新来这里，希望给予支持，帮助改错。谢谢

canorousUID: 2691199

Issue 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.

In this statement, speaker claim that artists do the whole creation, left lasting value behind to society; critics do nothing beneficial at all in art field, since art critics just evaluates art works. In my view, the speaker unfairly generalizes about the function of critic’s evaluates of art.
As someone said that while we value the contribution of the artist, there is no need to trivialize the significance of the critic’s work. It is common knowledge that without artists there would be no works of art of any sort. Firstly, as record in history art criticism as a genre is commence from the 18th century, which I may question critiques of art may have its origins in the origins of art itself, since art critic came from artist themselves. One of the criticism’s goals is the pursuit of a rational basis of art appreciation, art critics usually criticize art in a backdrop of aesthetics or the theory of beauty and grace. Secondly, critic’s evaluates can reflect the creation as a mirror in some level, told artist that something they may have not clear or things have not figure out yet. Sometimes a commend can inspired creator how to do it better,even more which way to go next time. When critics appreciate creation, they not just simply reading or watching, instead they need to do more research, and try to understand the emotion and the situation while the artist creating the work. Even critic are familiar with artists, for example, how Theo Van Gogh to support Vincent Van Gogh at contemporaneity. As my observation, history and the common sense informs me that artist really need a lot people to support either their works or daily life.

Moreover, critic’s works serve to help layman that how to interpret art, tell outsiders from that what the art is to how to understand it. At the same time, critics works to sieve the inferior creations out, help people to decide what sort of art to appreciate. In other words, they sift creation first, and tell people what creation is deserve to pay attention and time to appreciate and enjoy.

On the other hand, admittedly, as I have said above the affinity between both sides. Nevertheless, people could not ignore inappropriate critic will cumber the expression and development of art. Like Austrian composer Franz Schubert, German philosopher, Arthur Schopenhauer, known for his pessimism and philosophical clarity.

In conclusion, artist create works, critic do nothing at all but judge. Reasoning, how much function a comment to do? Consequently people should exclude the positive meaning of a critic, trend to deny its function. Obviously, this problem are equal to asking who are important at a movie, did the actor or the directors, producers, all of the behind-the-scenes crew. I greet with the speaker in some level, a critic not take part in a creation directly, but not as the statement, it is artists give society lasting value, without critics.