issue144 [mayflower]写了好半天...

quickbreezeUID: 195262

144. It is the artist, not the critic, who gives society something of lasting value.
Time: 58:13  words:657

When roaming in museums, I am always interested in those names on the cards besides the masterpieces: Michelangelo, Rembrandt, ... Are they really the creator of the eternal beauty, serenity and joy? As far as I am concerned, the answer to this question is a positive one while the effect of critics in art history should not be neglected.

To begin with, art is a private creation and propriety which belongs to the artist since it is the artist that gives birth to it. When the work is finished, no comments will change the nature of it even a bit. Art has a kind of universality, which contains the very essence of humanity and always shines in the endless scope of time and space. A genuine artist is sometimes regarded as insane, for his method of working and thoughts of pioneer greatly exceed the understanding of plain critics. Although the great work cannot be accepted and interpreted by the contemporaries, it will never be buried by the dust of time. As long as the work is transporting a kind of elegance or vigor, delicacy or simplicity, it will definitely deserve its status acknowledged by the entity of human beings but not a small group of critics. Take van Gogh as an example. He has pored all his zeal and life in the vivid colors and exciting stripes of those starry nights, sunflowers and daffodils; however it's shame that he never got recognition during his lifetime and got only one of the hundreds of splendid paintings sold out. Yet ultimately people have found the lasting value of his works and in a New York auction today a miniature with merely a "Vincent" signature may reach significant price no matter it is genuine or fake.

Nonetheless a really marvelous piece of work will not be left in oblivion simply because of the scorns from a silly critic; by contrast it can be better evaluated and understood thanks to a wise critic. Because to most ordinary people without expertise it's not an easy task to taste a piece of work, the comments and recommendations from critics can be useful guide. Also in this way, the artist gets a chance to achieve fame sooner. For instance, when Monet first presented his masterpiece of Impression：Sunrise, the contemporary critics fell into heated debating, in which all kinds of pans and praises together were cast on him. Such quarrels and discussions revealed little by little in front of the populous the subtle and flowing lights on the canvas. They also granted Monet the name as the founder of impressionism. Thus, critics do take effect to help people realize the lasting value of art.

Additionally, in today's modern arts which run in a more rapid speed, such as films, critics often play a crucial role in influencing the artists and thus work. In more classical fields, such as painting and music, it's still possible for the artist submerged in his own world regardless the noise of critics. But modern art has its unique form which correlates the artists and critics even more firmly. In the industry of film, the audience is somewhat directed by the critics. If an actor gets very low grade from the critics, it is entirely to happen that he will receive no invitation to any film. Then no matter how excellent and hardworking he is, the chance is quite tiny that he will go on making good work. Hence in this way critics sometimes counteract and impede the birth of something of lasting value.

In sum, the artist creates the masterpiece, which he inputs all his love and enthusiasm, and lasting value. Yet without wise critics it may take the whole society a longer time to recognize the preciousness of it. If more responsible and insightful critics emerge in the world, then it will be our felicity to be able to better evaluate the values of those masterpieces of art.

yaowanyingUID: 2222636

When roaming in museums, I am always interested in those names on the cards besides the masterpieces: Michelangelo, Rembrandt, ... Are they really the creator of the eternal beauty, serenity and joy? As far as I am concerned, the answer to this question is a positive one while the effect of critics in art history should not be neglected.

To begin with, art is a private creation and propriety which belongs to the artist since it is the artist that gives birth to it（which从句放在art之后）. When the work is finished, no comments will change the nature of it even a bit. （说法有些绝对）Art has a kind of universality, which contains the very essence of humanity and always shines in the endless scope of time and space. A genuine artist is sometimes regarded as insane, for his method of working （creation） and thoughts of pioneer greatly exceed the understanding of plain critics. Although the great work cannot be accepted and interpreted by the contemporaries, it will never be buried by the dust of time. As long as the work is transporting a kind of elegance or vigor, delicacy or simplicity, it will definitely deserve its status acknowledged by the entity of human beings but not a small group of critics. Take van Gogh as an example. He has pored all his zeal and life in the vivid colors and exciting stripes of those starry nights, sunflowers and daffodils; however it's shame that he never got recognition during his lifetime and got only one of the hundreds of splendid paintings sold out. Yet ultimately people have found the lasting value of his works and in a New York auction today a miniature with merely a "Vincent" signature may reach significant price no matter （whether）it is genuine or fake.

Nonetheless a really marvelous piece of work will not be left in oblivion simply because of the scorns from a silly critic; by contrast it can be better evaluated and understood thanks to a wise critic. Because to most ordinary people without expertise it's not an easy task to taste a piece of work, the comments and recommendations from critics can be useful guide. Also in this way, the artist gets a chance to achieve fame sooner. For instance, when Monet first presented his masterpiece of Impression：Sunrise, the contemporary critics fell into heated debating, in which all kinds of pans and praises together were cast on him. Such quarrels and discussions revealed little by little in front of the populous the subtle and flowing lights on the canvas. They also granted Monet the name as the founder of impressionism. Thus, critics do take effect to help people realize the lasting value of art.

Additionally, in today's modern arts which run in a more rapid speed, such as films, critics often play a crucial role in influencing the artists and thus work. In more classical fields, such as painting and music, it's still possible for the artist submerged in his own world regardless the noise of critics. But modern art has its unique form which correlates the artists and critics even more firmly. In the industry of film, the audience is somewhat directed by the critics. If an actor gets very low grade from the critics, it is entirely to happen that he will receive no invitation to any film. Then no matter how excellent and hardworking he is, the chance is quite tiny that he will go on making good work. Hence in this way critics sometimes counteract and impede the birth of something of lasting value.（我认为适当的补充一些正评价应该更好，你认为呢？）
In sum, the artist creates the masterpiece, which he inputs all his love and enthusiasm, and lasting value. Yet without wise critics it may take the whole society a longer time to recognize the preciousness of it. If more responsible and insightful critics emerge in the world, then it will be our felicity to be able to better evaluate the values of those masterpieces of art.


我很喜欢你的语言运用，但也不要使用很多华丽的词