同主题写作第四期issue144 artists&critics

poohUID: 146994

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.


关于艺术的题目，一直都是大家最头疼的，因为平时很少深入地了解和思考，而对于critics知道的更少，下面是我对题目的剖析，我也不是学艺术的，就是把我所能想到的方面列了出来，希望可以抛砖引玉，引发思考和讨论。

艺术简介：
Art - the product of creative human activity in which materials are shaped or selected to convey an idea, emotion, or visually interesting form. The word art can refer to the visual arts, including painting, sculpture, architecture, photography, decorative arts, crafts, and other visual works that combine materials or forms. We also use the word art in a more general sense to encompass other forms of creative activity, such as dance and music, or even to describe skill in almost any activity, such as “the art of bread making” or “the art of travel.”
（from:http://art.aaronpeter.com/）


艺术的特殊性
艺术是富于创造性的，离开了creativity, 艺术就失去了生命力，所以有人说A weakness in art is a sleeping of creativity。艺术又往往是间接的，每一幅画都有其创作的背景，反映了某一社会现实或者表现了作者的情感，艺术背后的故事并不明明白白呈现在reviewer眼前，艺术家喜欢跟我们捉迷藏、玩字谜游戏，通过间接的方式表达出来。诗人就擅长运用隐喻暗喻。
比如：雪莱的西风颂Ode to the West Wind , the west wind象征大革命风暴。
这样创造性的作品，又晦涩难懂，无疑大大增加了人们理解的难度，普通人很难认识到作品的价值，所以需要critics.

艺术家创造了艺术品，创造了价值，这点是毫无疑问的。但是艺术品到底有多大的价值，到底是以什么为衡量标准呢？艺术品从诞生的那一瞬间起，他的价值是否就已经存在，并且不再改变了呢？它会不会因为艺术评论而升值或贬值？我个人认为，衡量艺术品的价值，无论是艺术上的价值还是金钱上的价值，都很难有一个客观而精准的benchmark, 对于历史上有名的艺术家的作品，肯定是相当珍贵，也有物以稀为贵的因素，但是面对当代艺术家的新作品，我们很难对它的价值定位。每年都有大量的艺术品产生，大部分都sink into obscurity, 或许其中的一些是伟大的作品，但是我们没有能力和机会把他们从中挖掘出来。这个时候，critics之与艺术品的作用犹如ads之与commodity，critics凭借其敏锐的艺术嗅觉，发现了艺术作品中的闪光点，把他们推向市场，展现在人们面前。critics使作品的价值被人们认可，或许昨天不名一文的一幅画，今天就价值不菲了，当然这是从物质价值的角度衡量，所以在金钱价值这个角度，倒是可以说评论家创造了价值。但是说到作品的艺术价值，应该从作品诞生那天就存在了，这种价值应该是永恒的，不会改变，然而在不同的人看来这个价值还是会有所不同的。这的确是相当complicated的问题，我只是说了说自己的看法，不见的正确，每个人都有自己的看法，只要言之有理就可以，毕竟我们都不是艺术领域的专家。

Critics所创造的物质价值的功能：
一方面，物质上的价值，使艺术家感到自己被认可被赏识，就会努力创作更多好作品
另一方面，艺术家有了资金，可以更好地进行独立创作，不必依赖于任何government 或组织的资助。Subsidy会带来control和censorship, 破坏艺术的innovation和freedom, 例如前苏联曾经对艺术家创作上的限制和监视。


critics是否能够公正的评价的作品：
一，critics鉴赏过很多作品，受过专门的训练，具备基本的艺术鉴赏知识和修养。
二，立场：critics应该是独立的，如果critics跟作者或者出版社利益关系或其他关系就可能会导致评价的不公正。试想艺术家和评论家关系密切，相互利用，那么critique还可信吗？推荐文章：Walking in the line（见本文最后）


Critics负面影响：
一，critics may biased, 因为任何评判都会掺杂主观因素，信息不对称也会影响到客观性。Critics可能会埋没有价值的作品，打击artist.
二，Artist虽然摆脱了government的控制，很可能又陷入critics的摆布中, artist 还是无法自由创作。
三，Critics可能迎合大众的审美观，他可以指选择那些符合大众口味的作品，这就像优胜劣汰，只不过，被淘汰掉得很可能是不符合大众口味的有价值的作品，留下来的倒是些庸俗的东西。这一效应会导致艺术走下坡路。

