ISSUE 144 by matcheaven~

matcheaven~UID: 2597874

我的第二篇issue，速度还是上不去呀，请狠狠拍~~先谢过啦！
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.

WORDS: 600
TIME: 45:00+45:00

DATE: 2009/8/13 11:29:29


Who gives society something of lasting value, the artist, or the critic? To think about this question, we should keep our eye on a high level in order to look the whole world of the art realm. Although the speaker's claim might have something valuable, I would like to say that the speaker has overlooked some important cases that critics help systematizing and interpreting the value of art works.

Turn first to the nature of art and criticism, in order to better illustrate my point of view. As we all know, the nature of art -- a subjective matter, is quite different with the criticism, which goal is the pursuit of a rational basis for art appreciation, to some extent. Thus, we should see the important value of both artist and critic from different views in giving the society something of lasting value.

It is known to everybody that the art works are the expression of private feelings of the artist who create them. They are so subject that it is so hard for us to find another one just the same as any one of the works. But there is always a moment that we encounter a piece of art work and deeply moved, maybe due to the same passion inside the heart or just the pleasure brought from beauty. A masterpiece of art is also a reflection of its period of society, though it may effected by some personal emotion.
These works make people think, both the persons during that time and the current society. Through these ways, artists, as well as their truly art works, no matter how long they have to wait before being accepted, would give the society something of lasting value.

However, the pieces of art works, as created by disparate individuals, are inevitable divergent, no matter from the view of styles, the themes or their ways of creating the works.
So here comes the most significant and important function of the critics--systematize the art works. As I mentioned above, to pursuit of a rational basis for art appreciation is an important goal of criticism. When we are confused about so many pieces of art from different period of time and different society backgrounds, it is the critics, with experience in art, that classify them in several categories, providing us a clear clue to appreciating the art works and making it more efficient for study. What's more, the existence of critic has created an ethos of more attention and research on art, which greatly help the development of art.
In addition, the critic can also provide some background knowledge for public in order to make it easier for the layperson to understand the insight meaning of the art works. Admittedly, the appreciation of art is, more often than not, a feeling of different persons. But we cannot deny the fact that we learn a lot from the critique, both the angle we see the art work and the social and historical stories hidden behind the art work. So if we take better use of these critiques, we will find it a great realm of thought that also provide the society something of lasting value.
From what has been discussed above, we can easily draw our conclusion that it is the combination of artists and critics that gives the society something of lasting value.