I suspect that most of my readers (assuming that I have any) know that I think of myself as being a “Theatre Person” by training, vocation, and (since I am now retired) preference. Yes, I do have other interests, but theatre, drama, and their relation, movies, are among my greatest interests, with literature (of several varieties), various of the visual arts, and some forms of music, ranking not far behind. I like to think that I am capable of enjoying a wide range of artistic forms, but I don’t consider myself to be a “Critic.” If I had to put a label on my position (which I don’t really like to do), I suppose that it would have to be a “Reviewer.”
Yes, I AM making a definite distinction here. I would maintain that a reviewer is one who makes an honest attempt at “experiencing” artistic works, and then may have an opinion as to whether, or not, that effort produced a satisfying experience, but never claims to have more than a PERSONAL opinion.
On the other hand, I would suggest that far too many people who claim to be, or are thought of as being, CRITICS would have us believe that what they provide is a good deal more than “just a personal opinion.” They would have us believe that it is a “scholarly evaluation” of the artistic merit and value of the art object under discussion. This, all too often in my experience, justifies (at least to them) their insistence that anyone who disagrees with them clearly lacks the taste, knowledge, and judgement to even HAVE a legitimate opinion. I think THAT point of view is just arrogant BS and I have no qualms about suggesting that they simply are proving that “bullies is bullies” in any field of endeavor, and that what they are actually saying is that THEY are insecure enough to insist that THEY (unlike the rest of us) are among the gifted few capable of having a true understanding of REAL ART.
I am reminded (yet again!) of that poor student who “reviewed” my production of Waiting for Godot for The Western Carolinian saying that it lacked the “proper” amount of “existential suffering” on the part of the two main characters, when the cast and I had CONSCIOUSLY CHOSEN to deemphasize that notion because we (the CREATOR’s of that PRODUCTION) felt that Beckett’s point was that their so-called “suffering” was stupid when they (like most of humanity) just had to take SOME action (that is, do SOMETHING to alter their situation) in order to get closer to achieving their stated desire. Yes, we felt that our Vladimir and Estragon did exactly what we believed Beckett wanted. They, like far too many people in the world, did nothing but idly sit, wait, and entertain themselves while waiting for some outside agency (Godot) to come along and solve all of their problems. We believed that since Beckett’s chosen French title of the play (it WAS written in French before Beckett translated it into English) could quite accurately be translated to “While Waiting for Godot” which suggested to us that the notion of “waiting” was probably Beckett’s major point. (It’s probably arrogant of me to suggest that I felt that the famous Ian McKellen-Patrick Stewart production of this play in London in 2009 seemed to support this concept, but it IS true. At least that’s what I got from seeing it.)
Now that poor student could have simply said that he didn’t enjoy the production and, while I might not like it, I would have had no reason (or right) to argue about that. I wouldn’t have been happy, but I would argue that it was his right to have (and express) his opinion. After all, there are lots of artistic works and/or performances which I don’t (haven’t) much enjoyed. I don’t say that they were bad, however, they just didn’t “do much for me, I didn’t care for them. No, what got me worked up about THIS critique was the writer’s suggestion that what we did was “WRONG.” You see, I am of the opinion that ART is NEVER WRONG. IT IS WHAT IT IS!
It can be something I don’t enjoy much, but that’s really just a matter of taste. I can think of some rather famous novels, plays, etc. which I didn’t much enjoy because I didn’t care for the author’s style, or the subject matter, or the work just didn’t excite/interest me, for example. I can happily go to an art museum and like some works and others not so much, even though someone obviously thought each of those works to be important/significant enough to display. The same is true of a lot of music. I like some “serious” music, but I also have liked (still do) some Broadway music, some rock/pop, some (especially “classic,” 1950-70’s) folk, much Irish music, and on, and on. Can I explain these feelings on some purely rational, “artistic” grounds? No! I just figure that I have the right to enjoy what I enjoy without having to explain myself, or justify my preferences to some “Expert/Critic” who thinks she/he has the right to tell me that “I’m wrong.” I don’t insist that anyone else conform to MY choices, why should I be limited to theirs? There ought to be room for us to have differences of opinion.
