ISSUE144【0710天道酬勤互改小组】第三次作业

alarenmingUID: 2329302

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: 507          TIME: 01:02:53          DATE: 2007-6-27 23:11:26

as the issue said, I believe that the real value of art comes from artist rather than the critic. but in the meanwhile, we should not ignore the key effect of the critic. in my discuss about the issue, i will divide the points into several segments.
first, in the field of the literatures,  what is the best catalyst to make you closer to the novilists? maybe few person thought about this. this is a question which comes from a comment in a magzine. I still remember how the writer answer the question. he said that and I parasite :' no matter the novel based on a fact or not, no matter the author's words is ornation or not, it is not the key to move you. the only thing and the real touch comes from a moment in which you have a deep cognition from the deep of the soul with the author. just like the shakespea's famous story about a couple of lover --romeo and julie, what makes the story pass from one generation to another generation? is it the critic? no. certainly not. in my observation, the real effetion which supirior the fact is the very thing which has always touching us. the real imagine which makes it popular for all this years is just for its own special charming which cater to the poputi.
second, when we judge a film is tasty or not, is it critics on who we base?
generally no. usually, we may ask friends' opinion or judge it by ourself. people may choose movies which are casted by the idol himself or herself. if there are so many person who see nocolas cage as his/her idol, which may decide the film will be accepted by most people. surly, someone may quary me about that the acceptability do not represent the value of the movies and argue that a real value can not be understood by majority of the adulas. but in my opionion, the very value and the lasting value of a movie lies on the reflection to a real world.
third, I think there is a great discrepancy among the painting and the above two. painting's real value often due to the bysimal things concerned about the painters' soul, for the knowledge which ordinary could not purchase, the painters often meet a situation that he/she may be treated by current people as a mentally challendge human but he/she will be cromed as the artist after death. Van Gogh is the kind. under the circustance, we could not deny the works of the critics, without those who evaluates paintings, Van Gogh may be forgotten by us. here, I will say Van is the lucky man, at least, his thoughts and ability are proved, who knows that how many unnamed men who was intellect was not discovered?
so, in my argument, it is the artist who gives socity something of lasting value, but in some aspects, it is the critics who reveal something which was not noticed by us before.