Issue 144, 第三次作业，留链互拍！

fionn1129UID: 2399724

Issue 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.

According to this statement, it is the artist, not the critic, who creates something of lasting value for society. Addmittedly artists are great in their sensitivity, observation, creation and imagination, however, it’s the collective efforts of both artists and critics endowing lasting value to the artists’ works.

The value of each work of art mainly lies in two aspects, the skills and the spirit. The former is easily identified by common people, which means, the standard to evaluate skills is kind of objective. Consider playing piano for examplete. An adept player can play more fast and accurate than an novice, and most people are often exclamatory with their agile fingers when they watch it , because it’s a judgement by common sense. However, the latter one, which is more valuable to the society for its uniqueness distincts it from other works, is hard to be appraised, as it mainly depends on the audience’s response, say, unless the work can arouse some passion in the audience, it is not valuable. Therefore, there is no existed standard to score a work’s spirit, and such work leaves to critics, who can seize the emotion of the artist under the surface with their professional and aesthetic ability. So, it’s the critics who ascertain a work’s inner beauty, the soul of a work., which enable the work to survive in a long peopriod.

Now that the critic has comprehended a work’s value, how can it be shared with the public, which help the work be well keeped and have some contribution to the society? It’s also critics’ main duty. Through the critiques, the puclic got to realize that the intense colour and passioned brushstroke in Von Gogh’s paintings expressed his struggle against madness and his strong love for nature and the sunflowers were not just some flowers but became a symbol to vigorous life in their eyes, also connoisseurs would like to pay high price for his paintings. But let’s imagine, what would have happened to such great works without the critics? I think they would have been buried or lost or keeped by some ignorant people, then would have never been shown to public, thus would have no meanings to society.

Some people may argue or question critics’s ability, and it is ture that critics misjudged some works in history confined to their knowledge or natural gifts. However, I think it’s not a matter of existence but a matter of time. Consider Huangbinhong, a famous painter in China. Because of his innovation in the way of expressing, his works were sedomly accepted by his comperary critics, but it was still the critique, Zhangdaqian, who used to buy all Huangs’s paintings in an exhibition, tried his best to introduce Huang’s works abroad, and they were gradudally recognized and applaued by more and more people and collectors as more and more critics standed with Zhangdaqian. So, when we condemn that some critics destroied some works, we should also remember it was also some critics who saved a lot of works and made them known to public.

In sum, although it is the artist who, with their powerful talents to deliever their mind and value, creates works of art which are potential to be social treasures, it depends critics to make them truly become social treasures, bringing great value to society. Thus, we cannot underestimate the role critics play in the art field, but encourage them to be more professional and independent to help to introduce more works of true value to our human beings.

[ 本帖最后由 fionn1129 于 2008-1-28 17:41 编辑 ]

fionn1129UID: 2399724

自己觉得好像就是车轱辘话，来回说......