Фабулна

The viewer gains the right to like or dislike a drama very easily - in exchange for the detached control of his theater ticket. But who gave a critic the right to occupy readers at length with his impressions of one or another work? His acknowledged aesthetic taste Or his ability to present his considerations in an engaging manner? It has always seemed to me very immodest to some people to pass harsh judgments on the taste of others - this one did not have good taste, that one did! It is immodest because in such cases a person silently turns his own attitude towards art into a unit of measure of taste. How could you judge whether the critic's artistic sense is good if you yourself are not convinced that your aesthetic taste is not inferior to it? A significant work of art affects many people not because they have "unified" their tastes, but because it has discovered such an aspect of life that can excite people with the most diverse thoughts, feelings and moods. We often say that art is not a "world closed in on itself." But we do not always think to add that the work of art becomes "world for us" thanks to its ability to connect with the personal, unique life (emotional and intellectual) experience of each of us. And from this it follows: there is no "authoritative" personal taste. Personal taste is the inalienable right of the reader, viewer or listener to experience the work of art - to connect it directly with what he himself was, is or strives to be. This is why in art several different and yet correct interpretations of the same image are possible. Hence the rights of one's own opinion in criticism. It would be risky to demand from it a single "interpretation" of the work of art. But does this mean that there is complete relativity of critical assessments, almost reaching arbitrariness? Is there not a limit beyond which interpretations cease to be well-founded and correct?