|
题目：ISSUE144 - "It is the artist, not the critic,* whogives society something of lasting value."
*a person who evaluates works of art, such as novels, films, music, paintings,etc.
Is it the artist provide something of lasting value to society instead of thecritic, as the statement asserts? If we define "lasting value" as onefraught with creative and unique value. I concede the statement that such valueis created not by those critics but rather by such artists. However, it isimpossible to deny that the critics contribute profoundly to it , to someextent. Admittedly, the artist and his orher art work may benefits greatly from such critics‘ efforts. On the one hand,the critic help the audience understand those art works. Compared with the mostof people having not received education about art, those critics are morelikely to understand particular artist and appreciate his works of art. Withoutthis critic's expression and explanation of those art works, the populace failsto interpret and appreciate art works and pay more time on true invaluable artworks instead of bad ones. On the other hand, without high evaluation from thecritics, many of works of art are not received by market and consumers. As aresult, many artists are so poor that they can not sustain theirdaily life by virtue of his art works, let alone devote all their lives tocreate more “lasting value” art works, what is worse, to gain a comfort level,such artist have to cater to others' need, especially receive supply fromgovernment rather than their own inner impulse. Thus their works of art wouldcease to have lasting value. A apt illustration of point involves the former Soviet Union. At that time, a lot of artists living in Soviet Union had to accept economic supports from thelocal government for some reasons, while their works had to follow the partyline in their work. Such works have been considered as no value, since theywere influenced considerably by the government’s attitude rather than theartist’ authoric emotion. If such artists were accepted and recommended bythose critics, their conditions of life and work would be improvedconsiderably. With no doubt, it is benefit for an artist to devote all his lifeto create new art works processing lasting value. However, it is clear that thecritic is counterproductive to giving something of last value to society insome respect. After all, Critic's evaluation of those art works remains limitedor even a misguidance to the masses. First, a critic just might hasinsight to some art works, but it does not mean that moral quality of a criticis as high as his experience of art works. Thus, when faced with a work of aparticular artist, his evaluation of art work is related with some personal andunjust viewpoints of artist inevitably. It is harmful to judge true valueof art works. History is replete with examples of How some talentedartists such as Beethoven, Shakespeare, Van Gogh and so on, and their greatworks were always attacked by their contemporary critics, because of suchcritics’ certain terrible aspects of human nature. Secondly, even if a critic'smind is considered as lofty, the criticism of an art works has to be influencedby his narrow confine of old and established points and theories. A even moreremarkable example is Van Gogh, whose paintings have been sold at high pricenowadays. During his time, the style of his work was different from traditionalones. Thus, his works were not accepted by those contemporary critics who faithin the ancient ways of painting. Accordingly, those critics did not obscure thetrue value of his work until the modern critics change their minds deeply. Inconclusion, the critic is not always benefit to art works for its inner flaws.
In sum, I fundamentally agree with the speaker's statement that some lastingvalue of are work stem from artist, not the critic. Yet, the critic often haspositive and negative effection on the art works.
[ 本帖最后由 chongxinlai 于 2007-3-9 13:04 编辑 ] | 
发表于 2007-3-8 21:38:18
签到领寄托币
GO
转发
