本帖最后由 zhx889026 于 2010-3-3 18:15 编辑
144"It is the artist, not the critic,* who gives society something of lasting value." *a person who evaluates works of art, such as novels, films, music, paintings, etc.
Contemporary society is sometimes portrayed as dominated by the experience of change, so as the art. Seas of eminent artists, as well as critics, have taken some effects to our thinking styles. Then there springs up a heated vision that critics do not offer any lasting values to the society, but artists do. As far as I am concerned, it makes sense to some extent, but also comprises some flaws. The following is an analysis of it.
In order to get a whole picture of the art and artist, it is fundamental to grasp the definition of them. Art, as defined by the philosophy, is something truly existing in the artists' mind. It reflects the comprehension of the society both subjectively and objectively. Then artists indeed prefer to remain something valuable which can be a mirror. Through it, we will acquire the objective social reality and ideology. Also, the beauty included in the art pieces can be perceived, which is subjective determined by the artist himself. Under this point, it is uncomplicated to say that whether the social ideology or the senses of beauty are both something which can be lasting preserved.
Then it is worthy of analyzing whether critics can leave these enduring things just as the artist. First of all, critics are in a complex classification. It is a satisfying critic who will be conducive to helping to interpret the works of art. The critic will be excellent if he can lead the observers to experience what he has comprehended by his enthusiasm and perception. Then he will be an outstanding critic who is able to direct the artists to some fresh fields to show off the beauty and reality. The above-mentioned critics are giving a powerful impetus to the development of the art and therefore they will leave the valuable thought indirectly. It will be more relaxed to appreciate the art by critic on the ground that some pieces of the work are obscure and hard to interpret, such as the abstract paintings by Picasso. Then the critic facilitates an access to enhance the attention of the art and aesthetic culture unconsciously. Again, critics could create some propitious circumstances for the artist as they are more likely to focus on the hotspot of art. Consequently, artists can easily observe the developing trend. In addition, the commentary can be viewed as the feedback from the critic and serve as an approach for artists to understanding themselves.
It also cannot be denied that a little portion of critics are discredited as someone who are inclined to mislead the appreciators. They cover the actual senses of the artists and even misinterpret them merely for some commercial aims, and therefore, the art will be damaged. Foregoing them, another conclusion may be arrived at that it is some critic, who give the society something of lasting value. The example of Van Gogh will illustrate it. When young and energetic, Van Gogh is active in the creation of art but pathetically, misunderstood by surrounding peers. When he is bound to pass away, critics reevaluate his pieces and render him a world-famous artist. We will not recognize this outstanding master without these unknown critics. Critics do not create any concrete work therefore they will be overlooked at the most cases.
In analyzing of it, we shall be led to the conclusion that critics are misleading at times, but their most work is as significant as the artist's. They are both indispensable in the development of the art. So critic can leave something of lasting value just as artist, though indirectly.
| 
发表于 2010-3-3 18:14:42
发表于 2010-3-13 12:39:17
签到领寄托币
GO
转发
