Name NPM Subject

: Astrid Widya Natasha : 180410110210 : Critical Theory (Response #1) The Role of Criticism in Literature

When we talk about arts, we probably might also want to talk about creation. How an art can be produced, who create the art, and so on. If there is a creation there must be a person, who is responsible for its materialization, called creator. Creator is someone that must be powerful or at least is in a step of a higher level of its creation. Thus, the creator has an instant authority to his creation. He can do every thing regarding, and is responsible for, his creation. In literature, creation, in this case is art, can be formed as poetry, a short story, a novel, and any kind of textual form that in the end will be served to public which will invite people to criticize them. I think, the creation of art will be published in order to be criticized and it has always been that way. Therefore, why the art has to be criticized anyway. According to the Fryes writing, The Function of Criticism at the Present Time, the function of criticism is to mediate between the artist and his public (1949: 34). That mediation, I believe, has a significant purpose that is to say to be a bridge between the artist and his public. This means between the artist and the public does not always have to be good because the way that criticism works in some way automatically leads the public to have their judgment to value the art. If we talk about value, we might also want to question about who is the legitimate and authorized being to give the value and from what pillars he got for having such a power to give label to a thing. If there is something such a thing, there should be a standard in valuating something so that everything is worth equally. Thus, I should question: what standard that whom use to value a thing? Is it necessary to value a thing? What value that is legitimate to label a thing? What kind of thing is worth to be valued? According to Mathew Arnold, back then on the 19 th century, on his work The Criticism in Our Present Time, so does Northrop Frye in the 1940s and Terry Eagleton in the 1990s, stated that there should be something as a function to lead the criticism. Then again, I am curious about knowing what criticism is. But then again, is it important to find it out or not?

The word reference or referencing may be perfectly fit to represent: The importance of criticism is to value. In the ancient time, maybe around 2000BC, all of creations belonged to God, as the highest Creator. If we could go back to a few centuries earlier, according to Christians holy bible, no one was allowed to present himself, as a creator except he is a prophet or a messenger or the chosen one. There is, again, only one creator, God Almighty, according to the Holy Bible of King James version on Job 38:4-7, it says Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation?" God asked him. "Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions (?)...On what were its footings set, or who laid its cornerstonewhile the morning stars sang together and all the angels shouted for joy?" No man would know at creation and no one was allowed to claim his creation, as he will be considered as a dissident (or protester) as it is said on Isaiah 14: 12-15, How you are fallen from heaven, O Day Star, son of Dawn! How you are cut down to the ground, you who laid the nations low! You said in your heart, I will ascend to heaven; above the stars of God I will se t my throne on high; I will sit on the mount of assembly in the far reaches of the north; I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High. But you are brought down to Sheol, to the far reaches of the pit That may give myself a bit hint to answer the question of why some famous yet elder generation artists, such as Eyck1 and Buoninsegna2, only painted human as their main object on their artwork and were published, instead of representing a scenery of a beautiful enormous white full moon into a painting. It is true that for some people who believe in God decide they should not become a faithful protester by claiming their production as they were all imitating Others previous works: Gods work. However, I find it also as an irony when a faithful protester, according to Christians holy bible, is considered as a dissident, but he is a Protestant. In one hand he is regarded as a faithful Protestant and on the other hand that is as well why he called a Protestant. Platos work Ion encourages the reader to believe there is something as a world of idea where the creativity can freely swim through the nerve of conception to connect all of the mental picture that are on our mind to later be translated into something physical and material. However, on the opinion of Arnold, there is a

creative power, which means that there is a right for a creator to create a creation. Creative power consists of elements, materials, substances, media, and so on. There is also a Critical power. What about Critical Power? According to Scholes in The English Apparatus and Paul de Man in The Resistance to Theory, to know what the critical power is we have also need to know the distinction between writing as producing and reading as consuming. In learning how to criticize the literature works: poem, novel, play, etc., an important thing to be considered is to differ at what stage we are as the critics in and to find out the work criticized (consumed) and the work produced. It is true that by creating something it means that we producing something. In producing something we may need elements, substances and media as well to materialize the concept of the mental picture in our mind to turn it into something real. The question is: where the materials, elements and so on can be obtained? If it can be obtained from the previous works of others then it should probably be called as imitation. Is it true? However in producing, we are influenced, more or less, with the previous work that makes it less worthy to be called original. There is nothing natural on this universe is a grammatically correct sentence. In contrast, if we take a deeper look at it, the question would be: is it semantically correct? I do not think so. Thus, it makes me realized that critical power is more preferably thought as natural because the way it work, though it is influenced by previous work that can make one think someway, is dissimilar between one and another. Why is that? There is a personal taste and public taste. What personal taste and public taste are is not going to have a clear-cut explanation on this writings. To find the difference between both of them is also unnecessary, I assume. But, I would prefer like to use the term compare as I have done it on several paragraphs before. Personal taste is associated with one persons fetish. Public taste is associated with two or more peoples fetish. Both of them are valuing only aesthetically (Mitchell says that representation has been the foundational concept in aesthetics and semiotics). They ialso are not the same. I mean someones fetish on something must be different from another. If there is a same fetish of two people, it is not identical. Then again, the question will be raised 3

on what standard that is used if everyones fetish is artificial and different from one to another. What method that is used to maintain peoples taste so that it is unified as to be considered natural? It makes me think that whether the term representation is used due to the creativity was prohibited or is it another thing as a gateway. In conclusion, the criticism in literature is important to resolve the differences and to be a mediator between the artist and the public. The artist produces the artwork in order to be criticized by the public. The public criticizes the artwork of the artist in order to communicate with the artist as well. Thus, it is all about the communication in literature.

Jan van Eyck (or Johannes de Eyck) (Dutch: [jn vn jk]; before c. 1390 before c. 9 July 1441) was a Flemish painter active in Bruges and is generally considered one of the most significant Northern European painters of the 15th century.
i

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_van_Eyck 2:40 a.m. 19 2 Duccio di Buoninsegna (Italian: [dutto di bwninsea]; c. 1255-1260 c. 1318-1319) was an Italian artist, active in the city of Siena in Tuscany, where he was born, in the late 13th and early fourteenth centuries. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duccio 2:42 a.m. 19

Bibliography Arnold, Mathew. The Function of Criticism at the Present Time Eagleton, Terry. The Criticism in Our Present Time. Edited by Julie Rivkin and Michael Ryan. Literary Theory: An Anthology Second Edition. Blackwell. Frye, Northrop. 2000. The Anatomy of Criticism. Edited by Harold Bloom. Anatomy of Criticism. Princeton University Press. King James Version, Holy Bible http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duccio. Visited on Thursday, September 19 2013. 2:42 a.m. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_van_Eyck. Visited on Thursday, September 19 2013. 2:40 a.m. http://www.theartwolf.com/articles/most-important-painters.htm. Visited on Thursday, September 19 2013. 2:31 a.m. De Man, Paul. 1986. The Resistance to Theory Plato. Ion Scholes, Robert E. 1985. The English Apparatus. Textual Power. Binghamton, New York: Vall-Ballou Press.