[i习作temp] 0910G【Try Best】第二小组 issue144 by Stephy_t [复制链接]

Stephy_t
UID: 2642952

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 112
注册时间: 2009-5-21
精华: 0
帖子: 2

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2009-6-9 21:58:13 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

This statement asserts that art, not the critic, gives something of lasting value to society. I totally agree with the statement. Especially seen from a long-term scale, it is the artists who use their natural inspiration to make contributions to humanization. Although the critic makes art more understandable, people’s narrowed and prejudiced understandings for the art formed at the same time.

First of all, no matter how successful a critic is, there are some inevitable weaknesses in the critic’s opinion. A critic’s opinion always restrained by his historical background, social class level, education level and religions etc; Even his personality and interests are reflected in his altitude toward the art. Stanley Fish argues that all interpretations are subjective projections and have no inherent meaning; therefore, the critic undermines himself for he undermines only his own interpretation. Thus, concludes Fish, all criticism is self criticism. What’s more, the main function of the critic is a tool to express the class consciousness he represented to the public, stress the influence of his Class, so different class stands, political altitude and aesthetic ideal determine different opinion of the critic. Thus, the opinions which critics provide to the society are inevitably subjective and prejudiced.

When Proletarian revolution in Russia was swept through the country, Russian Bourgeois literal critics sharply turn their altitude from opposed to Tolstoy’s literal work to highly praise his Non-violent resistance theory. They distorted Tolstoy to a defender for fighting against the dictatorial system, in order to benumb people’s determination for revolution. Upon the sharpened and educated altitudes, the critics can’t exactly translate the truth of one objection. The limited value they provide to the society is temporary. Reversely it misleads people’s altitude and harm people’s free thinking.

William Alsup said "Nature, like the law, plays no favorites." Indeed, true art maintain a unique beauty—natural beauty, which is expressed by a rush of inspiration of the artist. It’s the rear connection between the Mother Nature and human beings. Any form of art is worth of being respected. One couldn’t appreciate a certain kind of art doesn’t because of the failure of the art couldn’t be understood by that person. A critic uses his sharpened and educated mind can never exactly translate the whole meaning of the true art.

In contrast, the artists enhance society; express their own understandings of a certain objective through various forms with the respects of the natural beauty of art and a non-offensive altitude toward other artists’ work. What makes human beings different from other creatures is that we have spiritual activity, everyone need love, encourage, Inspiration, there is no doubt that all artists build that spiritual wonderland exclusively for human beings. Beethoven’s music, van GAO’s paintings and Shakespeare’s literal work, are not immediately praised by critics. But after the rush of time, their masterpieces water the people’s thirsty spiritual from generation to generation. And the work created by them is part of humanization which is beyond space and time, remain absolutely lasting value to human beings.

In sum, I appreciate the value provided by the critic, but it’s far more to reach the meaning of “lasting value”. It is the artist, who devotes their lives to help people understand the world better, and provide innumerous lasting value to the society.