Issue144 【7\8\9\10】第四次作业 令人发指的艺术类

1001storyUID: 2516918

TOPIC: ISSUE144 - "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.
      
Who is the creator of someting owning the lasting value in our society? Only answering artists or critics are not a reasonable one from the dialectic perspective, investing the nature of the truth, by critical analysis of concepts and hypothese. The final judgement, in my point of view, should depend on a case-by-case analysis.

I concede that the artist do bring our society some attainments of enduring value. After all, human beings recognize nature, society, history and the meaning of life by studying some art masterpieces. Because of the association with art, we can impressively feel the edification of the true, the good and the beauty, and change our mind and emotion in the imperceptible influence of the art.One apt illustration of this point involves Beethoven, the German Composer, had nine symphonies, five piano concertos, several sonatas and so on, from which we can hear the praises of the Enlightment in the French Revolution. Another illustration is that Leonardo da Vinci, one of the most famous portraitists, painted the Mona Lisa, which is an excellent portait he had ever done. The portrait displays the success of Renaissance in Medivel Europe. Simply put, without the art, we could not live in such a colorful world.

Adimittedly, some times ,as limitations of themselves, the critic may  bring not only nothing useful to the art but also impediment of the art development .To be a critic, he should criticize art in the context of aesthetics or the theory of beauty. One of criticism's goals is the pursuit of a rational basis for art appreciation. Critics of the past are often ridicluded for favoring artists now derided, like the academic painters of the late of 19 century, or dismissing the artists venerated now, such as the early works of impressionists. These critics  can not be adept at the new movements of art and lend some different opinions to override their objective.

However, while we focus on the eminent contribution of artists, we could not totally ignore the compelling effects achieved by critics. Criticism often help the masses understand the intesting connotations, the thought of artists and the essences of the works more thoroughly and comprehensively. In addition, we turn our attentions to the new form of art and the vanguard production, because of the concerns of the critic, in most case artists and critics supplement each other and set some pieces apart from others by the cooperation of them.

From the analysis made above, I strongly commit the notion that artists usually need positive opinions from critics for their work to be viewed and purchased; unfortunately for the artists, only later generations may understand it. If a critic can stand in a neutral status and render a more independent and unprejudiced criticism, the critic may give art and society a more outstanding value.

希望大家可以给我更多的指点。艺术类很难些的透彻，大家觉得呢？

freelycheeUID: 2463661

今天刚考完，这是我写的一篇，lz可以参考一下，也许有的地方分析的还不太好~~~~
其实我还是比较喜欢写这一类比较内在的文章，像艺术啦，道德啦，之类的。。。

Who gives our society something of lasting value, the artist or the critic? There is not a universal answer to this complicated and controversial issue. In my point of view, I tend to propose although the critic has certain influence on artistic value; the artist is the last one to perpetuate it.

Admittedly, critics make some contributions to make considerable arts to be acceptable and understood by generalization. Almost everyone agrees that the main purposes of art are to offer people with an entertainment, to express the artist' deep feeling and sentiment, and to indicate a political idea suggested in artistic work. Since critics serve as a medium between the artists and the ordinary for art to achieve the above objects, they are important to some extent for our society. On the one hand, critics provide an invaluable and unique mirror of arts which reflect the general ideas and thoughts about the work to artist, and in doing so, the artists might consider their works' genuine meaning for society according to the criticism, and thus enhance the value of arts for its lasting value. On the other hand, critics, as experts in the region of arts, have a deeper insight and perspective to identify and evaluate the art's value than ordinary people. By manipulating their expertise, they do help us to save substantial time and efforts to appreciate artists' works which are recognized as great achievements or landmarks. In a nutshell, without critics, we may lose the ability to identify and appreciate arts.

Nevertheless, critics, whose thoughts we are so likely to follow with unthinkingly applaud, has its disservice as well as its glories. The compelling reason is that critics, no matter how knowledgeable, establish his own judgment about a work standing on the side of his own assumptions subjectively. Accordingly, lacking relatively fair evaluation, criticism always remains negligible insignificance for determining the value of a work, let alone to perpetuate it forever. Besides, any judgments on artistic works just stand for the concepts and ideas in that period of time, rather than in permanent future. For example, Paul Gauguin, a talented French painter in 19th century, suffered a long time of financial destitution, frustrated repeatedly by rare recognition of the public critics, who regard his works as coarseness and barbarism. Ironically, when we stare at his perpetual works, we are deeply shocked by the primitive and natural power in his paintings, and understand his cantankerous, exasperating, unconventional actions, and eventually recognize his eternal and visceral artistic value.

Deep down common sense and our experience in daily life have informed us that we remember more names of artists, not critics and we are moved, shocked, impressed by the expression of artists’ genuine feeling, not by the criticism which might seem indifferently and cynically. Moving on to a wider theme, by the close analysis above over artist and critic, let me suggest, critics, is an exclusive one would pose certain damage to the development and sustainability of artistic value, which might overweigh the benefits. If this is the case, what should we regard critics as? The answer is clear: if the critics do offer us an unique angle and perspective to appreciate value of art, if the critics do stimulate the artists to uphold the meaning of their works continuously, at the same time if they do not load the artists with intangible unbreakableiron curtains, if they do not imprison artists with surrounding insurmountable walls, we may regard them as wise critics and have done what all we expected.

Consequently, the following conclusion can be drawn from my essay: it is indeed the artist that gives society something lasting value, rather than the critic, even if the critic has important influence on art tendency and our society.

另外，我觉得这篇文章还可以在拓展一下，细想起来，其实它们二者之间是有影响的，比如贝多芬的音乐使得还沉浸于古典主义时期习惯于悦耳祥和音乐的人们很不能接受，而后他们感受到了这种音乐的顽强力量，贝多芬的出现促成了古典音乐由古典主义到浪漫主义的转型。事实上，艺术家对评论在一定程度上起到了导向作用，很多艺术家忍受了种种苦难，把那个时代的精神很好的或者超前的表现出来。。。。。你在好好想想吧，希望这些提示对你有帮助！
cheers

1001storyUID: 2516918

谢谢你的提点，你在考场上可以写出这么优秀的文章，想你学习:loveliness:
希望以后可以多给我提点建议，尽管你已经考完了，;d: