Issue218 艺术品价值VS大众理解

seeyetUID: 2218205

In order for any work of art—whether film, literature, sculpture, or a song—to have merit, it must be understandable to most people.

It is true that any work of art must be understandable to most people in order to have merit? The speaker asserts so. However, in my view, I disagree with such standpoint for several reasons. To better present my viewpoint let me illustrate them in the following.

To begin with, we should clear that where the true value of art lies. According to what Freud has said (and I paraphrased) art, in essence, is a kind of release of individual lust, converting the human libido into plentiful creativity. It is through the work of art that artists express their passions, emotions, and desires. From this perspective, the first and foremost thing art concerns with is the inner world rather than with the outside one as a whole. In another word, the true value of art lies in that whether it conveys the emotion and thought of its creators, and that emotion and thought can reveal some human natures. The expression can be unique, since people may have different experiences and different aesthetic perspectives. However, referring to the essential part of the expression we might find some common grounds to share. Maybe that is the charm of art: reflecting some common things by different and indirect ways.

Admittedly, there are many works of art--whether film, literature, sculpture, or song--were not accepted by most people first, but were proved to be valuable afterwards. Austrian composer Schubert, composed reams of masterpieces that cannot be appreciated when he was live, and he had to lead a destitute life for nobody paid for his works. Ten years after his death, people began to find merits in his works. The similar situation occurred in Van Gogh’s transient life. This Dutch painter, who put all his enthusiasm to art, experienced lots of afflictions through life, including being neglected. Nowadays, his masterpieces are always sold at a high price. Although, money is not the only standard to evaluate value of art, it could be provided as a evidence that more and more people nowadays admit high values in Van Gogh's works. It is quite possible that true work of art usually convey deep values that need to be digged out over time, and for the majority of people, who is not specially trained, have difficulties in understanding these connotations easily. Even more seriously, since some works were considered to be monstrous, their creators were also considered eccentric. Nevertheless, I believe people would recognize these masterpieces correctly someday, and form a true estimation of their authors in the future.

Conversely, those works that merely cater to public taste would be forgotten easily. One needs look no further than popular culture. Although some popular culture might turn to classical culture, but nobody could deny that most of them would be faded gradually. Carefully scrutiny with popular culture, for instance, popular music, reveals that little eternal value but only specious content in it. Comparing with real masterpieces, such works cannot conflict our hearts intensely. Actually, in my view, those works aimed at be understandable to most people are not real art works.

To sum up, considering limited level and taste of popular, we have to admit that lacking understanding to most people, at least at the beginning, is the destined fate faced by most real masterpieces. However, in order to create more valuable art works, artists should insist on their art yardsticks to express inner feelings, but rather catering to mundane interests.