Issue 144_已经自己批改过一次_求拍_希望逻辑方面的指导

pigaretUID: 2749103

Issue 144
a person who evaluates works of art, such as novels, films, music, paintings, etc.

Is it artist or critic who gives society something of lasting value? Despite the problem with what “lasting value” really indicates, I agree with the speaker that it is artists who created the artworks in the first place that should win the title. As for the critics, whether their "contributions" barracade or promote artworks to become a lasting pieces is of a question.

To begin with, I find the statement somehow questionable for the abstract concept of “lasting value”. The society changes its value systems frequently thus proves a permanent one to be impossible. Four hundred years ago we appreciate idealism paintings and sculptures which perfectly dipicted the beauty bodies of deities. The taste well reflects the pursue of craftsmanship of high level and respect to a variety of gods. However, it quickly abandons the old preference and soon the whole world started to favor realism as their principle of good artwork. Behind this phenomenon is the Renaissance and Enlightment during which period of time individualism are highly regarded and freedom of expressing the unique views of artists started to prevail. Therefore, a once dismissed artwork would venerate while those that have been appreciated may deride. Thus, it appears impossible for almost anybody to give the society a lasting value in the first place.

Some may suggest that an agree-upon value, if not permanent, should be worked on and it is the critics who are to do this critical job and that should be the value they are to create. But commonsense and experience raises the question that how can critics make any compromises even when their opinions towards even the same piece of artwork varies from time to time and person to person? While a painting which stays unchanged (besides the displacement of colors through time), critical views of it swings. The most noticable case may go to the cubism paintings whose most renowned representative is Piccaso. These drawings with squares of different perspectives hardly form a beautiful and harmonious picture in the eyes of critics in the early twenties century. Yet these experts would widen their eyes with total surprise at what the price a Piccaso painting could reach decades later. Critics of this era have completely given away the tastes of their predecessors. Thus the goal of constructing a value is hard to be reached.

While critics struggle to hold their own opnions against others, the artists, who create the artworks and brandnew values, refuse to add these viewpoints into the art making process. Critics named after Monet's paintings with visible brush strokes the impressionism. The word was created to condemn what they considered as abstract and rough. The impressionists, however, took this name with honor,
depriving it of any disparaging meanings. The critics fail to have a share in creating anything besides a name which meaning has been altered. They chased after the ever-changing value and their comments disappeared into nowhere. Certain art creations will find its place somewhere in the history and forthcoming future, having forgotten those old remarks. Thus it is the artist behind this work which will be momerized through time.


I should concede that critics sometimes gives ordinary people ideas and basics to make judgments of what is to appreciate. However, since the principle varies and fades out as time passes, these viewpoints drawf in front of the real feeling the original artwork brings to us. After all, it is the artist who leave legacies for the descendants to embrace.