ISSUE144【DIES IN FLAMES 0910G长线突破组】TASK I BY米饭袜子

米饭袜子UID: 2532172

What makes human society agglomerate and exist is not something of substances, the value of which could change over time and can’t be the enssential power promoting the progress of society, but something of spirit. Since human history is a process of new things replace the old things , proving that substances can’t live forever, while spirit ,say, dignity, love, independence,innovation, ect.will take the key position when defining lasting value. As one of contributions to it, I believe that “it is the artist not the critic who gives society something of lasting value.”

To begin with, from my point of view, the word “give” means to transfer the possession or holding of, namely, the precondition of a person who can “give” something is that he or she holds it. Based on this definition, I’ll state my viewpoint as follows.

Atists, who create artworks look forward to presenting their emotions and rich thoughts through novels, musics and the like. Actually, they have realised the lasting value of themselves while working because they’ve enjoyed the catharsis in the process and when these feelings or vital spark have influence on the public it would tend to be a kind of lasting value in society. For example, Hemingway,a stalwart,not only expressed his opinions on leading a proud life in his novels , but also spread the force of his spirit to the public , encouraging countless people to stand on their own. Equally, when destiny play a joke on Beethoven, his emotional music pour all his agony and struggle, meanwhile, the shocked audiences can feel it deep in their hearts and are embraved to fight against unfairness, rough in one’s life. Thus making it clear that artists give lasting value, on behalf of things causing resonance of humanbeings , through their masterpieces to society directly indeed.

On the contrary, critics do nothing in countributing to the lasting value. First of all, it is the artist who do works while critics always make comments on them when works were completed, in other words, critics don’t participate in the birth of the works which will “give” society something of lasting value.Then, once an artwork is exhibited, though criticisms will do server as direction of public opinion for a while, the determining factors in judging the value of a work are still the public and the time and of course the work itself. For instance, if a masterpiece is denied or a simple worthless production is admired by critics, the masses may think so at the moment, but as time go by, the real importance of them will appear after bing examined by generation after generation. After all, faced with an artwork ,everyone has his or her own understandings, so do critics, that is ,their views, just as one of these tastes can not determine whether it has eternal value at all, let alone give. Therefore, what really have influence on the public is artists’ words concealed in their works, what’s more,no matter critics how to evaluate, time will tell the truth.

In conclusion, considering the effects both artists and critics have on society and the public and according to the definition of lasting value and “give” in my eyes mentioned above, it is reasonable to say that "It is the artist, not the critic,* who gives society something of lasting value."