Anyway, I have found that there are, apparently, other people who tend to agree with me at least to the extent that they are amused/annoyed/whatever by the “critical mentality,” so I’ve found some cartoons which, to my mind, bear on that subject and I thought I’d include some of them in this post. Here’s an example from Academic Waltz of a “Critic/Professor” in action which I find quite enjoyable in its commentary on critics, as well as on poorly prepared teachers.
Yes, I AM making a definite distinction here. I would maintain that a reviewer is one who makes an honest attempt at “experiencing” artistic works, and then may have an opinion as to whether, or not, that effort produced a satisfying experience, but never claims to have more than a PERSONAL opinion.
On the other hand, I would suggest that far too many people who claim to be, or are thought of as being, CRITICS would have us believe that what they provide is a good deal more than “just a personal opinion.” They would have us believe that it is a “scholarly evaluation” of the artistic merit and value of the art object under discussion. This, all too often in my experience, justifies (at least to them) their insistence that anyone who disagrees with them clearly lacks the taste, knowledge, and judgement to even HAVE a legitimate opinion. I think THAT point of view is just arrogant BS and I have no qualms about suggesting that they simply are proving that “bullies is bullies” in any field of endeavor, and that what they are actually saying is that THEY are insecure enough to insist that THEY (unlike the rest of us) are among the gifted few capable of having a true understanding of REAL ART.
I am reminded (yet again!) of that poor student who “reviewed” my production of Waiting for Godot for The Western Carolinian saying that it lacked the “proper” amount of “existential suffering” on the part of the two main characters, when the cast and I had CONSCIOUSLY CHOSEN to deemphasize that notion because we (the CREATOR’s of that PRODUCTION) felt that Beckett’s point was that their so-called “suffering” was stupid when they (like most of humanity) just had to take SOME action (that is, do SOMETHING to alter their situation) in order to get closer to achieving their stated desire. Yes, we felt that our Vladimir and Estragon did exactly what we believed Beckett wanted. They, like far too many people in the world, did nothing but idly sit, wait, and entertain themselves while waiting for some outside agency (Godot) to come along and solve all of their problems. We believed that since Beckett’s chosen French title of the play (it WAS written in French before Beckett translated it into English) could quite accurately be translated to “While Waiting for Godot” which suggested to us that the notion of “waiting” was probably Beckett’s major point. (It’s probably arrogant of me to suggest that I felt that the famous Ian McKellen-Patrick Stewart production of this play in London in 2009 seemed to support this concept, but it IS true. At least that’s what I got from seeing it.)
Now that poor student could have simply said that he didn’t enjoy the production and, while I might not like it, I would have had no reason (or right) to argue about that. I wouldn’t have been happy, but I would argue that it was his right to have (and express) his opinion. After all, there are lots of artistic works and/or performances which I don’t (haven’t) much enjoyed. I don’t say that they were bad, however, they just didn’t “do much for me, I didn’t care for them. No, what got me worked up about THIS critique was the writer’s suggestion that what we did was “WRONG.” You see, I am of the opinion that ART is NEVER WRONG. IT IS WHAT IT IS!
It can be something I don’t enjoy much, but that’s really just a matter of taste. I can think of some rather famous novels, plays, etc. which I didn’t much enjoy because I didn’t care for the author’s style, or the subject matter, or the work just didn’t excite/interest me, for example. I can happily go to an art museum and like some works and others not so much, even though someone obviously thought each of those works to be important/significant enough to display. The same is true of a lot of music. I like some “serious” music, but I also have liked (still do) some Broadway music, some rock/pop, some (especially “classic,” 1950-70’s) folk, much Irish music, and on, and on. Can I explain these feelings on some purely rational, “artistic” grounds? No! I just figure that I have the right to enjoy what I enjoy without having to explain myself, or justify my preferences to some “Expert/Critic” who thinks she/he has the right to tell me that “I’m wrong.” I don’t insist that anyone else conform to MY choices, why should I be limited to theirs? There ought to be room for us to have differences of opinion.
