Daniel Buren is a well-known French visual ARTist in the international scene. He stARTed his ARTistic work in the late 60s and during more than forty years of ARTistic activity, he relied only on a simple visual element consists of vertical alternating white and colored stripes. In contrast to the Minimalism, Buren’ s ART has dealt with different aspects of the ART world and has been assumed a critical approach against the huge number of the most important cultural institutions such as museums and the ART financial mechanisms. The main character of his ART is to intervention in space by creating an ARTwork which will put the spectator in a critical position against the condition of the presentation of the ARTwork. By imposing itself in space and by passing the rules that establish it, Buren's ART shows the forces that forged our world. The main question in the present paper targeted the critical side of Buren ART; in this regard, the questions are mostly about the relationship between the ART work and the place, how to display and the position of the audience about it and his presence in the place in relation to the architecture. This research regards to the basis of Buren ART concepts, with an analytical approach to its important critical aspect, tries to show the various aspects of the function of the elements of his ART and its effects. To this end, the paper presents a historical picture of neo-avant-garde tendencies in the 1960s. The study of these movements shows a kind of abstinence and simplicity in the ARTistic expression of the ARTists of this period. This is a result of the conceptualization of ART. This less expressing of means of ARTistic expression show itself in different ways; his expressions of own, his gestures, his approach to the subject, material or media. This tendency which caused the minimalism in the united states will emerge in movements such ARTe Povera in Europe, as well as in some nouveau-realists. The BMPT group, of which Buren was a key member, was formed on the basis of a similar trend, whose basic principle was the economy of visual elements. Minimizing the visual element in Buren's work by referring to colored same size tapes, made it possible for him to eliminate the illusion that was one of the ancient functions of painting and allowed the spectator to see the ARTworks in a neutral context. Such a view, free from unnecessary visual elements, facilitated the possibility of taking a critical position. Another important element of Buren's ART that this ARTicle tries to explain is the concept of authenticity. By creating non-transferable or reproducible ARTworks, Buren explores the fundamental issue of authenticity that is in relation to the ownership and commodity value. Buren's works are thought and realized in the pARTicular places. The transfer of ownership of these works is one of the ARTist's critical discourses. To this end, by defining special contracts, he tries to have some kind of control over his work of ART even after handing. Therefore, determining the authenticity of ARTist's work does not depend on the market, but on the conditions that the ARTist defines. So, renouncing the conditions defined by the ARTist will cause the loss of authenticity of his work. Finally, the ARTicle deals with one of the most important keywords of the ARTist's innovative words, which is the concept of "in situ". Buren's work puts the spectator in a special interaction with spatial elements. These elements include facade, landscape, frame, point of view and architecture. In these works, we observe the ARTist's ironic tone to the elements that form our vision field in a certain place. It can be seen that each of the operations performed by the ARTist highlights an invisible aspect of the work's spatial context. The result of this research discusses the critical discourses resulting from the ARTist's actions, which, by changing the function or imposing processes on the work, clearly aim to challenge the performance of institutions (cultural, public, economic, etc. ) which determine the presentation of ARTwork.

From near the end of eighteenth century, the scholars’ mentality toward the Bible was greatly changed. Before this time, thinking about the Bible was under the authority of church doctrines. But the increasing dissatisfaction of the way ecclesiastical authorities use the Bible, the growth of deism, and the aggressions of enlightenment end to a new age of criticism. The CRITICS addressed the Bible as a human work and a product belonged to an age of human history. They examined it carefully, and challenged almost all aspect of it. Their views about the real authors of the book, its contradictory matters, and historical, scientific and geographical errors cause its position to be declined. Those Christians who considered the Bible as an infallible book guiding humans to happiness tried to find out some general or pARTicular solutions to answer objections. Introducing the critical movement of the Bible and its results, this paper will classify all solutions under four titles: 6 superficiality of contradictions, the analogical interpretation, the original copy and unlawfulness of criticizing the Bible.

