issue144,同主题第一期,求拍！

sophy1231UID: 2183466

I strongly agree with the statement. While it is true that the critic contributes a lot to the development of society, it is the artist who gives society something of lasting value, as such value lies in art works rather than in art critiques.

Artists create works of art originally, which give society such lasting values as reflecting people's culture and emotions, providing people with inspiration and encouragement and inducting the development of society. For example, painters in Renaissance learnt from the ancients and depicted the human figures as realitically as possible, often with backgrounds of natural scenes, which reflected their humanistic ideas and lead the society to pay more attention to the humanism. We can also find such values in Beethoven's classical music from which people of different eras have got encouragement and energy to face frustrations. The artists give birth to art, and at the same time they bring something which affect society to some degree. As the author of works of art, artists should also be considered as the author of such lasting values. However, though we should not overlook their important influence of discovering artists, evaluating their works and promulgating them to public, critics only play a role of medium and thus we can not conclude that they “give” society something of lasting value. Eventually, it is the artist who creates such lasting social value.

In addition, uniqueness and beauty, which are both important features of arts, own to the artist. To gain success and function well, any kind of great art are supposed to be unique and beautiful, as it is the primary functions of art to communicate beauty of all kinds in a unique way. People receive and think about the thoughts contained in works in the process of appreciating such uniqueness and beauty, and without them, other lasting values of art are quite unlikely to form. Looking into the development of art, it is not difficult to see this. Mona Lisa, the world-famous portrait of Leonardo da Vinci, is considered as a great work for the painter's unique exploration of oil paint in the soft folds of the drapery and contrasting light and dark, and the strong artistic beauty involved in her ambiguous half smile as well. Similarly, a successful film, which is usually the unique production of the whole workgroup, always brings the audience beauty in both vision and hearing. Again, it is the artist not critic, who gives art such features. After all, it is unreasonable to say that the critics create the lasting value for the reason that they introduced Mona Lisa to people all over the world, or that they help audience comprehend the film deeply.

Undeniably, critics play an important role in the development of art. Thanks to their extraordinary ability of comprehension and superior keenness for art, they are able to bring excellent artists and their works to the view of public and accelerate the form and the transmission of lasting value. Without them, social values of art are quite likely to decline. However, as their values must depend on the creativity of artists, they are not the former of the lasting value of art.

In sum, as artists are the former of works of art, I agree with the statement that it is the artist who gives the society lasting value rather than the critic.
艺术类好晕，忘各位多多给意见啊！