Issue144处女做，球狠拍， merci

herculesliUID: 2922375

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.


When talked about art world, two groups of people generally occur in people’s mind, the artists and the critics. Though at times it is insensible to distinguish an artist from a critic---he may be both, there actually exists a long time debate between two groups. Who is more valuable to the society? Does their value endurable enough to withstand tests of time? Up till now, no one can provide reasons that persuade both sides while they are quarrelling, with louder voices. Personally, no binary opposition is needed on this point as both sides together, not single of them, can be contributable to the cause of human art.

To begin with, certain discriminations are of no doubt exist in artists and critics, resulting in their different but equally difficult in acquiring success in their fields. Both equipped with a certain degree of talent, as well as profound related knowledge through special training, they utilize their endowment and knowledge separately. Artists, with a necessary requirement of creativity and originality, allow his imagination fly high in the sky freely. Critics, on the other hand, immersing in other people’s creation, develop to be more sensitive to the value of works. No easy path to mount to the paramount, both in circle of artists and critics.

Though difficult of both kinds, society as a whole deems artists higher reputation than critics, also higher value. Such view is understandable for two reasons. Firstly, as a convention, creativity is more remarkable and easily perceived, thus it attaches more attention from the commoners. What is more, taking comments on artists as their responsibilities, they endeavor in discovering famous artists and potentially ones both of which merely account for a limited proportion of artists. Consequently, hundreds of commentators draw their attention on the same artist. Absorbing former’s experience, successors soon develop a better way to surpass their ancestors. Former values are shared or even ignored by their successors. Therefore, commentators are transient insofar as artists are eternal.

However, gap between values of two groups may be exaggerated. Without critics and their accurate comments on artists’ works, those famous works may be forgotten in the corner of world. Also, commentator facilitate significantly in improvement of artists’ work. As in the case of Claude Monet’s distinguished painting--- Impression Sunrise, the mark of Impressionist Movement, when first exhibited in Paris, critics sneer at this opaque and nasty picture, remarking that “even wallpapers are clearer than this Impression”(and I paraphrase). Until a month later, critics began to realize they had made a mistake and name the novel school of painting “Impressionist”. Applause from commentators significantly encourages Monet. Soon afterwards, he made an exhibition with its name of Impression, just part of the name from his former controversial painting and comments of critics. Just like the case suggested, critics, rather than artists themselves, like judge and jury in court, shoulder more social responsibilities.

The dispute mentioned at the beginning of the article may cease now, because there seems no factual dispute between artists and critics. Artists are of more lasting value than critics in art itself. As to the appreciation of art, critics is of more magnitude. The society, demanding for both art and appreciation of it, can develop without stray with both of them. Only through a combination of both, can art acquire its vigor and can society benefits from the true value of it.

herculesliUID: 2922375

2# xytan123


第一篇，所以很长很长。。。