At a time of copious opinions on the Net, what distinguishes a good critic? And how does he or she review the arts?
A critic must first justify their existence before they can attain any cultural significance, and thus have any effect or reap any recognition as a result of being good. Being good is a balancing act between giving your audience what it wants and what it needs—between knowing your bias, being aware of your audience and writing for those who do not share your tastes and asserting your knowledge, communicating your insights and challenging your readers to grow as patrons of art.
First of all a critic must differentiate themselves from popular opinion. They do this out of necessity, for everyone has an opinion, and if they were all the some, people would pay no more heed to one than another and the classification of “critic” would dissolve entirely. There isn’t a sound logical or ethical reason for this difference to exist, however, except that one can count on public opinion to be frequently incorrect. There are numerous persons who comprise the general public that willfully, gleefully admit their knowingly undiscerning tastes. A pessimistic critic would say these are the bane of our work, while an optimistic critic would say these are the inexperienced who would certainly like better art if they were exposed to it as they are to commercial garbage.
The next thing that must happen is for the public to acquiesce slightly to the divergent opinion of the critics. As Roger Ebert puts it in “’Critic’ is a four-letter word,” “We are all allotted an unknown but finite number of hours of consciousness. Maybe a critic can help you spend them more meaningfully.” It may be that relatively few people are truly swayed by critics, but so long as others recognize the ability of a critic to influence opinion, and at least feel guilty about missing movies they know are probably good or better, then the critic has a place in society. Critics of course serve other functions, some key to their quality and others relatively incidental as above.
What a critic should and must do to be good is a different question with multiple answers. The issue of knowledge education and credentials blurs the line. Theoretically two people with completely different education and artistic backgrounds could write the same words in a review. Theoretically so could a monkey with a typewriter. Having an understanding of the art a critic reviews is a key component of the actual craft of criticism, another is being able to write in the dark. This is because critics need to be sure they understood the art after a single viewing and limited time. They seldom if ever get the chance to revise their opinion. In Time Out Chicago’s Blog critics roundtable Don Hall said “I think passion and education go hand in hand. If you’re passionate about theater, you’ll likely educate yourself about it.” Anne Holub added, “Right, and since most subjects are constantly changing and growing, it’s likely going to be a lifelong pursuit.” If you look to insight rather than knowledge, the ability to generate an then convey useful ideas about a work of art is something a good critic must do.
The point of having an opinion is not to assert your ego, but to convey something meaningful or useful in some way to your readership. As Michael Phillips says in the article “Talking Pictures,” “Approached the wrong way criticism is an inherently arrogant and narcissistic pursuit.” In the same article Don Hall says, “In order to appropriately criticize, a dollop of self-awareness is necessary-knowing your own prejudices, etc.” Phillips says something else in addressing the Rosenberg story, pointing to the business end of criticism as a reason to appeal to the public. But appealing to readers should be its own inherent value. Ebert has always tried to make a point to reach out to those with vastly different tastes than his own in his reviews. If he has to watch four movies only a 13-year-old boy could endure in one summer week, he not only say that, but also guess at how a 13-year-old boy might enjoy each film individually.
On the other hand Ebert further states in the same article that “If ‘Siskel & Ebert & Roeper’ had any utility at all, it was in exposing viewers, many of them still children, to the notion that it was permitted to have opinions, and expected that you should explain them.” So the critic becomes a media literacy teacher, combating the effect of capitalist apathy on the arts. But while bel hooks might say this quality made a good critic, more still believe being overly opinionated, or having an opinion for its own sake is a strange goal.
A good critic must also be a good journalist. They must not be corrupted, but should remain virtuous to the ideals of their craft. A good critic must also be useful. Not just passable or appealing, but useful. They can achieve this either as informative journalism, helping with time management and entertainment goals, or even by producing criticism that itself qualifies as art. Maurice Berger in the article “The Crisis of Criticism” says “By connecting the artifact and its institutions to the bigger picture of culture and society, the critic can, in effect, help readers better to understand the process and implications of art, the importance and problems of its institutions, and their relevance to their lives.” A good critic must also be honest. They must in good faith attempt to relate to the art as a human being, and then try to communicate that experience to their readers. They must learn to balance their honesty with their usefulness. Finally, a good critic has a responsibility to the art. While recognizing that they are not lordly arbiters of culture, a good critic must raise awareness of issues in their field of art, draw attention to the shifts, and defend it from various forms of attacks. Because a good critic cannot exist without good art. In the short term, sure, but if they were honest and gave everything a negative review, they would cease to be useful. And if they were useful, they would cease to be honest. They must cultivate a society that produces strong art so that they can review it.
No comments:
Post a Comment