issue144之【艺术家和批评家间的爱恨情仇】——mingzi12390

mingzi12390UID: 2559903

144: 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.


Is it the artist giving society enduring value, as the speaker contends, rather than the critic? I concede that the artist bring the society some permanent value, according to abundant examples in our daily life. However, the importance of the critic should not be overlooked, considering the close relationship between the artist and the critic.

Admittedly, in our daily life at every corner in every where, we all can see the influence of the artist upon us. When we attend concerts, what we listen are the Fifth Symphony, Moonlight Sonata composed by Beethoven who lived in the 19th century; when we stroll through big-city museums and gallery openings, what we see are " Impression: Sunrise" created by Monet, "Sun-oriented Flowers" by Picasso, who have life in the early 20th century. Furthermore, in the children's art lessons in schooling, what the teenage learn are the works of such artists as Michelangelo, Mozart ,as well as Dali, etc. Therefore, the artist indeed give us a permanent value of aesthetics.

In these examples, no one would care what the critic had done, let alone the role the critic have played in the art history. However, the fact that no one would remember the vital role of the critic does not mean the importance of critique can be overlooked. On the contrary, without the guidance of the critic , the works of the artist can be not easily understood and appreciated by common people. Returning to the “impression: Sunrise” example mentioned above, the author gives us sunlight with a large amount of blue as the major color, and it is so peculiar that laymen can not comprehend easily, maybe it will be regarded as an bad works neglected by us. However, this work eventually earned its reputation and thereby contributed to a art school of impressionism.By what? It is the critic that found it the inner value. It is true that when Monet lived this painting did not cost much due to contemporary critics’ bad artistic appreciation, these critics could not be typical of all the critics in all times, just as the fault made by one person can not be assumed by all persons of a group. And even we can not imagine without the critique what the art would like, it maybe become chaos and unbelieveable.

Meanwile, many artists themselves are the critics because both of them need a deep appreciation of art and the insightful, unique perspective of the nature and society. The artist and at the same time an brilliant critic Leonardo Da Vinci ,comes to mind. He believed that the artist must know not just the rules of perspective, but all the laws of nature. The eye, he proposed, was the perfect instrument for learning these laws, and the artist is the perfect person to illustrate them. In other words, being a famous artist , one must know and can interpret art, even more, truely appreciate of art. Vincent van Gogh, another brilliant artist, the representative of post-impressionism of the art, began his drawing through visiting the gallery, eventually having a high art evaluation and became one of the greatest, if not the greatest, artists.

In sum, the relationship between the artist and the critic is so close that it is unfair to overstate the former and neglect the latter. Although it is the artist who creates an invaluable and unique mirror of the culture of the time during the work was produced. Without the interpretation and guidance of critique, the art works can hardly be understood by us and future generations.