Anyway, I have found that there are, apparently, other people who tend to agree with me at least to the extent that they are amused/annoyed/whatever by the “critical mentality,” so I’ve found some cartoons which, to my mind, bear on that subject and I thought I’d include some of them in this post. Here’s an example from Academic Waltz of a “Critic/Professor” in action which I find quite enjoyable in its commentary on critics, as well as on poorly prepared teachers.
One of the (several) things I find annoying about critics, is their seeming insistence that it is necessary for them to “label” works of art. See the B.C. strip below:
The point here, I believe, is NOT having a category (although many “category titles” do annoy me), but the idea that someone felt the need to assign them, as if having a CATEGORY made any contribution to experiencing them. My guess is that this practice mostly allows these critics to create “scholarly” papers, convention presentations, etc. which are necessary for academic advancement. This silliness, of course, leads to inclusion in more common references, like dictionaries, web searches, and the like, as suggested above.
I think that the Thatababy strip below points out how silly this sort of thing can become: although I seriously doubt that it’s going to change anything much.
I think that the Thatababy strip below points out how silly this sort of thing can become: although I seriously doubt that it’s going to change anything much.
To move on, I confess that I have occasionally wondered how the guards (as opposed to the “artistic” staff who are seeking donations, notoriety, etc.) react to the “artistic eloquence” which one frequently encounters in museums from both “curators,” and from visitors who seem to wish to impress others with their knowledge, taste, and erudition. So, when I ran across this Non Sequitur strip a while back, I just had to save it for the proper occasion (which I think this is).
This reminds me of an experience I had while I was in Grad. School, on a Fellowship with the Indiana Theatre Company. While the company was on a Spring Break tour into the northeast, we got to spend a day in NYC (which I was NOT familiar with and had spent only a couple of days in on a trip with equally ignorant friends). I distinctly remember dashing (quite literally) through the Museum of Modern Art as Mr. Kinser (the faculty member, director and designer, who was with us on the trip, and knew NYC quite well) took us to see the original of Picasso’s Guernica, which was still resident there at that time. See below.
That was a mind-blowing experience! I should note that the original (what I actually SAW) IS in Black and White, like this reproduction, BUT it IS 11 ft 5 inches tall and 25 ft 6 inches wide. It’s BIG! I was with a couple of others, following “Wild Bill” Kinser (No, we didn’t call him that to his face) through the building, when we rushed around a corner and THERE IT WAS! I will admit that I had to sit down for a minute. It was breathtaking. I don’t know that I have ever had as strong a reaction to encountering any work of art before, or since. I can’t explain it. I don’t even want to try. But I remember that I had so strong an emotional response that it became physical. Since that time, that has been my touchstone regarding art of ANY sort. How does it make me FEEL? Do I truly RESPOND to it? That’s how I judge art. I’m not suggesting that I completely understand what (or how) that response happens, or even exactly what form it will take, but if I don’t HAVE A RESPONSE to a work, it’s just not “my sort of thing.”
That’s probably why I get very frustrated with people, especially TEACHERS (at ANY level) who seem to think that every educated person should recognize and accept the judgement of “those of the ‘HIGHEST’ standards of discrimination” as KNOWING what is “good” and what isn’t. I probably didn’t always succeed in this myself, as a teacher, but I did always TRY to avoid passing judgement on my students’ opinions regarding works. If (when) I had to review/or grade their work, I tried to judge it mostly on the basis of: was it clearly expressed?; was it clearly explained?; did it consider the established facts (facts are NOT subject to opinion) regarding the work; the times in which it was created; what we know about why it was created; what was the state of the world at that point; and so on? I tried to avoid demanding a justification of their opinion, but I hoped to be able to understand that opinion, as well as their point of view, AND to be able to grasp any relevant facts, whether I agreed with their opinion, or not.