Critics的现状：
James Elkins is flummoxed by the state of art criticism. On the one hand, it appears to be flourishing: it's ubiquitous, it's everywhere. On the other hand, no one cares: it's not that widely read, and it doesn't figure in the intellectual (or other) debates of the day. Art criticism has little influence, and, apparently is considered to have little lasting value: with few exceptions, art magazines and gallery catalogues "are considered ephemeral by libraries and databases, and therefore not collected or indexed." Scholars don't refer much to it, and there's too much for readers to possibly handle.（http://www.complete-review.com/reviews/pppress/elkinsj.htm）


大多数人的思路是写艺术家创造了价值，评论家发现了价值，然后堆砌例子，当然，这样得思路并不错，但是有些老套，例子再多也没有深度。好文章最重要的是有自己独到的见解和分析，从众多的现象当中发现问题和规律，并归纳出来，演绎出去。只是罗列例子，难道让读者自己发现规律吗？这些例子早就存在了，不用你再说一遍，关键是你要展示给读者你的东西，你的见解。同样都是写艺术家和评论家，可以在不同的角度写这两个不同群体的价值和影响，他们之间的关系。你也可以有些自己独创的东西，就像我在前面说的物质价值和艺术价值，这并不是什么专业术语，只是我个人的一个划分标准和评判角度。我想大多数的作文，现在缺少的不仅是逻辑分析能力，还有创新能力。

【背景材料】第五楼
Walking the Line
The Ethical Dilemmas of Theatre Journalism

Part 4 of a 7 part series.
BY CARRIE L. KAUFMAN
with additional reporting by Ben Winters
全文见第五楼或者http://www.performink.com/Archiv ... /CriticsStory4.html

davidjackyUID: 135962

这类题目我把它归结于艺术类的写作，和下面的两道题有些相似，可作同样的思考和讨论。
96"Although, critics who write about the arts tend to deny the existence of any objective standards for evaluating works of art, they have a responsibility to establish standards by which works of art can be judged."
143"Artists should pay little attention to their critics.* Criticism tends to undermine and constrain the artist's creativity."
*those who evaluate works of art, such as novels, films, music, paintings, etc.
－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－
－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－
【习作点评与链接】

victoriazhizhiUID: 163135

我抢头贴！
英明的我昨天刚写的这个，不过写跑题了 :(  还被鬼鬼骂的已经疯了半天了
不过我作文里有很多大家讨论的内容觉得可以分享一下，尤其阿莱的一段

我作文链接https://bbs.gter.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=254845

boancquUID: 165060

占位，明天写了交来，今天忙啊

davidjackyUID: 135962

You hear the stories in bars and dressing rooms all the time. The ones about critics behaving badly. Some are apocryphal, some surely true. Sometimes the disgruntled actor doing the complaining only knows half the story. But it’s a fact that both theatre and journalism breed a sense of community, and the relationship between critics and theatre artists can sometimes be an ethical minefield.

In talking to theatre writers and theatre artists, questions arise that strike at the heart of the ethical dilemma between critics and artists. Should critics and theatre artists have any sort of relationship outside of the night of show night? What happens when theatre critics are also playwrights (think George Bernard Shaw) or directors (think Harold Clurman)? What about writers who write for multiple publications? Or those who write features on theatres as well as reviews? Is it right for a critic to have talked with the director about the play before she sees it? What about the critic’s role as theatre advocate?

Albert Williams has become more lenient over the years. As the assignment editor, as well as chief critic, for one of Chicago’s weekly alternative papers, the Reader, Williams used to jump through hoops to avoid even the appearance of conflict. But too many of his writers—himself included—are part of the community. Williams has taught theatre at Chicago’s Columbia College for 16 years. Justin Hayford does cabaret. Former critic Adam Langer is a playwright, as are freelancers Lawrence Bommer and Jack Helbig, who also does improve.

