Issue144

dylan1989UID: 2595924

【☆09GRE作文冲刺组】dylan  2月9日作文

Art, one of the most treasured possessions, played a significant role over the course of human history. We are subdued by the magical power--the capacity to embody symbolic significance to its audience. We are avid for the key to the question: who gives society so many fantastic artworks which of lasting value, is it the artist, or the critic? In my observation, the great creator should be artist.

Critics of this notion may argue that the critic have made a great contribution to unearthing the good artworks for people; they engaged in imparting to us the way to appreciate and understand art; they even help artist create good art. I would argue that although the critic tried to teach us the way to distinguish "good" art from "bad" art, is their understanding of art really the authentic one? As I have just mentioned above, the main functions of critic involve two aspects: unearthing the good art, and assisting artist in their art creation.

Even a moment's reflection of the history will show that the critic contributes little to art creation. First of all, the critic helps us unearth the great art. What are the criteria on which one critic base when he/she are evaluating a piece of artwork? Are the criteria by which all of the artworks should be judged really fair? The answer might be: no. In fact, the critic allows his judgments about art to be guided by ideas and values that are centered narrowly on the understanding of good art of his own. That is to say various artworks are all evaluated by those critic's understandings of art. Obviously, the criteria are not so fair. Due to these unfair criteria, those artworks which of great value for human society but fail to meet the criteria will eventually be forgotten by people. Thus the critic would do great injustice to the whole human society. By this token, sometimes the critic would counteract the development of art instead of promoting it.

History supports this notion. For instance, Franz Kafka, one of the greatest writers in the 20th century, is regarded as the originator modern literature and the trailblazer of expressionistic literature. But when he was alive, his work was not appreciated by the critic of that time. They did not appreciate the contrived situations; they felt confused with the fantastic as well as irrational content of his novel; they could not feel the great thoughts contained in his literature. So they reached a conclusion that the literature of kafka was of little value which was absolutely wrong as it could not stand the test of time.

Secondly, the adherents of the notion that it is the critic who gives society something of lasting value believe that by providing feedbacks to artist, the critic can assist artist in their art creation. As is known to everyone, the genuine great artwork is the manifestation of the artist's innermost emotion; it is the creation of the artist's soul; it is the result of the artist's original creative impulse. If artworks are created based on the popular taste, they will just resemble the craftworks, and inevitably will not be artwork any more.

Based on the discussion mentioned above, we can safely draw the conclusion that neither of the critic's functions are of much value, let alone of lasting values. It is the artist who really gives society those treasures of art. The critic, at best acts as the spokesman of attitudes towards art of the minority of people.

999maxUID: 2592818

word里的颜色就是粘贴不过来。。。怒
而且好像不能传附件。。

我存这里了，http://www.namipan.com/d/4331804 ... 181c15d0adf00440000
去下载