ISSUE144 高强度第二小组第五周第六次作业交改帖

高强度第二小组UID: 2348888

艺术类——艺术存在之意义
144 It is the artist, not the critic, who gives society something of lasting value.
艺术家，而不是批评家，给予社会以有价值的东西。

同主题分析参考:
https://bbs.gter.net/thread-622910-1-1.html
https://bbs.gter.net/thread-255061-1-3.html

相关题目 96 141 143 101 49

Deadline: 7月29日 周日

牛肉饼UID: 2331677

汗。

[ 本帖最后由 牛肉饼 于 2007-7-31 14:04 编辑 ]

dagger_zhangUID: 2140939

:) 唉，还是这个烂水平哦

laofashiUID: 2298216

虽然不是一个小组的不过猜想大家还是欢迎交流的。。也写了一个贻笑大方。
提纲：
艺术比其批评更具持久价值。
1. 评论家们往往局限于其评论标准不能给出公平的评价，尤其是在涉及先锋艺术的时候。
2. 评论家们为了吸引读者，往往不合理地贬低作品（读者们往往愿意看说坏话而非说好话的文章），使其评论看起来观点鲜明，有建设性。（这i是我对国内影评和乐评的印象）
3.艺术作品试图表达的涵义往往是作者最清楚，评论家不过是猜想，再根据其猜想评论，这个过程听起来就是不大靠谱的，因此他们提供的意见也价值有限。
4.从后现代主义的观点来看，艺术作品的价值是由每个观众自由定义的，并且随时间而变化，这个观点又让评论家们的“权威”观点丧失价值。
5.艺术作品的从艺术家窥视真理的创作冲动中发，从他们对生命的省悟中发，而评论的构成是这些思想闪光的物质化实体——绘画，乐曲，雕塑等等。两者出发点就已经高下立判。

word 589 Time 1 hour

The speaker argues that it is art rather than the critic that provided the society with lasting value. I fully agree with the speakers’ claim. Though critics may help us better understanding the meaning or art pieces and in some way decides the pieces’ value, they basically serve a subordinate role to artists and their masterpieces.

I see three reasons why critics are less valuable. In the first place, critics tend to be confined by the established parameters for art evaluation, and give judgment that misses the true value of the art piece. When it comes to the avangard art, the critics are more likely to be critical – either because they can not understand the new art form or they disliked the breaking of ‘art code’, if it exists. Van Gogh’s famous piece sunflower serves a perfect case. The painting was fiercely attacked by critics for using the color yellow, which was a taboo in paintings. However after decades the painting has been proved in its value for tens of millions, while the critics all died. I would also assume a similar situation for rock and role when it was born. Critics, especially those from classics realms I guess, would say it is nothing but pure noise. Again the critics are wrong. Rock and role have become an indispensable part of music, which represent part of the human nature that craves for freedom and getting rid of the industrialized society.

Secondly, my impression of the critics informs me that many of them don’t really understand art, but pretend they do. Critics are like all of us who need to be paid to survive. As a result, their evaluations should look appealing to the readers, usually meaning being radical – if the artist is avangard, then being more avangard. That’s often the way newspapers use to increase sales. Besides, a critic that sings the praise for an art piece looks too ‘normal’, as if the author was not contributing any constructive ideas, so many critics tend to be much more critical than they should, attacking the art piece for the reasons that do not hold.

Even the critics are enough professional, I still doubt their capability of translating the meanings artists try to express. I would argue that no one but the artist himself knows his work best and there’s no universal standard that can value one art piece over another. The critics therefore are guessing, rather than judging the meaning of the artists’ work. Guesses, however, are not all accurate and responsible. Think about this: I have to guess the meaning of something I’m not very sure of and give it evaluation according to a code that’s not universally applicable – sounds like a really hard job to me.

Postmodernist would continue to argue that the meaning of art pieces should be defined by everyone that encounters it, and the meaning is never fixed. No principle or authority can judge the value of any art piece. Popular and influential, this postmodernism point of view cast more doubt on the argument that critics are of lasting value.

Finally, the subordinate nature of critics to art is decided by the ingredients each is made of. Art is born from the artists’ sudden impulse for creation, the instantaneous realization of truth and the enlightenment of life itself. However, critics derive from the materialized form of the artists’ inspirations, which is usually a painting, a song, or a sculpture. This comparison alone makes it clear enough why art has more lasting value than the critics.