The only theatre staff writer for Time Out New York is an active member of the New York theatre scene. Jason Zinoman, Time Out’s assignment editor and chief critic, grew up in theatre—his mother is a director.

For both Zinoman and Williams, trying to weed out whether or not a critic might know someone they’re reviewing has become next to impossible. And it may not be known in advance. Williams has gone to a play and found one of his former students was in it. He could have walked out, but instead he chose to stay and disclose the connection in his review.

"If they’re inescapable, I trust myself and my other critics to put those conflicts aside," Williams says.

"It’s impossible to completely keep out any conflicts of interest," concurs Zinoman, who says about half of his freelance writers are involved in theatre in some way. That doesn’t mean he’s cavalier about who he assigns. He looks very carefully at the nature of relationships before he decides if it’s a conflict or not.

Williams agrees that there are limits.

"If [the critic is] friends with the director or the playwright, we don’t send them," Williams says, adding that he would never review a play written by his friend Jeffrey Sweet.

But Sweet has been reviewed by friends and he has written about other friends’ works, with mixed results.

"A pretty good friend of mine panned a production of Bluff out in New Jersey. A pretty good production, too, and I thought he missed the point. I sent him an e-mail. I said, 'Well, you can’t be right all the time.’ That was the end of it."

On the other hand, Sweet wrote a review of a season of New York theatre for "Best Plays Annual" and gave his honest opinion about a friend’s work.

"I think the play she wrote was a terrific play, but I think she did not do justice to herself as a director. I praised the script, but I said what I thought—she’s normally quite a good director, but I thought she had loaded up the production with so many gimmicks that she had obscured her work. She didn’t talk to me for two years. Then we ran into each other in a theatre lobby and she looked at me and went, 'Ah,’ and we hugged and that’s the end of it. I’m sure she knows that I didn’t do it out of malice, I was just saying what I felt was true."

Saying what you think is true and being respected for what you say are two different things. Theatre artists will tell you that how much attention they pay to a review has a great deal to do with how much they respect the critic—and how much they feel the critic respects them.

"I like to know that the critic is respecting what it is artists do and has a kind of simpatico with that, and is trying to help pave the way for the artist," says Goodman associate producer Steve Scott.

That’s what James Leverett remembers about the director, teacher and critic Harold Clurman.

"He was always in the middle of the community," says Leverett, chair of Yale’s Dramaturgy and Dramatic Criticism department, of Clurman. "He taught, he directed, he knew everybody, he was out and about within the community all the time. He acted as somebody who could speak to the community and say, 'This is worth encouraging, this is not quite so successful.’ All the actors in the community trusted him. Even if he said bad things about what they did in a past performance, they knew he was just doing it out of love, really, for the field."

That love for the field can lead to other interactions between critics and artists that go beyond one review.

"To me, part of the task of the critic is to champion things, in the same way that a dramaturg champions things," says Michelle Volansky, former dramaturg at Steppenwolf who is now with Philadelphia Theatre Company. "I have completely appreciated the times when [Chicago Tribune critic] Chris Jones would call me and say, 'You have to go see this play, this is a really terrific piece of writing.’ [Chief Tribune critic] Richard [Christiansen] did it, too. [Sun-Times critic] Hedy [Weiss] did it. I found that to be really helpful, and I wish that would happen more."

Jones, in fact, was instrumental in getting Famous Door Theatre’s Beautiful Thing transferred from Chicago to New York. At the Chicago opening, Jones thought there was a story in the fact that Famous Door had gotten the American premiere. The rights had been on hold for a couple of years because of the movie and New York producer Roy Gabay, who had been promised the American premiere, passed on it after so much time. Jones called Gabay as part of the story and, incidentally, told him Famous Door’s production was quite good. That started a chain of events that ended up with Gabay taking Famous Door’s production and transferring it to New York.

"Mr. Jones really helped us out tremendously there," says Famous Door artistic director Dan Rivkin. "He smelled a story and wanted to get the bigger picture."

Jones demurs. "I don’t normally go out of my way to promote things beyond my review. It certainly comes up, though."

Where, though, do these things come up? At the post-show party? Over lunch or some other social occasion? Critics and artists clearly draw lines between each other. It’s just that the line is not always in the same place.

"To try to chummy up with a critic is not in the best interest of anyone," says Tim Corcoran of New York’s 29th Street Repertory, expressing the view that critics and artists are completely separate.

Judith Egerton of the Louisville Courier-Journal agrees. She wants access to information, but is cautious about getting too close to theatre artists.

"I don’t really have friendships—I know them, they know me, but I don’t see them socially. It would get too complicated."

Chicago’s Court Theatre artistic director Charles Newell does not see the complication. "It’s in our interest to know them and communicate with them as clearly as possible," says Newell. "I make an effort to develop professional relationships with critics who have an ongoing relationship with Court, just to understand them better and maybe help them to understand us better."

In that sense, he views the critic as a journalist who should know about his subject thoroughly.

Albert Williams doesn’t like the idea of going to lunch or socializing with theatre artists, but he is very emphatic that "the job of the critic is to influence the theatre as well as the audience."

In that sense, he can understand critics and playwrights who regularly meet on a professional basis.

"I can see the argument in favor: If the critic and the artist are trying to shape the art, then maybe there’s a flow of ideas" that can be hammered out over lunch in a beautiful restaurant.

Recently, Chris Jones wrote of Defiant Theatre’s Fortinbras, that it was a familiar, aging script outside of the theatre’s mission. "We expect newer—or at least powerfully re-imagined—material from this edgy troupe," wrote Jones. He then went on: "This is a common mistake when Chicago companies lose sight of their niche. Given its proven history of quality and risk-taking, Defiant needs to stick to the defiant."

Some theatre artists thought Jones had strayed from his role as critic by talking about Defiant as a troupe in the context of their show. But Jones disagrees.

"You can’t review a show in isolation from a company," he says.

By ignoring the company’s vision, "you’re assuming that the artistic director or producer doesn’t have a key role in the work," says Zinoman.

But where is that line between seeing a theatre in context and seeing it with blinders on?

"There’s good theatre and there’s bad theatre and they should be reviewing theatre on the merits of the production as opposed to a particular theme or mission statement that a company has in the past put out," says 29th Street Rep’s Corcoran. "To do that is to pigeon-hole a group."

Greg Allen of Chicago’s Neo-Futurists sees both sides. He admits that his troupe gets a lot of benefit from having been around for 13 years. "There is an element to which I’m given a break because I know them and they know my work."

At the same time, Allen doesn’t like to be categorized by critics who often, he feels, don’t understand the Neo-Futurists to begin with—calling them a comedy or, worse, improv troupe.

Most theatre reviewers are also drama reporters, responsible for filing profiles, previews and other sorts of features in addition to their reviews. Every critic can recall having written an amiable article on an upcoming show, only to be confronted with a shocked, betrayed theatre artist when the subsequent review is not as kind.

"That’s a source of a lot of pain," says Jack Helbig. "It does set up this expectation in the artist’s mind that if you’re going to write a feature then you love them in some way, and that you will never say anything bad about them. There have been people in the past who don’t speak to me now because I have written a nice feature about them and then not liked the show."

Jones, who in addition to writing reviews for the Tribune pens a weekly theatre column, says, "I would like to just be a critic, but the only newspaper where you could do that is the New York Times. Most of us also write feature articles. To be an effective reporter, you have to have sources and to have sources you have to have relationships with people. That separation is just not possible in the real world, though ideally that would be the case."

What bothers Albert Williams isn’t that the theatre artists might get upset, but that the theatre writer might feel like a fool for contradicting himself if, for instance, he writes that a company is "the best young theatre troupe of the year" for one publication, then doesn’t like a particular show when he is sent to review it for another publication.

"If you’ve gone on the record praising someone’s work, you have to be careful that if you see their work and it’s not good, you’re not afraid to say that because it will reflect badly on you," Williams says.

The big dilemma for theatre writers comes when they are also, well, theatre writers—with scripts in the drawer or on their hard drives. When they give a good review to a theatre they have also submitted a play to, does that make that good review suspect? Are they just buttering the theatre up?

