|
| |
The Art of Criticism
14-Jul-2009
Written by: Adam Rowan
The true role of reviewers in the world of art – and what they are not
It can be tempting, easy and, often, fun to dismiss critics. Many of them seem to have their heads so firmly embedded in their posteriors that their half-assed opinions seem more like personal diatribes than informative theses concerning the work in question. Artists hate critics, readers are bewildered by them and it regularly appears the most visible reviewers hate everything in the world, including themselves.
However, critics do play an important role in culture, and it’s not simply shoveling bile over everything from a starving painter’s piece de resistance to the new “Transformers” movie. The best criticism adds an element that is absolutely essential for art and the culture surrounding it to progress: dialogue.
Imagine that you exist in a world with only one other person. This individual happens to be an artist. When you come home after a long day roving deserted city streets and killing wild boars for the evening meal, your fellow man (or woman) comes over to your makeshift residence to show you his creations. As you peruse his work, you form opinions on what is before you – some good, some bad, some constructive, some not. In this particular setting, your opinion will essentially become canon; there is only your voice and the artist’s, so the ultimate fate of the art is boiled down to a creator vs. audience dichotomy.
The worst, most maligned critics view art the same way you would were you one of two humans on earth. These critics are conceited enough to believe their thoughts have somehow been elevated to a level of primacy in human culture to the point that they have the final say on what art is worthwhile and what is rubbish. Unfortunately, in a world with only two people, this belief would be nearly correct and quite understandable (though still objectionable on many fronts). And, to compound matters further, the critic almost certainly holds the higher ground over the criticized every time; the artist has put so much of himself into the work that he has developed a massive interest in its reception. The critic can make or break the artist’s success because, in any power struggle, the party with less stake in the end game is much more powerful.
Fortunately, adroit critics recognize they are just one of many voices in the zeitgeist. They believe their opinions are on roughly the same plain with any other informed observer, making their assessment of any work accessible but also intriguing enough to capture the interest of another who experienced the same piece. Critical opinions on works of film, music, theater and literature often speak most coherently to those who hold the piece in the same esteem as the critic. However, the very best critics are those who can coherently argue their case and engage someone on an intellectual level who holds the opposite opinion. The critic may never sway the reader, but the criticism reaches the audience member on the same level of depth as the original work being reviewed.
This sense of discussion is exactly what culture needs, and it is precisely what good criticism delivers. Because criticism is nothing more than an informed, subjective opinion on a piece of art, the best thing any critic’s writing can do is advance an idea that will interrogate, challenge and inform an often polarized audience.
As the Internet continuously makes it easier for people to isolate themselves from values different than their own, talented critics must break down increasingly impregnable barriers to diverse thinking, making available the discourse vital to keeping serious discussion about art alive. Critical subjectivity posing as objective, gospel evaluation is the enemy to free thought because, rather than making meaningful arguments or engaging listeners, the writer instead fashions the ultimate petitio principii fallacy: “This is correct because I say it is correct.”
There are, of course, critics who think this way today; elitism is, stereotypically, the foundation of most schools of criticism. Writers like preeminent music critic Robert Christgau seem to earnestly believe their opinions are grounded in reality, bordering on scientific.
Entire books could be devoted to demonstrate every flaw with this sentiment, but let’s focus on a major problem in which the self-proclaimed “Dean of Rock Critics” and other like-minded reviewers love to indulge. Journalists are taught to think and act like public servants, dutifully sniffing out “the Truth” and reporting it so citizens can make educated decisions affecting their own lives. Seeing how most critics began their journalistic careers as cubby reporters, they too have absorbed this mentality. Many journalists who make the leap to reviewers rabidly misapply the ideal of media integrity to their own writing, resulting in the Consumer Advisor Ethos (CAE).
The Consumer Advisor Ethos makes reviewers believe they serve the public good by reviewing art and entertainment. Most commonly, reviewers who embrace this mindset tend to argue they prevent their readers from “wasting their time and money on [insert what the critic reviews] that is not worth their while.” In a way, this does seem a valuable enterprise: For most people, life is short and money is tight. Any realistic individual might take a friend’s estimation of a movie into account when they’re contemplating renting the newest release at Blockbuster. Critics who adopt CAE are just like that anonymous person’s friend, only the two have never met and the reviewer has tens of thousands of other friends who similarly consider his detached advice.
However, the CAE has two obvious problems. First, critics who buy too far into the idea that they are an authority on which people depend leads to the arrogance most critics of criticism despise. Criticism, after all, is not hard news. It does not deliver word on the flash-flood threatening readers’ homes or the status of a violent crimes trial that has shocked the community; it is a treatise on whether people should read the “Twilight” books or purchase a Linkin Park CD. Most media consumers don’t need criticism – they merely want it.
This leads to the second problem associated with critics’ stuffiness and self-importance. No matter how a reviewer justifies his authority on the subject and how much he asserts that his opinions “speak on behalf” of his readers, a critic’s evaluation is little more than a well thought-out, articulate opinion, if not less (depending on the writer). No matter how big the audience is the critic claims to “speak for,” it is impossible for him to truly represent the tastes of every reader; multiple human preferences on art are far too complex for one person to assimilate with any degree of accuracy.
Furthermore, setting oneself up as a figure capable of evaluating a book and determining if it is required reading for everyone from a hot dog vendor to a CEO raises a stickier issue than the obvious problem of understanding one’s audience well enough to offer consistently accurate advice. Saying whether art is good or bad is a subjective judgment. And, recommending whether or not a piece of art is worth an audience’s time and money requires qualification of what makes something good or bad. Criticism is unscientific because there is no system of measurement for any medium to indicate quality.
This brings us back to this piece’s initial point about how the subjectivity of criticism is the most important thing any review can contribute to culture. Those who approach artwork on its own terms, rather than imposing unearned superiority on evaluating the work, are usually the ones who have the most intriguing insights on the piece, irrespective of whether they liked it or not. That’s the core flaw of reviewers who maintain they are serving the public by protecting them from things they might – or, given the nature of these didactic writers’ rants, will – not like. People will decide what they do and do not like without the help of a reviewer telling them what to think.
Art, however, is harmed every time a critic determines the time and money of a reader he will never know is more valuable than the thought-provoking worth of the work in question. Culture is doubly harmed when a pompous reviewer believes his opinion is the definitive say on a work, shutting out any opportunity for thought or discussion with his closed-mindedness and self-righteousness. Every piece of art demands to be pondered, analyzed, scrutinized and, especially, discussed – this vital process is often the only force that keeps culture moving forward. Art lives and dies by Oscar Wilde’s old mantra: “There is only one thing worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about.”
Talk to other readers about this story on our Facebook page.
|
|
|
|
|