This study is an attempt to deal with the CRITICS, made in form of speeches and papers, on the life, thoughts and works left by Sohrab Sepehri (1928-1978), the Iranian poet and painter. The study tries to examine and analyze the critical method and literature CRITICS value clear making, critic's health, failure and success of the criticisms made by CRITICS on Sepehri, contents of the works by Sepehri, treatment with Sepehri's works and the likes as of the first time made till 1997 in Farsi literature publications.In the contemporary Farsi poetry extensive speaking has been made on Sohrab Sepehri after Nima Yushij. These parses and blames have continued from the time of the poet life till now. Most of the CRITICS have been made on the links between Sepehri’s poem and painting, hit attention on the East Philosophy and Gnosticism, naturalism, simple style and sincerity of the poems, non dealing with politics-social issues, abstract concepts, language and style of expression. Among the CRITICS, those dealt with Sepehri’s poems and ARTs on scientific-research viewpoints are handful. Moreover, some viewpoints are imitation and calques from the others’ works. The writers of the present ARTicle maintain that the criticisms made by the CRITICS should be criticized aimed at evaluating their correctness.

The mysterious and esoteric world of mythologies of ancient Greece which came to existence by human imagination, and human beings have connected to it by their heARTs, was destroyed by Socratic new opinions.Socrates declared an Apollonian thought, based on which everything should be evaluated by rational judgment, and truth of everything can be achieved by mind, because the final judge is the reason. As a result, the tragedy as the most important characteristic of Greek ART must be underestimated; because Socrates’ teachings cause to underestimate the ART, but Nietzsche in contrast to Socrates idea, suggest a kind of aesthetics worldview.Accordingly, the world is a master piece which deserves to be praised and glorified.Nietzsche has criticized Socrates approaches because in Socrates thought, human worldview is an Apollonian, strict and logical attitude which can remove the happiness and pleasure from our life and it will make the life worthless.

Among the various interpretations of Michelangelo’s Moses, Freud’s is well-known. The founder of psychoanalysis, Freud reviews all the CRITICS and interpretations of this masterpiece and then offers his own: this Moses is not about to spring up, as claimed by others, but on the contrary, is sitting down, suppressing his "rage". In the light of recent works of Daniel Arasse, ART critic (study of the "signification” of the index finger in Renaissance works), and Christian Bromberger, anthropologist (Trichologiaques, the analysis of the significations of pilosity, "beard" in pARTicular), and by integrating some details neglected by CRITICS up to now, the author of this paper intends to argue that the main theme of this set of three statues together (Moses, Rachel and Lea) is that of power. The arrangement of the assembly is symmetrical: the divine power or celestial (horned Moses in the center, the Tablets of the Law and the contemplative posture of Rachel on the left) and the terrestrial power of the man-prophet (the palpable force emanating from exuberant musculature, the imposing beard, the statue of Lea staring at the EARTh).

The subject of literary criticism has been of great importance in the subcontinent, and many CRITICS have written criticism on both poetry and prose. Many CRITICS and their works have been introduced or even published, but some are still preserved in manuscript form in various libraries. Generally, the written reviews are in prose, but among the existing works, reviews are also written in poetry, which is interesting in its own way. Sheyda Fathpouri, Munir Lahori and Abdul Baghi Sahbai are among the prominent CRITICS of the subcontinent who have tried to experience criticism in the form of order, which seems to have been remarkably successful. Although the regularity of their criticism has caused some limitations. Despite the very valuable works that have been written in the field of literary criticism in the subcontinent, with the identification and discovery of different and innovative works in this field, the scope of literary criticism in the subcontinent becomes wider and more obvious every day, and it shows that this category is of great importance among writers, scholars and writers of that country have been blessed. In this ARTicle, we have first introduced the critical accounts of the poem, and then we have pointed out the motives of some of these CRITICS in writing their criticisms, and then we have examined and analyzed these criticisms. Extended Abstract Introduction Although the knowledge of literary criticism is new and belongs to the last century, but by searching and identifying the past sources, we can see its traces in the ancient works and some writers and CRITICS who professionally