"We have members of the association who have advanced degrees and do theatre, but they’re also theatre critics," says Jeffrey Jenkins, former head of the American Theatre Critics Association. "The question you have to ask yourself when you do that is, 'How can I do that? Am I asking someone to hire me? Are they hiring me because they want me to do something for them later [i.e. write positively about them], or because I’m good at what I do?’

"We have members who struggle with this. The answer to ethical standards ultimately is the same as the answer to 'Do I have enough background?’ The answer is, can I look in the mirror and say I’m doing the right thing. That’s a purely individual question."

There is also the occasional case in which a critic is honored by a theatre company. Chicago freelancer Lawrence Bommer was given a Trailblazer award last year by Chicago’s Bailiwick Repertory Theatre. The award recognizes gay and lesbian people "who move the community forward in one way or another," according artistic director David Zak. He recalls Bommer accepting the award and telling him it didn’t mean he wasn’t going to slam the theatre again. Bommer insists that "the proof is in the printing," pointing to Bailiwick shows like Go By Night or Emotional Monogamy that he gave not so great reviews after he was given the award.

It’s worth noting that Bommer was given the award because of his early work as a theatre artist, as well as "writing about queer issues in the mainstream press," according to Zak. He has been doing and writing about theatre for the better part of two decades. He considers himself not just a critic, but a theatre person.

"The things that connect critics and theatre artists are infinitely greater than the things that divide us," says Bommer.

"Ultimately we’re in love with the same thing," says Williams. "That’s why we’re here."

Adds Steppenwolf artistic director Martha Lavey: "One hopes that we are all invested in the same enterprise, which is more and better theatre."

Any feedback?

flyingwindUID: 189320

占座位！
呵呵

davidjackyUID: 135962

最初由 victoriazhizhi 发布
[B]我抢头贴！
英明的我昨天刚写的这个，不过写跑题了 :(  还被鬼鬼骂的已经疯了半天了
不过我作文里有很多大家讨论的内容觉得可以分享一下，尤其阿莱的一段

我作文链接..

以下省略...... [/B]

你方便的时候把你那篇文章综合他们的意见整理一下，然后放在原文的帖子的最前面，即编辑一下帖子，谢谢

davidjackyUID: 135962

最初由 davidjacky 发布
[B]You hear the stories in bars and dressing rooms all the time. The ones about critics behaving badly. Some are apocryphal, some surely true. Sometimes the disgru..

以下省略...... [/B]

可以先随便谈谈想法

Mars3000UID: 198477

占个座先！
明天交

Mars3000UID: 198477

提一个问题：
假如没有critic的出现，艺术家作品的价值会不会为大众发现

boyjimUID: 125249

提纲
1伟大的艺术家总是疯子，疯子才能创造艺术，但是他们不善于表达，但艺术的价值是他们创造的
2评论家的工作负责把他们给我们翻译过来，他们有苦功没有劳功，所以艺术的价值不是他们创造的
3艺术是不是总需要一个评论家来给我们指手画脚呢？不需要

https://bbs.gter.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=255344

鬼谷子UID: 159645

我觉得还有一点就是lasting，这点是题目对于value的限定。
从M-W查到的lasting是：: existing or continuing a long while : ENDURING
然后在于其他同义词的对比中M-W又说：LASTING implies a capacity to continue indefinitely

可以先从多角度的谈value的问题，对value作出解释和限定，比如pooh举例的物质价值和艺术价值，然后看看那种价值是lasting的，或者价值在什么情况下是lasting的。然后再看限定后的lasting value是谁决定的。

boancquUID: 165060

大家觉得孙远的提纲偏了吗？我咋觉得有问题啊。
小鬼快看看！

鬼谷子UID: 159645

似乎他是说artist重要，但是critic也有作用，我觉得lasting的问题没说出来。孙远的东西有点过时了，错误还是不少的。

victoriazhizhiUID: 163135

说实话 我觉得孙远的好多提纲都有些奇怪的说
我刚看见144  天啊
这篇和我跑题那篇的跑法差不多，没体现lastin value
看他的A 废话嘛 没有艺术家就没有艺术作品
B C 作为TS还算是基本扣题了，但是看后面的论证拉 像我就说远了 嘿嘿
楼上的说的是什么问题