Issue 144
Doesthe society benefit something of lasting value from the artist rather than thecritic? The speaker contends so. Well, I admit that the artist contribute a lotto those lasting value. However, it seems to oversimplify to negate theessential function of the critic who also devote themselves entirely to workwith art and play an important role in the process of generating those lastingvalue from art.
Art, suchas novels, films, music, paintings, as it comes from history and will becomehistory, is always considered to be priceless treasure, including its lastingvalue for the society. It can bring awareness to people once it has been passed to.Art also connects people in a society by presenting an idea that everyone canrelate to in a universal way once a piece has been appreciated. What’s more, theawareness that comes from art will only lead to a better and better society ifthe people take action based on the ideas they discover in art. In short, art,which is created by the artist, is not born with lasting value for the society naturally.Nevertheless, with the help of evaluation from the critic, it would be widely spread,well apprehended and value added.
First, a art must reachthe public; otherwise, it would give society nothing of lasting value, thoughit might has value to the artist himself while he enjoy the moment of creation.But, not all the great pieces would attract public and be shown in front of themwidely and quickly. People then gradually get to know the pieces by readingevaluation from the critic either positive or negative. The critic give thosefar-reached pieces a leg up while they evaluate them, especially for thosepieces of art coming from unknown artist with gift. On this section, the criticplay as a “talent scout” although they usually don’t claim that. Fromthis point of view, in contrast, those who think the critic endow nothing aboutthe lasting value from art must also turn a blind eye to whomever else that isunknown and unsung in every walk of life but significant for our society.
Then people must appreciate the value of the art. Art, whichcan be described as the expression of one’s inner realm is never easily for the public to reachits deepest point even in front of them. Then a logical question would be isthere any special group works for it? That’s exactly the critic. First, as weall accept, not every was born to be a connoisseur of art; similarly in the fieldof science, fewmen endowed with a brain like Einstein’s. Moreover,due to the abstruse nature of most art, there would be with much difficulty tobe well understood and appreciated without any background or guiding. So, the secondcritical role that the critic plays emergesobviously; it is to make art well apprehended and appreciated by the public.Also, it makes the art value added, with the thought of the critic and maybeeven further, the universal view from the public.
Thelast step involves people changing their concept and behavior to improve thesociety. As Picasso said “the best art is art that heals”, the final section ofthe “process” is to “heal” people heart and mind and ameliorate their ownbehaviors based on the ideaistic influence from the spirit of art, while peoplelive in such imperfect society. But, how the critic function during thissection? Simply put, since the critic has been embed their thought into thosepieces of art they work with all along their lives with deeply understanding,they always play as the bellwethers to improve themselves first adjust and keepupdating their concept then their behavior.
In a word, the artist create art and the criticdredge the channel to make it to become something of lasting value for the society.
不知道是不是跑题了,写得晕晕的,希望狠批:)cheers!
|