I think Charles Schulz hit my notion pretty much on the head when he created this Peanuts strip a long time ago:
That’s probably why I get very frustrated with people, especially TEACHERS (at ANY level) who seem to think that every educated person should recognize and accept the judgement of “those of the ‘HIGHEST’ standards of discrimination” as KNOWING what is “good” and what isn’t. I probably didn’t always succeed in this myself, as a teacher, but I did always TRY to avoid passing judgement on my students’ opinions regarding works. If (when) I had to review/or grade their work, I tried to judge it mostly on the basis of: was it clearly expressed?; was it clearly explained?; did it consider the established facts (facts are NOT subject to opinion) regarding the work; the times in which it was created; what we know about why it was created; what was the state of the world at that point; and so on? I tried to avoid demanding a justification of their opinion, but I hoped to be able to understand that opinion, as well as their point of view, AND to be able to grasp any relevant facts, whether I agreed with their opinion, or not.
I think Charles Schulz hit my notion pretty much on the head when he created this Peanuts strip a long time ago:
I suspect that I think that anyone who argues with Patty is almost certainly factually incorrect. I have serious doubts that ANY author would write, edit, and publish a story without SOME desire for some sort of acclaim or recognition as well. I also suppose that it’s fairly obvious that I am particularly frustrated by ART Critics (although literary critics CAN approach being just as annoying to me). I admit that’s something of a prejudice, but it’s what I am. If you disagree, that’s your right. I won’t try to change you, I’ll just state that I have a different opinion, and I won’t even try to argue that I’m right and you’re wrong, except for me.
Now I admit that I’ve never actually seen a work like the one presented in the Break of Day comic (below) in an art museum, but I’d really like to watch people respond to something like it sometime. I think it would be quite interesting.
Now I admit that I’ve never actually seen a work like the one presented in the Break of Day comic (below) in an art museum, but I’d really like to watch people respond to something like it sometime. I think it would be quite interesting.
I think that I would also very much like to run across a situation like this one which WUMO published about a year ago. I found it quite funny because it suggests, to me, how much the “critics” have captured the “Art world” that even those who want to create and present works seem to feel obligated to use “Critical Jargon” to convince other that their works have some value, interest or importance.
Personally, I think that if something causes you to have an actual, real, honest response, then it is of value to you and it does NOT matter what the “experts” say. Their opinions are (or SHOULD be) irrelevant to you, unless the only value you grant to art works is that you can sell them, in which case, I just plain pity you. Yes, I admit to enjoying what I would call well-written commercial “schlock” novels and stories. If they give me pleasure, why should you care? I’ve read a fair many “great works” that I have found to be pretty boring, so I don’t suspect I’m ever going to reread them, the way I often have with “lesser” works which I have enjoyed. That’s also true of plays, music, etc.
Well, I’ve probably beaten this idea hard enough. I’d love to hear other people’s opinions regarding critics and criticism, so drop me a line if I’ve gotten to you. While I’m waiting, I plan to try to think about other stuff which interests me enough to distract me from the depression caused by what some of our laughable “leaders” call “REALITY.”
Assuming that I do so (and that I’m not deported for ideas unfriendly to those laughable “leaders’” egos) I’ll be back in a couple of weeks with something else.
🖖🏼 LLAP,
Dr. B
Well, I’ve probably beaten this idea hard enough. I’d love to hear other people’s opinions regarding critics and criticism, so drop me a line if I’ve gotten to you. While I’m waiting, I plan to try to think about other stuff which interests me enough to distract me from the depression caused by what some of our laughable “leaders” call “REALITY.”
Assuming that I do so (and that I’m not deported for ideas unfriendly to those laughable “leaders’” egos) I’ll be back in a couple of weeks with something else.
🖖🏼 LLAP,
Dr. B
RSS Feed