Issue 144 酒香

Boris21UID: 2915545

    The famous Russian writer Turgenev said that the though critics can bring novelists fame, but they are not as great as novelists because the critics make a living only when the novelists are writing. I share this opinion and can claim without any hesitation that though the role of critics should not be denied, the true lasting value of art is given only by the artists, but not the critics.

    To begin with, the arts with a value themselves that can last for centuries are created by the artists, not by the critics. Artists spared no effort to offer their contemporaries and descendants the best works they could do to show their talent, to pass their thoughts. The beauty had been fixed in the works. Like the sculptures of Michelangelo were curved hundreds of years ago, none of which have grown a new arm. The paintings of Raphael on the hemisphere of churches were there, and they still are there. The critics may not fancy one piece of work, but he cannot deny its existence and cannot alter it into his own way. All the agony and sweat had been put into those masterpieces which no one is able to change. The critics were not involved in the process of creation.

    Secondly, critics are those who judge the works of art by their own outlooks and experiences, whose words may not present the whole beauty of art. As the Shakespeare said that there are a thousand Hamlets in a thousand people's eyes. Critics are also readers, just only trained readers. They judge arts from their points of view and always try to use the art to propagate their own thoughts. Sometimes they help us to discover art, but in the most of time they played a negative role. For example, the sacrifice of spring which is regarded as a classic currently, but when it is first time played, there was only blame. So did many avant-garde arts. And the author of Les fleurs du mal Charles Baudelaire was not evaluated as a milestone of French poetry until Verlaine and Mallarme appeared. A more vivid example is the Russian modernism. In the soviet time critics judged this kind of literature as decadence which did not matched with communism. But the lasting value is beyond those critics. Now people read the works and admire the masters who composed them. And many novels which were highly spoken in that time do not have the reputation as before. The true value of arts never wanes in blames and never waxes in praises.

    Admittedly, the role of critics is still undeniable though it does not determine the value. Words of critics do have influences on ordinary readers. As the facts we have discussed above, the arts would not have suffered that much if the critics were fair. And the true lasting value is not easy to be understood by the mass if none would make some critics.

    In sum, the lasting value of art owes to the artists, but not the critics for that it is the former who create the art and embodied thought in it, as the same time the later only observed the work as an inspector who evaluate the work by their own tastes.

nofeelings811UID: 2388638

boris11.doc (25 KB, 下载次数: 8)

2010-12-27 20:40:56 上传

下载次数: 8