- 最后登录
- 2008-2-17
- 在线时间
- 0 小时
- 寄托币
- 1070
- 声望
- 0
- 注册时间
- 2005-3-2
- 阅读权限
- 25
- 帖子
- 1
- 精华
- 0
- 积分
- 840
- UID
- 198388

- 声望
- 0
- 寄托币
- 1070
- 注册时间
- 2005-3-2
- 精华
- 0
- 帖子
- 1
|
Issue 144 “It is the artists, not the critic, who gives society something of lasting value.”
Who give society something of lasting value, the artist or the critic? The author asserts that it is the artist. In my opinion, I agree with what the auger holds conditionally, it is undoubtedly that the artist created incarnated works which influence the physical and spirit value of society, while critics always give useful advices to the arts which enhance the creativity and the value of the works. Moreover, many critics sometimes are artists of the given field.
First, there exist numerous works which bring society something of lasting value. The value comes from the wisdom creativity of the artists which can be definite as spirit, beauty, or peacefulness. For instance, in the aspect of literature, Shakespeare is English poet and writer, whose works are considered as the greatest in Middle century’s literature. His works such as Hamlet and King Lear are deemed as of abstruse mind which was show on the stage for several times and until now people would also see the plays on television that brings society valuable spirit. In the aspect of painting, the famous smile of Mona Lisa is recognized as the most beautiful and mysterious work which was created by Vinci and it gives society lasting value of beauty. In the aspect of music, German composer Beethoven was the greatest composer of his day. His music, which formed a transition from classical to romantic composition, includes 9 symphonies, 5 piano concertos, a violin concerto, 32 piano sonatas, several other sonatas, 2 Masses, and an opera are of wonderful valuable to society by bring people the touching beauty and peacefulness. All these are the works of artists.
Nevertheless, critics are necessary in the development of arts. In one place, with the judgment of critics, the works of artists would gain more progress. The critics may point out the defects which exist in arts, and after the improvement the arts would of more value. In another place, the critics would better interpret the meaning of the arts which reassured the society the value of the works. Thus with the judgment of critics, the arts gain improvement and acknowledgement of society.
Furthermore, some critics are always artists themselves in the given field. Admittedly the researchers or experts of the literatures, paintings, or music would give significant advices and critical judgment to the arts, the artists themselves always be critics of the works of the same field. When a composer have finished a music, he would ask for critical advice form his friends whom may be musician as well, so the critic is also an artist and he would give society something of lasting valuable.
In sum, as the argument above, we can at least draw a conclusion: artists gives society something of lasting value while critic would do some help to the valuable works. |
|