issue 144

bufeitianshiUID: 2880182

144"It is the artist, not the critic, who gives society something of lasting value."

Art is the result of the artists’ authentic inner feelings and spirit, products of their unique creative impulse instead of simple description. They are either inspired by nature or the experience the artists get through. And in many occasions, art, the manifestation of a society the artists live in at that time, can to some extend reflects the full panoply history of human beings through their distinctive works. Since it is the artists that ultimately created and introduced these works and also make it possible to have a “long lasting” effect in the human evolutions, the speaker’s assertion is partly correct.

However, artists’ works are not always approved as expected, for the reasons that the creativities usually pay much more emphasize on the inner world and the potential mind than the superficial appearance, which makes they are so intangible that common people cannot easily understand what they want to express and convey. Consider, for instance, the famous painting—sun flowers, which reveals the inner world of Vincent van Gog and cannot be understood by individuals at that time. Thus, it is critics, who evaluates works of art, that help common people to have a better understanding of arts by giving their views and comments to the artists and sometimes illustrating the hidden and internal spirits and values of one masterpiece. Because they have a keen eye for art and a thorough knowledge of art history, they are more likely to appreciate artists’ work more disinterestedly, which is crucial to discern whether a piece of work is of lasting value or not. In this way, critics play a significant role in arising common people’s attention and enthusiasm in art, thus avoiding the tragedy that the art of really lasting value is abandoned into the history trash can. The function of critics can be more conspicuous when the critics are quite familiar with a particular artist and his or her works, which can help the critics to have certain insights about those works that the layperson would not. This is nowhere more than true than on the example of Paul Gauguin, whose works were recognized after his death.

Moreover, some meaningful and pointed comments and criticisms usually spur modest creators, especially young artists, who have litter accumulation in the creation of artistic works, to pay more attention to what they neglect and then have a more profound introspect into their work, thus modifying to perfect them for even greater value. Useful suggestions in time can serve as catalyst in the process of making progress and creating lasting valuable works.

However, it is presumptuous to claim that critics are always just and fair-minded when taking the fact that it is impossible for critics to make comment on artistic works dispassionately without personal emotion into consideration. After all, they have their own
prejudices and viewpoints, which may lead them make unfair comments. For supporting example, one need not look further than Voltaire's rejection of Shakespeare as barbaric because he did not conform to neoclassical principles of unity. Or, consider the complete dismissal of Beethoven's music by the esteemed critics of his time. Moreover, critical judgment is often driven by personal interest, thus its value is questionable in any event, which we must be very wary of. Then time serves as the touchstone to evaluate the true value of an art work.

In sum, not only the artist, but also the critics play an equal role in giving society something of lasting value.