dealt with literary criticism. The history of literary criticism in the history of Persian literature has been more or less investigated and books have been written in this field. But what is very important in this context is that this topic enjoyed a lot of prosperity and prestige in the subcontinent, and there were great CRITICS in that land who gave credibility to the topic of literary criticism in Persian literature by writing important works in this context. One of the wonders of literary criticism in the subcontinent is that, in addition to numerous works of criticism, which are written in prose, in a few cases we also come across criticism in verse, which is interesting in its own way. In the subcontinent, some CRITICS have criticized poems or works that have useful points and, in addition to the content of the criticism, are also interesting in terms of structure and appearance. History of criticism and literary theory of poetry in Persian literature Literary criticism and theory of poetry in a broad and independent way does not exist in Persian literature. Perhaps some literary debates and controversies in the form of poetry, which has a long history in Persian literature, can be related to the category of criticism to some extent. The most famous of these literary controversies took place between Onsori and Ghazayeri Razi. In addition, some poets have made a general comment about the whole poem, the poetry of other poets, as well as praising their own poems, from a single verse to a complete poem. Even if these can be defined under criticism, they are still completely different from what some CRITICS of the subcontinent have written. The CRITICS of the subcontinent used to criticize poems in a professional manner and pointed out important points in the correction of verses. Poetry criticism among CRITICS of the subcontinent As mentioned, some CRITICS of the subcontinent, who are also Persian-speaking poets of that land, have presented their criticism in verse based on their own taste. The story begins when Haji Mohammadjan Qudsi Mashhadi (990-1056 AH), a famous poet of the Indian style, sang an ode in the memory of Imam Reza (PBUH). Sheyda Fathpouri, who was one of the well-known poets of that era, wrote a poetic criticism in the same weight and rhyme of the Qudsi ode and raised objections to some of its verses. After him, Munir Lahori, one of the famous Indian writers, poets and CRITICS, gave a brilliant answer in the same weight and rhyme. Abdul Baqi Sahbai, one of the poets and CRITICS of that period, once again attacked Sheyda with the same weight and rhyme and defended Qudsi. After them, Arzoo wrote the treatise Dad-e Sokhan based on these criticisms and as a "trial" between these CRITICS in prose, and to a large extent he took the side of Qudsi and sometimes Munir. Of course, due to the fact that the CRITICS have restricted themselves to respect the weight and rhyme, in some cases there is a weakness in the verses or filling, but in general they have achieved their purpose and at least they have been able to create a new wave in literary criticism. Values of systematic criticism format Perhaps, the main reason for choosing "order" for criticism is a kind of complicity. Because it is very difficult to write a review in verse and in a specific weight and rhyme. In other words, the CRITICS criticized the poem in verse form in order to show off their knowledge and grace to the poets or other scientific rivals. Dealing with poem criticism from another aspect is also noteworthy, and that is the category of defamiliarization. This means that usually the written criticism of an ARTistic work is usually in prose, but the CRITICS of the subcontinent, like the poets of that land, whose poems we have often witnessed defamiliarization in matters related to the aesthetics of poetry, have welcomed a kind of deconstruction or defamiliarization, which consists of the same criticism is the poem. The CRITICS Sheyda Fathpouri is one of the poets and CRITICS of the 11th century, who is especially famous for his criticism of Qudsi's ode. Sheyda liked the old style in poetry and did not believe in the new style in poetry. He criticized 20 verses of Qudsi's ode in the form of 43 verses. Munir Lahori (1054-1019) is a well-known poet, writer and critic of the subcontinent who was born in Lahore. Munir was also among the CRITICS who, although he wrote poetry in the "new way" at first, but later changed his style and wrote poetry in the old way. He was one of the fans of the old style, and for this reason, he attacked four Persian-speaking poets of the new style in Siraj Munir and defended several advanced poets. Munir is the first person who responded to Sheyda's criticism of Qudsi and in the form of about 90 verses, he rushed to Sheyda in defense of Qudsi. His criticisms, which in some cases had a sharp and biting tone, were centered on rhetorical and grammatical points, of course Arzoo answered a significant number of them. Mir Abd al-Baghi Sahbai (died 1094 AH), a