issue 144 第一篇练习，请求给予意见

xinchen.shenUID：2600191

ISSUE144 - "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.

The statement asserts that artists provide something of lasting value to the society, not the critics, which I partially agree. Artists will embed personal minds or emotions or adopt original special techniques in his or her crafts when creating which may prove to maintain certain social or artistic value. Meanwhile, admittedly, critics' comments and appreciations do not create or add new more values to art works. However, it is the critic, not the artist, who makes the value lasting.


First, I concede that the creator of the arts' value could only be artists themselves, not anyone else. How much value involving in the works of art was fixed when first created. It is Sun Zi, an ancient Chinese strategist, who collected and abstracted a myriad of intelligent strategies used in ancient wars and then concentrated them into one book that made <<The Art of War>> a worldwide renowned master piece, which instructed not only in China but also in multiple different nations' militaries as an introductory course. Likewise, it is Beethoven, a crucial figure in the transitional period between the Classical and Romantic eras in western classical music which composed the <<Symphony Destiny>>, conveyed listeners a feeling of arousal and inspiration once sank into the fluctuating rhythm. Such great accomplishments that we value are all owing to artists' creative work and may have everlasting impact on the past, present and future.


Whereas, critics play a significant role in introducing art works to the general public. Critics usually have a profound professional knowledge toward certain types of art and can dig out deep meanings contain in the works. We ordinary people then could have a better understanding of the work through reading their commentary, not just merely stay in a very superficial level. What’s more, by referring to critics’ public remarks, we can define whether it is worthwhile for us to appreciate some work. Take the best-selling book market as an example. We normally make our selections according to the comments and recommendations presented in mass media. Although our decisions would be influenced by the authors’ subjective opinions, we can never try anything all by ourselves after all.


In the end, I consider that since critics’ views, especially those who enjoy a pretty high authority and reputation, will dominate publics’ attitude regarding a piece of art work, it is critic who determines the life-span of certain art work to be lasting or temporal. Arts of lasting value must be recognized and memorized by the world first and critics act as catalyzes in the process. This is very evident in modern film industry. If the Oscar Award Committee did not deliver the film << Titanic>> such a great honor, the world may not so crazy about the American epic romance and disaster film. The movie is still categorized as the most classical affectional film that you can never miss up to now and is due for re-release its 3-D version in 2012. Excellent arts, if do not known by the public, how could they pass their influences down from generation to generation. Undoubtedly, they will finally either deserted in corners or ended their lives in ruins and fragments.


In sum, the speaker did not take one step further to clarify different functions artists and critics fulfill in the art field. That is, despite artists endow his or her crafts with value, it is the critics make the value widely known and well cherished and thus its influence could continue.