This statement asserts that art, not the art
critic, provides something of lasting valueto society. I strongly agree with the statement. Although the critic can help us understandand appreciate art, more often than not, critique is either counterproductive toachieving the objective of art or altogether irrelevant to that objective.To support the statement the speaker might point out the three ostensible functionsof the art critic. First,
critics can help us understand and interpret art; a criticwho is familiar with a particular
artist and his or her
works might have certain insightsabout those works that the layperson would not. Secondly, a critic''s evaluationof an art work serves as a filter, which helps us determine which art is worth our timeand attention. For example, a new novel by a best-selling author might neverthelessbe an uninspired effort, and if the critic can call our attention to this fact we gain timeto seek out more worthwhile literature to read.Thirdly, a critic can
provide feedbackfor artists; and constructive criticism, if taken to heart, can result in better work.However, reflecting on these three functions makes clear that the art critic actuallyoffers very little to society.The first
function is better accomplished by docentsand teachers, who are more able to enhance a layperson''s appreciation and understandingof art by providing an objective, educated interpretation of it. Besides, trueappreciation of art occurs at the moment we encounter art; it is the emotional, evenvisceral impact that art has on our senses, spirits, and souls that is the real
value of art.A critic can actually provide a disservice by distracting us from that experience.The critic''s second function-that of evaluator who filters out bad art from theworthwhile-is one that we must be very wary of. History supports this caution. Inthe role of judge, critics have failed us repeatedly. Consider, for example,Voltaire''srejection of Shakespeare as barbaric because he did not conform to neo-classicalprinciples of unity. Or, consider the complete dismissal of Beethoven''s music by theesteemed critics of his time.The art critic''s judgment is limited by the narrow confinesof old and established parameters for evaluation. Moreover, critical judgment isoften misguided by the ego; thus, its value is questionable in any event.I turn finally to the critic''s third function: to provide usehl feedback to artists.The value of this hnction is especially suspect. Any artist, or anyone who has studiedart, would agree that true art is the product of the artist''s authentic passion, a manifestationof the artist''s unique creative impulse, and a creation of the artist''s spirit. If artwere shaped by the concern for integrating feedback from all criticism, it wouldbecome a viable craft, but at the same time would cease to be art.In sum, none of the ostensible functions of the critic are of much value at all, letalone of lasting value, to society. On the other hand, the artist, through works of art,provides an invaluable and unique mirror of the culture of the time during which thework was produced-a mirror for the artist''s contemporaries and for future generationsto gaze into for insight and appreciation of history.The art critic in a subordinaterole, more often than not, does a disservice to society by obscuring this mirror.
More abstracts about the The value of art vs. that of art critic