poet and writer of the subcontinent, who is less famous than the previous CRITICS. He is also one of Sheyda's CRITICS, but Sahbai's criticism does not have a high analytical power compared to Mounir's and Sheyda's criticisms, as well as Arzoo's, however, new points can also be found in his criticism. Also, the criticism of Sahbai's poems is of great importance in the study of the tradition of literary criticism in the subcontinent. Arzoo (1169-1099 AH), the most famous critic of the subcontinent, who has many works in various fields of rhetoric, linguistics, tazkira, description of literary texts, etc., has three very important books in the field of literary criticism; Tanbieh al-Ghafilin, Siraj Munir and Dad-e Sokhan said that the subject of the recent treatise is a response to these criticisms of the poem and in a way a defense of Mashhad's sacredness. While quoting these poetic criticisms, Arzoo has tried to answer them in a scientific, precise and fair manner. The main motivations of Sheyda from Qudsi criticism The root of Sheyda's criticism can be found in several other cases. One is his poetic taste and style; In such a way that Sheyda, contrary to the common style of his contemporaries, was inclined to the old style and simplicity and moderation of their poetry in terms of the use of metaphors. Another important issue is that Sheyda is the leader of a literary movement in India that believes that the Persian language and literature are not only for Iranians, and that Indian-origin professors of Persian literature are experts in this field and have the right to occupy it. Also, Sheyda believed that Iranians do not believe and pay attention to Indian poets and do not value the poets of this region in terms of poetry and literature. These factors can be seen as an introduction to his enmity with a poet like Qudsi who was Iranian. The majority of Sheyda's criticisms in this criticism are related to lexical, rhetorical and "everyday language" or colloquial issues, and sometimes legal and philosophical issues, which are often not free of mistakes. From this criticism of Sheyda and also the responses of the protestors, it can be seen that his criticisms were not without bias and mostly because of the lack of attention of Iranian poets to him. It is also clear from Arzoo's reviews of Sheyda that, due to Sheyda's strong relationship with the old style and lack of belief in the new style, he is not very familiar with the stylistic characteristics of the poetry of this period, especially in terms of the use of metaphors, or at least he is not interested in this style. Some axes of critical criticism Sheyda Sheyda has paid attention to many minor and major issues in his criticism of Qudsi verses. From the lack of meaning in the verse to dealing with legal and philosophical issues. Here we only discuss the main and most important points of Sheyda's criticism of Mashhadi's Qudsi ode: Lack of semantic connection in the structure of holy poetry, ignoring everyday language, failure to pay attention to grammar and language points, incorrect combinations in Qudsi poetry and not having a document and history in using some phrases and combinations. Conclusion Poetry criticism in the subcontinent has been successful with all its structural limitations, and CRITICS have presented their criticisms regardless of poetic limitations. Another issue is that by carefully detailing the content of the reviews, it can be concluded that CRITICS have attached more importance to formalism in poetry. If we pay attention to the axes of Sheyda's criticism and other people's answers, we can clearly see this approach to structure and form. Also, based on these reviews, we can see that people like Sheyda and Munir had no belief or interest in the new way or the basics of Indian style, but people like Arzoo and to some extent Sahbai believed and were interested in this style. Another thing is that since the vast majority of written criticisms in the subcontinent are in prose, writing poetry criticism is a kind of norm avoidance and highlighting, which is one of the characteristics of Indian poets in poetry. Another issue is that although compared to the prose criticisms written in the subcontinent, the poetry criticisms have occupied a much smaller volume (perhaps ten percent), but those criticisms cannot be ignored, and certainly in the review of the history of literary criticism in the Persian language and literature, these systematic reviews should also be evaluated.

An important change which emerged through the last century is the progressive role of the state in social life. In contrast to classic sociology, which was mainly based on society in discussion up to twentieth century and avoided the discussion of the state and its changes-with an exception of Marxist sociology-in the twentieth century, and in pARTicular the recent years, the state not only brought great changes in social life, but also found importance in sociological theories. This makes the fundamental hypothesis in this paper.