Some people think every human being can create artworks (e.g. painting), while others think only the people born with the ability can do that. Discuss both views and give your opinion.
题目大意
有人认为人人都能创造艺术（如绘画），而其他人认为只有天才可以搞艺术。双边讨论。
写作思路解析
思路一
双边讨论类的题目，可以自由讨论双方各自的利弊。这两个观点中，都有表述不合理的地方：甲方观点中every human和乙方only是这道题的两个关键词；
➡️甲方：every human being can create artworks，是一种武断表达，如果同意，论证时就要为这种观点找到一个合理的前提或限制条件；如果反对，则提出反例，证明有人无法create artworks（如盲人无法绘画）
➡️ 乙方：only the people born with the ability，也是一种武断表达，如果同意，论证时就要为这种观点找到一个合理的前提或限制条件；如果反对，则提出反例，证明仅有天才而缺乏其他要素也无法create artworks（如绘画和雕塑的专业技巧需要通过后天学习获得）；
思路二
➡️ 两个观点都是伪命题：甲方所谓的artworks定义模糊（没有明确的标准来判定什么东西可以称之为artworks）；而乙方观点中born with the ability也是一个无法被认定的概念（没有标准和方法去判定一项能力是否天生）；
提纲
写作示范
The term art presents a conundrum. While it is traditionally believed to be a domain inhabited only by geniuses, others are claiming that everybody is entitled to play a part. Personally, I would say that neither of the two assumptions makes sense to me – it doesn’t seem to be a real authoritative definition of art, and by the same token there is no universal agreement on what attributes make up an artist.
Those who credit artists exclusively with the genetic code are oblivious to one problem – It is difficult to imagine any scientific method or objective standard that could be applied to predict an innate artistic propensity of a person. Examining masterpieces in art galleries shows evidence to support this views: Given the vast diversity of artistic expression – graphic, music, sculpture, landscape and so on, I don’t think it is persuasive to attribute these techniques purely to aptitude while ignoring the contributions of professional training or other extrinsic motivation factors that stimulated their creativity.
Likewise, the opinion to label art as a free zone for anybody also seems absurd to me. Indeed, such a delusion has crept into the thinking of many modernists nowadays. Those self-proclaimed devotees of Dadaism, for example, present a toilet or bicycle wheel in a gallery setting and it is proclaimed by alternative critics as art. Nevertheless, that begs another question – what can be defined as artworks according to their perception? One’s definition of art is becoming more subjective and ambiguous – one creation might be fascinating and attractive to some while totally repulsive to others.
I would conclude, therefore, that neither of the two views can be deemed justified. It Is evident that there is no universal standard that outlines art, while beholders respond to differences in aptitude and technique in their personal fashion.
