Is144 请多多指教O(∩_∩)O

krisoeUID: 2996451

TOPIC: 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.
WORDS: 538
TIME: 01:00:00
DATE: 2011/1/27 11:02:01

The speaker asserts that it is the artist, instead of the critic, who gives the society something of lasting value. The speaker overlooks the value the critic gives to our society, no matter how implicit the value is. A more compelling argument can be made that both the artist and the critic can give society something of lasting value.

First turn to the artist. On the one hand, great art, as a mirror of society, raises people's concern on our society problem. Take Andres Serrano's work "Piss Christ" for example. This photograph depicts a crux submerged in urine, alludes a perceived commercializing of the religion icon, and raises public attention about the religion today. One function of art is to reflect the current problems our society faces and appeal for public concerns

One the other hand, great art, triggers our compassion in human nature. We realize our pain and confusion and suffering, thus the beauty really goes into our hearts. This can be demonstrated by the Picasso's Guernica which depicting the infliction wars bring on the innocent. The lasting value of the painting, in a sense, is that it triggers our common will for alleviating the suffering from wars and for a peaceful world.

It might be tempting to agree with the speaker considering the value of art mentioned above. We might also tend to agree with him considering the fact that the names of artists are always written bigger, blacker, bolder than the critics. However, we should never ignore the lasting impact the critic has on our lives.

Firstly, we cannot dismiss the disservice the critic can provide to the true art considering the human nature of chasing self-interest and the limitation of the critic in the insights for the great artist. Consider some best-selling book. Belied by their affluent praise by some "famous" critics printed impressively on the book jacket, they are nothing except platitudes. Reader may be distracted from truly great literature by these kind or praise, thus damaging the value of literature. Moreover, some artists, in order to cover the distance between himself and the critic, may try to create his or her work catering the taste of someone who does not understand his sight of art, only providing undoing for his art. From the perspectives above the critic has a exert a lasting damaging on the art

At the same time, the critic can also promote the truly great artists, and uncover the value of great art for the public. Query, after his lifetime, if all critics still ignored van Gogh's contributions, would his greatness influence our lives today? Query, after his death, if all critics had dismissed Thomas Eakins art, would his innovation and aesthetic value in art still shine today? Sometimes great art are hard to be discovered without the insight of the critic

In sum, the speaker only recognizes the value of the artist,. However, the critic also contributes lasting value, although implicitly, to our society. The art's value lies in: it mirrors our society and raises our concerns as well as it triggers our compassion. While the critic shows his lasting impact implicitly by uncovering the true art or by distracting the public or the artist from the true art.