Please evaluate my first issue:True test of the greatness of a work of art...

[cool_aspirant]

The true test of the greatness of a work of art is its ability to be understood by the masses

Time : 40 mins

 

The speaker states that the true test of the greatness of art is its ability to be understood by the masses. Though I concede with the speaker’s statement that the gaining popularity of the art among the masses means greatness, the undue emphasis on greatness being only if understood by the masses is not always true and it varies from case to case.

 

Firstly, the work of art is considered great by its nicety and perfection which can be evaluated by the connoisseurs in the particular field. For example the experts in music are the best judge to evaluate the perfection in the musical notes which may not be evaluated to perfection by the masses.

 

In a TV reality show such as "American Idol", the Judges present in the show are capable of judging the quality of the music and giving the right comments. Yet, the masses may not follow the comments of the experts in the field and they might support a candidate who may not be the best in the art but appealing to the masses in a different ways. The candidate could be appealing by his/her personality, fashion or funny talks on the show. Considering the speakers statement in this case the real greatness of the art is camouflaged and a person may gain support for the non-artistic reasons.

 

Secondly in the theatrical world, the greatness of the acting does not necessarily appeal the masses. The masses fall for dramas or movies showing contents which are obscene or sexual oriented. Though this is not a true artistic approach, it tends to move the masses looking for some spice in the show.

 

In support of the speaker's statement there are cases where the masses understand the work of art and emphasizing on the true test of greatness. For example, popular writers like J.K Rowling famous for the Harry potter series or Ayn Rand's novels stressing the philosophy of Objectivism has appealed the masses and gained popularity in terms of greatness of the art. In particular Ayn Rand has found a place among the intellectuals who are objective in their approach, those who contribute to the society by their logics and measurement and not by the emotions.

 

Summing up, there is no sure reason for the test of the greatness of art to be true only if it has the ability to be understood by the masses. In some cases great art is reflected by the popularity among the masses where as in other cases the fake art gains popularity by concealing the fallacies with things that appeals to the masses psychologically.

 

 

 

Thanks in advance for evaluating my essay

[Shalom Ichthys]

A good one with pertinent examples. I would suggest you to deal with the subtle differences between true and false tests. What are the test that prevaricate the audiences? Isn't it the instantaneous enticement but not the level of proficiency? Following your example, would hit-rate or sales-revenue being better gauges of greatness?

 

A central theme to scribbling a GRE essay is the analysis of scientific methods. Are there any fallacies inherited in the evaluative procedures of greatness? I am less than an acolyte in arts, yet I always think of "mechanism design" in deriving sound decisions. Is the rule of "greatness" based on comprehension alone too heuristic and dichotomous in itself, after all?

 

Now, may I invite the audiences to evaluate my essay as well. It takes around 15 minutes to scribble, hope it works to get a good score!

 

The true test of the greatness of a work of art is its ability to be understood by the masses

 

For so many published works of art, only a minority will become ‘great’ in the lenses of so many. For this reason, it is controversial, if not contentious to decide the greatness of a piece of work solely by its acceptance by the masses. In fact, it can take so many years before its ascension on the world’s stage.

 

Sometimes, the causality of comprehension to prevalence is too predisposed to disincline. The recent release of Gangnam style well nullifies this point. Around the world, it has captured the attention of so many, yet only a dearth understands what the Korean lyrics are all about. By all metrics it is a great extemporaneous song, despite its language obscurity to those who do not speak the Korean language. Thus, even though the mass does not understand, from the other form of expressions, such as dance and rhythms, people from all works of lives applaud this song, in that action speaks louder than words.

 

The previous example suggests that even though it’s not completely understood by the mass, or only in one form but not the other, it can still survive the true test of greatness, say Youtube clickthrough rate. Now then, what remains is whether obscurity it itself is appraised and deemed as a measure of greatness. I guess nobody truly understand Mona Lisa is all about, except the peculiar smile that daunts you at night. Also, were it not for several hundred years of sedimentation, it wouldn’t survive the true test of time. While the celebrated song of Gangnam style has become a one-hit-wonder, the true test of a piece of artwork is its sustainability, not for an evanescent approbation but for a longlasting appreciation.

 

This said, may I suggest that the true test rests in time, not in a narrow sense of duration of hibernation prior to widespread acceptance, say the Chinese poems which become so eloquently recited only after the author’s death for a long time, but the duration of prevalence that passes from generations to generations. What’s more, a solo benchmark of understanding by the mass is in itself considerable but not exclusive. What comes to an artwork’s popularity may be attributed to its obscurity and intrigue, rather than its forthrightness and parsimony. After all, who knows if one adorns intricate than explicit artworks? Doesn’t it recall our childhood in which we adore complicated puzzles than a straightforward arithmetic formula?