issue 218 艺术是否需要被理解

dphenixyUID: 2657199

218 "In order for any work of art -- whether film, literature, sculpture, or a song -- to have merit, it must be understandable to most people." [05/26; 06/2] (42+2)
The author claims that if not understandable to most people, any work of art would possess no value. I agree with this statement insofar as only when art works can be understood by most people can they have social value—to offer the public pleasure, edification (enlightenment) and even agitation. However, the author seems overlook the most fundamental function of a work of art--to accurately express the deep emotion or personal insight
of the creator. Therefore, if a work of art can fulfill this basic function, it has merit irrespective of whether understandable to others.

Admittedly, when understandable to most people, work of art could benefit the public in a number of aspects. First of all, it could please people by certain arrangements of word, note, line, form, color, sound and movement, which people regard as interesting or beautiful. To illustrate, the Mona Lisa by da Vinci has captivated the people all over the world since it emerged. In addition, certain narrative art works could edify the public. For example, Defoe used his novel Robinson Crusoe to show people how strong a human will could be in a hopeless plight. Beethoven used his fate symphony to encourage those who are anguished by adversity. Spielberg used his movie the day after tomorrow to urge people to protect environment. Finally, under the background of a turbulent society, art work usually serves as a roll booster for that turbulence. The Uncle Tom’s Cabin by Stowe could aptly illustrate this point. Stowe used this novel to call on（appeal）America people to protest against the slavery through prescribing the miserable life of the slaves and many people regards this novel as the last straw for American Civil War. Imagine if this novel cannot be understood by the masses, how can it exert such a huge influence?
However, no one would deny that to express individual feeling or perspective of artist is the original goal of the work of art. In this view, the value of work of art does not necessarily depend on whether it is understandable to others, at least for creators themselves. For example, although most laypeople do not understand the meaning of those strange arrangements of line and color, let alone subtleties, in abstract expressionist paintings, this by no means diminishes the value of the arts for their creators.

There are also such cases in history that although some arts only have merit for their creators, with the enhancement of public appreciation and understanding, their social value embodies gradually.
For supporting example, we need look no further than Van Gogh, one of the greatest painters in history. Although Van Gogh sold only one of his paintings in his entire career, most of his paintings are among the most valuable arts today. Another more striking example involves the statue of liberty. As we know, when French gave it to America, many American people don’t like it and even condemned it as a pagan image. However, nowadays the statue has become the symbol of liberty not only to American but also to the whole world.

In sum, although the social value of work of art primarily depends on whether it is understandable to most people, its value for creators themselves only depends on whether it accurately express artists’ personal emotion or perspective.