for a film, literary works, and music to have positive impactc, they ought to be comprehensible to many people.
Error: impactc Suggestion: impact
Sentence: However, it is not reasonable to regard those art works unbeneficial.
Error: unbeneficial Suggestion: No alternate word
Sentence: Films, novels, poems, and music that exploits unfamilar skills, words, and topic, or works that are intricate in nature could seem hard for ordinary people to approach regardless of their values.
Error: unfamilar Suggestion: unfamiliar
Sentence: Their enduring fame is not built on how easily accessible they are, but their elegance of melodies and coherent sound of thier pieces.
Error: thier Suggestion: No alternate word
-------------
arguments: OK
-------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.5 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 4 2
No. of Sentences: 22 15
No. of Words: 479 350
No. of Characters: 2386 1500
No. of Different Words: 243 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.678 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.981 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.822 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 167 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 120 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 89 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 67 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.773 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.458 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.591 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.295 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.496 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.096 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 33, Rule ID: MUCH_COUNTABLE[1]
Message: Use 'many' with countable nouns.
Suggestion: many
It is debatable whether to have much merits, a piece of art should be appreh...
^^^^
Line 3, column 1144, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[2]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'standard'?
Suggestion: standard
...ia the statement insists is not a valid standards when evaluating value of a piece of art...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 367, Rule ID: PROGRESSIVE_VERBS[1]
Message: This verb is normally not used in the progressive form. Try a simple form instead.
..., are deemed beautiful in sounds and to be possessing high value by experts, are often not ea...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['but', 'however', 'if', 'may', 'moreover', 'nevertheless', 'nonetheless', 'so', 'still', 'therefore', 'thus', 'for example', 'for instance', 'to begin with']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.229779411765 0.240241500013 96% => OK
Verbs: 0.154411764706 0.157235817809 98% => OK
Adjectives: 0.106617647059 0.0880659088768 121% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0698529411765 0.0497285424764 140% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0477941176471 0.0444667217837 107% => OK
Prepositions: 0.112132352941 0.12292977631 91% => OK
Participles: 0.0422794117647 0.0406280797675 104% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.93319341154 2.79330140395 105% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0349264705882 0.030933414821 113% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.0016655270985 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.0551470588235 0.0997080785238 55% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0147058823529 0.0249443105267 59% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0128676470588 0.0148568991511 87% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2944.0 2732.02544248 108% => OK
No of words: 479.0 452.878318584 106% => OK
Chars per words: 6.14613778706 6.0361032391 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.67825486995 4.58838876751 102% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.365344467641 0.366273622748 100% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.265135699374 0.280924506359 94% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.206680584551 0.200843997647 103% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.150313152401 0.132149295362 114% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.93319341154 2.79330140395 105% => OK
Unique words: 252.0 219.290929204 115% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.526096033403 0.48968727796 107% => OK
Word variations: 62.3399048795 55.4138127331 112% => OK
How many sentences: 22.0 20.6194690265 107% => OK
Sentence length: 21.7727272727 23.380412469 93% => OK
Sentence length SD: 50.2206906424 59.4972553346 84% => OK
Chars per sentence: 133.818181818 141.124799967 95% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.7727272727 23.380412469 93% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.636363636364 0.674092028746 94% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.94800884956 101% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.21349557522 58% => OK
Readability: 48.2862972101 51.4728631049 94% => OK
Elegance: 1.41216216216 1.64882698954 86% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.397749108228 0.391690518653 102% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.125497410804 0.123202303941 102% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.131649836742 0.077325440228 170% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.4947368174 0.547984918172 90% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.198501079796 0.149214159877 133% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.144490787847 0.161403998019 90% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.110549011888 0.0892212321368 124% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.317788536611 0.385218514788 82% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0795252624155 0.0692045440612 115% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.298320718477 0.275328986314 108% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.103704195991 0.0653680567796 159% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 16.0 10.4325221239 153% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 5.30420353982 94% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.88274336283 20% => More neutral sentences wanted.
Positive topic words: 11.0 7.22455752212 152% => OK
Negative topic words: 1.0 3.66592920354 27% => More negative topic words wanted.
Neutral topic words: 0.0 2.70907079646 0% => More neutral topic words wanted.
Total topic words: 12.0 13.5995575221 88% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: This is not the final score. The e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.