ISSUE144 【dies in flames 0910G长线突破】 by winning1030 [复制链接]

However, some people may argue that I have ignored the critic’s influence in art activities and refute that if the critic hadn’t unearth the values of art and then deliver and interpret them to the public, the great art probably would have never accepted, let alone reflect their own lasting value ,therefore , they draw the conclusion that it is the critic who gives society lasting value. Unfortunately, it is admitted that there are many great artists who haven’t been accepted by their time while became famous only after death, such as Van Gogh and Shakespeare. But what the critic delivers to the public is their own achievement or just the value of the artist’s art? Here, I have to point out the role in which the critic plays is just media in art activities. Their responsibility is to enable the public to appreciate the true value of art to enrich their spiritual world and improve their aesthetic sensitivity. What really counts about their comments is the lasting value of art from artists contained in their interpretation. That is to say, the comments would be of little sense if they are separate from the works of art of artists, who endue their works with vitality. Actually, they haven’t actually directly participated in the creation of art together with the artist themselves. Even though some great art were ploughed under by critics or its time, its lasting value would still exist in itself just with undiscovered and on the other hand, the critic also could never have chance to deliver it to the public as the value they “gave” . In fact, I don’t deny the positive effect of the critic on society, but emphasize the different roles in which the artist and the critic play——one is to give society something of lasting value while the other is responsible to interpret.

To summary, it is the artist, not the critic, who gives society something of lasting value.