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.
Work of art can be anything from a great piece of novel, a beautiful picture created by a thoughtful painter, to a nice little song that touches our heart. But how do we define the work of heart? Going back to the earlier days of pristine nature, even the euphony of chirping birds or water gushing in a meandering river could have been looked into work of arts – those are the arts of nature. But nowadays we only consider creations of humans to be qualified as arts.
Work of arts must be understood by most people – this assertion definitely has some elements of truth. The implicit reason for such a claim lies in the fact that, those creations are targeted for people. Unless we, the people, understand those, what is the point of creating them in the first place? The creator’s satisfaction lies in the fact that people read or listen or view them again and again, with their eyes lined with appreciation. That is what motivates the artist for coming up with more such memorable pieces. Leonardo Da Vinci’s paintings, or Shakespeare’s novels are referred as such mesmerizing pieces of art that has flown down through generations, yet their reputations are as bright as they were centuries ago. Hence, it is reasonable to assume that an work of art can be given merit only if it is understandable by most people.
Now, there are two digressions from here. Firstly, there are lot of poems or painting doing round today, merits of which are only appreciated by professionals in the world of poets or painters. Unless someone is a great painter himself or herself, he or she does not really understand or appreciate the creation of these paintings. We will still consider these paintings or poems as work of arts as those have approvals form Pundits, though we the laymen seldom understand those.
Secondly, there are masters of masters. Though science is not different from arts, a germane example from science will bolster this argument here. Many theories of Albert Einstein are arcane - understood by only a handful of people in the entire world. Still those are admitted to be true, and their appropriate applications have made possible plethora of next generation technological improvement. Similarly there are bards and movie directors whose work has not been publicly appreciated until someone in same line of work, and with established image in public minds, has come up in praise of those work. It has been observed that, in general, these creations do not invoke much public interests, but they leave enduring and interesting learnings for others in the same world of art. That is why they are masters of masters, and public get indirect results of their creations.
So to summarize, the assertion is in general valid, with some small number of exceptions as stated above.
- People who are the most deeply committed to an idea or policy are also the most critical of it. 58
- The most effective way to understand contemporary culture is to analyze the trends of its youth. 66
- If a goal is worthy, then any means taken to attain it are justifiable. 33
- Many important discoveries or creations are accidental: it is usually while seeking the answer to one question that we come across the answer to another. 16
- There is little justification for society to make extraordinary efforts — especially at a great cost in money and jobs — to save endangered animal or plant species. 58
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 785, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'a' instead of 'an' if the following word doesn't start with a vowel sound, e.g. 'a sentence', 'a university'
Suggestion: a
... Hence, it is reasonable to assume that an work of art can be given merit only if ...
^^
Line 7, column 254, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Still,
... handful of people in the entire world. Still those are admitted to be true, and thei...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 400, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Similarly,
...t generation technological improvement. Similarly there are bards and movie directors who...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 619, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... up in praise of those work. It has been observed that, in general, these creatio...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, firstly, hence, if, look, really, second, secondly, similarly, so, still, in general, in the first place
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 29.0 19.5258426966 149% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 12.4196629213 48% => OK
Conjunction : 20.0 14.8657303371 135% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 11.3162921348 88% => OK
Pronoun: 42.0 33.0505617978 127% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 68.0 58.6224719101 116% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 12.9106741573 77% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2342.0 2235.4752809 105% => OK
No of words: 476.0 442.535393258 108% => OK
Chars per words: 4.92016806723 5.05705443957 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.67091256922 4.55969084622 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.74155809707 2.79657885939 98% => OK
Unique words: 263.0 215.323595506 122% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.552521008403 0.4932671777 112% => OK
syllable_count: 712.8 704.065955056 101% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59117977528 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 6.24550561798 128% => OK
Article: 6.0 4.99550561798 120% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 3.10617977528 129% => OK
Conjunction: 8.0 1.77640449438 450% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 4.38483146067 91% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 20.2370786517 114% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 23.0359550562 87% => OK
Sentence length SD: 49.6926660444 60.3974514979 82% => OK
Chars per sentence: 101.826086957 118.986275619 86% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.6956521739 23.4991977007 88% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.04347826087 5.21951772744 97% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 7.80617977528 51% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 14.0 10.2758426966 136% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 5.13820224719 39% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.83258426966 145% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.280606204313 0.243740707755 115% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0684072981315 0.0831039109588 82% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0694410579068 0.0758088955206 92% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.128056818269 0.150359130593 85% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0867031279371 0.0667264976115 130% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.1 14.1392134831 86% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 59.64 48.8420337079 122% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.92365168539 39% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 12.1743820225 81% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.26 12.1639044944 93% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.31 8.38706741573 99% => OK
difficult_words: 111.0 100.480337079 110% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 11.8971910112 76% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.2143820225 89% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.7820224719 85% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 79.17 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.75 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: 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.