issue144[jet小组]第六次作业

alexznjUID: 2237357

“It is the artist, not the critic, who is gives society something of lasting value.”
字数：533
There is a permanent debate on which one plays a crucial role in contributing something of lasting value to society between artist and critic. Unlike those who argue that it’s the critic gives this everlasting value to society, I am approve of the point that the lasting value in the works of art is attributable to the artist rather than the critic since it’s the artist creates the art while the critic only help discovering the value of the it.
Something must be clarified that the value of art lays in the art itself but not the evaluation on it and the value in it is created by the artist. It is true that the incessant reviews on the art make it more noticeable among people, however, without the endeavor of the artist, it’s senseless to evaluate the art. Thus, the critic only works after the accomplishment of the art and the true value brought to the society comes from the artist. Take The Smile of Mona Lisa for example, though critics from various estates and nations remark on it from different angles of society, including positive and negative, its worldwide famous comes from the lifetime endeavor of Vinci, the author of Mona Lisa. Watching this spectacular work of art, the mass feel the beauty of peace and encouragement from the smile of Mona Lisa, painters are inspired from it’s extraordinary artistry, and then compose more excellent work, philosophies get inspiration and then contribute new viewpoint to philosophical theory, literators compose numerous articles to study and extol it’s mystery, and so on. Since it’s birth, influence has almost spread to every corner of society and it is still continuing today. Although the critic play a unneglectable part in enlarging it’s influence and helping people to understand it more deeply, the value it contribute to society rooting in the strength of Mona Lisa’s smile, which was indued by Vinci.
Some people might argue that it seems that in contemporary society the evaluation is more important than the art itself especially in some movies and books, thus, they support that when the art brings about some social value, it is the critic instead of the artist who gives it. But I oppose the point because imagined that if the review of the critic can contribute to the social value rather than the art itself, art will unavoidable encounter the danger of the emergence of increasing the spurious arts. The consequence is horrible because we will live in a world filled with large numbers of forged arts and the real arts are whelmed by them. What we can feel are only the alleged arts which are well-known because of the numerous reviews from everywhere by critics.
In fact, art can not be live lasting without the contribution of the artist and the critic: the artist gives birth to it and the critic fosters it. Whereas, the critic cannot replace the role of the artist to be acclaimed to be the primary contributor to the social value since it is subordinated to the effort of the artist. Therefore, I am in favor that it is the artist, not the critic, who gives society something of lasting value.

[ 本帖最后由 alexznj 于 2008-2-16 00:21 编辑 ]