Renoir, Monet, Picasso, and Dali. When people look at these names, they picture a great artist whose work is still worth more money then most people make in their lifetimes. Would these great paintings still be worth so much, if it weren’t for the popular opinion about the glory of the painter? Then it stands to ask, who creates the public opinion. In The Critic as an artist, Oscar Wilde defends the need for critics by philosophically arguing that the critic is necessary for art to survive.
By proving this point, however, he also implies that the critique of a piece of art is more important than the art itself. As one who influences the thoughts of many, an art critic must be educated in the art form as well as in the art of writing a critique. Perhaps in society today, his position on the importance of the critic is accurate. The general population relies on critics to tell it what it should enjoy and only read the critisms that it wants. In this capacity, the witty yet knowledgeable critic is highly important in telling society what it wants to believe.
5 comments:
You bring up an interesting and disturbing issue about art and commerce. What gives art its value, and does money really have anything to do with it?
I think with reference to painting the artist deserves the worth of the art. A critique can not stand alone but instead parasites off the artist material. Love the ideas!
i like your opening. It sets the stage.
I agree with you and Wilde. One must question the art and who gives it its worth. Good job, especially with your lede.
great lede! what about art creating meaning? Wilde argues against this as the critic, through his personality, shows what he thinks of a piece but it is not supposed to delve into the deeper meaning (art for art's sake)...I am just curious :)
Post a Comment