Issue: 144"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.
2011/1/27
The speaker parallels artist and critic on the level of art’s lasting value, however presents a better consideration to artist over critic. I am not with the speaker to some extent for the reason that although artist contributes the most in the process of creating, critic also gives merits to the lasting value of works of art. What’s more, who is to decide what exactly the value of art is?
What is art? How do we define the value of art? Few questions provoke such heated debate and offer so few satisfactory answers. If we' cannot come to any definitive conclusions, there is still a good deal we can say. Art, acknowledged as a branch of aesthetics philosophy, belongs to social science, which provides a large space for both Zeitgeist and limitations. In that case, the value of art alternatives together with the changes in prosperity of economics, taste in beauty, different areas, various eras, and contemporary standards for art. For religious reasons, Islamic people might not accept Catholicism art during The Crusades time, while they probably acknowledge each other in the next following centuries. Similarly, ancient Asian artists could not be able to accept exoteric Aegean art. And African people may never hear of Etruscan art for centuries. Therefore, we come to the conclusion that art’s value lies generally in the acceptance of a specific aestheticism rather than artists or critics’ contributions.
On the other hand, just because there’s no standard of art, everyone is able to create arts, and artists and critics are the pioneers. Critic to artist is what air to plants. Air supplies the nutrition for plants to generate more of the fresh air. For that matter, the relationship between artists and critics should be a virtuous circle instead of oppositions. As to the artists, they create the works of art with imagination and originality for self-expressions. However, not all the elite masters would be admitted during their lifetime. Australian novelist Franz Kafka composed only four novels through his 41-year short life but his works have influenced the whole world till now. Not surprisingly, like many artists such as Vincent van Gogh and Paul Gauguin, Kafka wasn’t noticed by the public until his death. If it is not the critics, another shining star in human history should vanish through times. Considering this, critics’ contribution to lasting value of arts should not be wiped away. More importantly, critics sometimes act as the other self of certain artists. In evaluating the works, critics are with more rational thinking and psychological analysis which helps them to add many insights into the private meaning that works of art have held for their creators, particularly when that meaning has been hidden even to the artists themselves. To say the least of it, artists speak for themselves, while critics are guides for common people in how to look at and respond to art in museums and galleries. Critics surely open up a field of analysis that they invite common people to explore the art world on their own.
In conclusion, art is a subject that invites controversial opinions. So the lasting value of arts should also maintain to be in discussion. However, considering the two most crucial roles in the merits for art, artists and critics are of equal importance in promulgating it to the world. Critics sometimes know the works better than the creators and more often than not, they serve as a bridge for ordinary people to get approach to the world of art. | 
发表于 2011-1-27 20:31:14
发表于 2011-1-27 20:33:29
签到领寄托币
GO
转发
