- 最后登录
- 2012-5-26
- 在线时间
- 108 小时
- 寄托币
- 2373
- 声望
- 0
- 注册时间
- 2005-2-20
- 阅读权限
- 25
- 帖子
- 0
- 精华
- 1
- 积分
- 1273
- UID
- 196550
- 声望
- 0
- 寄托币
- 2373
- 注册时间
- 2005-2-20
- 精华
- 1
- 帖子
- 0
|
Issue144 第5篇 让砖头来得更猛烈些吧!
------题目------
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.
------正文------
I think there might be tautology and neglect in the claim above. When talking about this issue, people tend to predefine the art as something of lasting value and omit the creative and introspective worth of critical works.觉得开头还是摆出鲜明的观点比较好
Admittedly, real masterpieces art congenitally embody the long-lasing values no matter how critics make comments. It is the critiques that change, sway and self-contradict over time. Yesterday’s worthless paintings of Van Gogh can be viewed as invaluable today, and may again be rebuked tomorrow. What do not change are the introspection in them, as well as the beauty in Mona Lisa, the power in Beethoven's Destine and the sincerity in Duchamp's Fountain. Critics may give temporary judgments, the verdict of "lasting value" can only be made by time.
However, we say a masterpiece is valuable because we still see it, here it, read it or at least remember it. This may largely due to the recognition and introduction done by critics. How can the beauty, sincerity, power and introspection be eternal if their carriers fail to exist for long? How can the "value" be called value if it cannot be realized at all, if we never know, and no one ever tells us their value? It can be contradictory. Critics tell us that Sunrise is valuable, and we accept, and say, "It is always valuable because you tell us it is valuable, so that your judgment has nothing to do with the value." Isn't that ironic? 完全否定了大众的认知能力,太绝对了吧!&加些例子比较好
In fact, critics rather than artists may have created merits of some artistic works. Critics try to understand and explain the works without knowing the real intention of the originator. It is possible that the seemingly abstract and abstruse works, for example, were actually ordinary or affected ones, but critics' understandings surpass the original design. Therefore, there can be ideas now broadly believed to be in the works may actually derive from the creativity of critics. Some artists criticize reality to convey thoughts while some critics criticize art to convey their own. They are actually similar.
Sometimes, a critique itself conveys insightful and introspective ideas that have been implicitly integrated into the culture. It usually happens in the critiques negating some problematic art works. Hero, a seemingly moving and magnificent but indeed questionable Chinese movie would have misled and confused numerous people if no critics have pointed out its "emasculation" of real heroic spirit and advocacy of submission. Besides warding off the nocuous impact of the inferior movie, the critiques establish the standards of hero and advocate the spirit of rebellion. The history of art may be teeming with similar examples but the critiques themselves have long been forgotten together with the artistic works they criticized. However, the ideas, the spirits, and the standards have already been integrated into the culture and keep affecting generations of people.
In sum, I do not expect my essay can dissolve the misunderstanding between the artists and critics, for their interests have been so complicatedly entangled. However, since the function of the two professions are mutual, and their ways to express are intrinsically similar, it is illogical and also unfair to deny the enduring value of critics.
楼主的表达能力很强啊!好多词不认识,只有求助金山:(
感觉楼主从多个方面来谈论了这个问题,思想较深入,但三四段还是显得有些薄弱,多举些例子好一些吧!
加油!
|
|