In order for any work of art for example a film a novel a poem or a song to have merit it must be understandable to most people Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning f

‘Parasite’, a Korean movie, won five Oscars including the Oscar for best picture – a feat never achieved before by non-English speakers – this year. Art, as beautiful as it seems, can only be appreciated when the viewers find pleasure or are amazed with the piece. As expected, most viewers aren’t Chauffeurs and are layman to grasp completely the details intended by the artist. The prompt suggests that for a work of art to be praised, it must be elucidative to the majority. I strongly agree with this stance and argue that while a piece of art should showcase the artist’s intent, it must do so in an apprehensible manner for two reasons.

To begin, an artwork is acclaimed and criticized by the viewers, this motive is based on how it received by the recipients rather than even the quality itself. For what makes a work ‘quality’, than the perception of the beholder. For instance, in the 1800s, Leonardo Da-Vinci – a renowned artist, painted the Mona Lisa, one of the most merited artwork till date, obtained its acclaim by an astonished audience, who could construe and admire the subtle details of the work. This not only allowed the work to be recognized globally but also made the artist famous worldwide, and his paintings are still regarded of high esteem till date. Despite the presence of other great artists at his time, their works weren’t taken cognizant of, likely due to the abstract nature or banal look of their work. This clearly illustrates the importance of clarity in an art piece and this cannot be overemphasized.

Further, even if the above doesn’t hold true, and the beauty of the work the artist is trying to paint can only be seen in its crude context, the mere fact the meaning can be felt regardless of a different language or region, it is still worthy acclaim. For example, as earlier mentioned, Parasite, a native Korean movie portrayed what seemed to be the occurrence of what actually happens in the whole despite the intent being for events in Korea. From the slum side of people living in poverty, trying to survive and doing what they can – being servants to rich, to the Rich feasting on the poor as the wealth gap increases further. This movie, a masterpiece at its own right, was a double-edged sword, explaining how both parties were at fault and only a systematic approach taken by individuals, government and the world at large can this issue be solved. A novice with no prior knowledge to interpretations of movies can see what the producer was trying to pass and can relate to it even at his daily lives. This were part of reasons that made the movie astounding, and worthy of such credit. Irrespective of being spoken and written in Korean, it was still comprehensible to the audience worldwide.

Of course, some might argue that with the intent to make the work explicable to many, the originality of the piece is hampered with, and thus, might not portray the true intent of the author, otherwise the content will only be comprehensible to a select few, particular those with the same idiosyncrasies as the Author. Is this the case? It has be seen that an original work of high quality will be praised, and while translations in other languages might take place to be understandable to the wider audience, the true intent is passed and merit is given to the work as with the case of ‘Miracle in cell no 7’, originally Korean, the movie was re-made in three more versions of different languages. Thus, if an author neglects the explicability of his work, he does so in his own peril.