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: 564 TIME: 1:00:00 DATE: 2007-8-4
　　Artists and critics are always the two primary kinds of people both dealing with the art, no matter novels, films, music, paintings, etc.
　　When it comes to the masterpieces of everlasting value, there are always a host of different ideas held by different people in different fields, but the majority of people are more likely to associate only with artists such as Monet, Leonardo da Vinci, Beethoven, and so forth， rather than some critics in history. Why, you may wonder, do people rarely remember those critics? Actually, most of comments critics gave would fade away during the history, although those comments might be to some extent, if they were, of value to the development of art. After all, it is the artist, not the critic, who gives society something of lasting value.
　　To begin with, it true that Critics who have a more insightful and comprehensive view of the art, may give more valuable comments on artworks than common individuals do, which might lead general people to a fresh way to appreciate artworks. In addition, critics tend to establish criterions of judging an artwork, so that they are seemingly bringing about a more widespread appreciation of art. Besides, salutary constructive perspectives and viewpoints critics made, if accepted by the artist, would promote the level of art effectively and efficiently. All of these facts seem to show that critics have slightly /somewhat/to some extent contributed to the development of the art.
　　However, on more occasions, the comments of critics on arts are misleading and always so different from one another, which prevents common people from appreciating art works in their own views.U As for the comments for Dream of the Red Chamber, some critics consider it a love story; other critics hold the opinion that it is something about a family's destiny; still other critics comment that it is actually about some young persons' friendship. Yet, as a matter of fact, when reading such a novel, the most important for a common reader is no other than their own feelings about the story, which is mostly damaged by those comments critics made before.
　　In addition, during the history, a lot of artists' creations were so excellent and beyond the comprehension of most critics and as a result, many great works or even the artist who made them were rejected by people, mostly due to the misunderstanding and misleading criticism by most critics, and subsequently by the common individuals who were misled by those critics. UHistory is always replete with such examples. It was that a pity that Most of the novels of Franz Kafka, the famous European expressionistic writer, were not accepted by people until his death and it was also that a pity that Vincent van Gogh, one of the greatest three postimpressionistic painters, died without his paintings being appreciated by people. However, after the examination of history, both Kafka's novels and Gogh's paintings are regarded as high-level artworks by people all over the world today.
　　In summary, even though those critics might have done slightly contributions to the development of art, they are not the very persons that provide the society with something of lasting value. With the passage of time, critics' comments obtain increasingly less attention and people tend to remember only the artists rather than critics. After all, it is the artist who gives people something of eternal value.