A Critical Critique of Current Criticism

[areleejensen]

Do you like Criticism?

I have been reading about it lately.

You should take a look at this, oh intellectuals of the world.

Comments

[areleejensen]

People can rock back and forth all day trying to define art, but I've found that to be very difficult. Art is subjective, in my opinion. Something may touch someone a certain way - to them it's art. My definition of art... I'm afraid to put a label on it, because it might change the more I think about it. Art is something people create and use to express human ideas.

I really wanted to talk about the importance of the critic in regards to what society will and won't accept. There are a lot of people who don't listen to the TV Guide, but there are also a lot of people who do. Perhaps reality TV is a poor example, but music is definitely a good one. There's plenty of trashy music out there and it sells. It sells and there are too few critics to stand up and say, "no, that's trashy! take it off the air!"

Matthew Arnold made the point in his critical essay that it is much easier to be a critic than an artist. This is true. To create art, good art, Arnold (and I) would argue that you need to be first, creatively inspired, and second, able to deal divinely with that creative inspiration. It's employing both emotion and faculty. I'm sure you (as an artist) understand that you can have all the skill in the world - all the elements in place needed to create good art, but without the creative force, it becomes very difficult to actually create good art. Likewise, you may have the creative power spark something to mind, but be unable to express it in good art. That's why there are so many cheesy love songs, and so many cheesy religious pieces. People feel these strong emotions but don't know how to deal with them.

Now, all that said, the critical power is solely intellectual. It's about analysis and judgement. Obviously, this would be a nice place for failed artists to take up the pen. It's easier to point fingers than take action.

I think this is where it becomes crucial to have good critics. Critics who are always keeping themselves in check with what's going to be best for society.

Everyone has a conscience. People have a sense of right and wrong within them - everyone does. Basing judgment on virtue and intellectual stimulation, I think anyone could be an effective critic if they sincerely had their heart in the right place and had the right ends in mind (specifically, to quote Arnold, the purpose of the critic is to "learn and propagate the best that is known and thought in the world"). It'd be a great way to get rid of the dross and make artistic progress.

That said, criticism doesn't turn art into something good or bad, like you said. It simply acts as a metaphorical spotlight - a place where someone with good judgment can point a finger and say, "now, that's not doing anyone any good - let's be rid of it now!"

Criticism will evolve. William Wordsworth and Percy Shelley gave poetry a completely new face with their criticism. They made way for some of the best poetry the literary world has ever known - the Lyrical Ballads by Wordsworth and Coleridge, the gorgeous epic poems of Byron, the lush imagery found in poems by Keats - they would not have caught on so well without the criticism preceding them. Before that, poetry was severely confined to specific styles and subjects.

It would seem that the best critics also happen to have that creative faculty - Wordsworth, Shelley, Wilde, Chesterton, Arnold... all these figures who I greatly enjoy for their criticism all seem fairly able to create good art as well. There might be a paper in that!

I would not always trust the critic's opinion, but a good judge can do a great deal of good. Arnold argued that there needs to be more criticism from the good critics in the world. I agree very much.

This also brings up a lot of questions. What is the function of art? Is good art defined by its moral stance? Or can we just have "art for art's sake"?

What do you think?

I love thinking about this subject, too.

[phatfhorn]

I think you'd be really interested in reading John Dewey on the subject of arts function. Basically, he said to understand what art does, you first have to understand what experience is, in general. An experience is something with a beginning, a middle, and an end, but it also has an element of doing and an element of being. When I walked to rehearsal this morning, it began by leaving my door, continued on the 15 minutes while I was walking with my housemate, and ended when I arrived at rehearsal. While I was walking, I underwent emotions and observations, thoughts and dialogue. I took in my surroundings. I woke up. I had conversation. This whole simplistic experience ended when I walked into the building and took out my horn.

This description of any simple experience is also applied to experiencing art---the difference is the level of emotion, intellect, dialogue, and thoughts. The experience of great art causes you to connect to something deeper than yourself---to commune with great minds and (hopefully) understand the art the way they saw it. A successful performance of a Beethoven symphony is a performance that captures the essence of what Beethoven intended when he wrote the music. And you can be assured that he didn't intend for simple music theory---an E flat major chord here and a dissonance there. All great art portrays vision---a deeper essence for the appreciator to commune with. The greatness of that art is dependent on the ability of the artist to master their medium in order to properly convey the grandiose vision. And of course, this is dependent upon a person with the vision implementing that art.

People are content with so little substance in their lives. Reality TV is amusement that borders on entertainment. Amusement literally means a (without) muse (thought). People want to check out, to laugh at someone elses problems, or to take their minds off their stressful work days. Aesthetic experiences take a lot out of you. You know how you feel after you fully invest yourself into a poem for hours, breathing in the words like a fine purfume. You know how you feel when your moved to excitement or tears by the passing chords of a Tchaikovsky symphony. Or to get lost in a Van Gogh, to look deep into a painting and see cold heartache, or nostalgia, or to feel awe when standing in front of a great sculpture. These are the highest levels of experience that I was writing about above. These are what show us what it means to be human. These are great art.

Great art is not didactic in nature. Art can be morally inspired, but it certainly doesn't have to be. I've personally found the great some of the greatest art to reflect themes of fall and redemption, of heroics, or of love. But when art preaches its essence instead of showing it through its aesthetics, it becomes overt and banal. Great art is always subversive---it brings you into it, and the deeper you delve past its surface, the more encompassed into a whole other world you are. Its the world of genius, and its something we can experience.

[areleejensen]

I really like that idea about art.

When did you study John Dewey? I'm not familiar with that name. I'd love to read more about it.

That sounds like the perfect definition of what you called "great art" - I've not ever thought about it like that before.

And, I suppose, as you understand experience you understand great art more. Also, as you understand art more, you get more from your experiences. It seems no wonder, now, that the best critics are also artists. They translate real life and art so well - it would seem they really do have an almost prophetic understanding of the world. Just wait till Lord Byron hears that. He'll be jumping up and down saying, "I told you so! I told you so!"

This is all very beautiful to think about, connecting to a higher (perhaps even divine?) state of mind. I know when I am truly engrossed in art, it brings everything about life and experience within the realm of my understanding. It seems to complete my thoughts and rein them in somehow - to give an important and essential perspective to existence.

I've read a lot of Oscar Wilde in my day - the prophet of astheticism - and have always wanted to pinpoint why I considered his work so wonderful. He's not one to plant rich morals within his work, so I always wondered why it touched me so deeply, why I love him so much. He just has such a sense of beauty in everything about him - it always drew me in. And if you really study him closely - there are hidden truths inside so much of what he has written. He relates the rest of the world to me through humor and pretty words - and I can better experience the world through his genius understanding of it. I like that thought.

I have been learning in my writing class the virtue of showing versus telling in art, particularly writing. It's much more artistic to say, "Clara spun beneath a mural of golden leaves and laughed into the crisp fall air" instead of saying, "Clara was happy". Art has us represent feelings in order to feel them better... which is strange, but wholly more effective. We see the color blue and we feel sad. Not because blue is sad in and of itself, perhaps mildly on a subconscious level, but more so because it represents sadness... and we understand that representation so well - it becomes a language that many people can speak.

Yes, art reaches out and works, in a way, universally to elevate the minds of the people. I like that idea. I like it very much.

[phatfhorn]

These are all concepts that I read and discussed in the Theories of Art class I took at USC with Dallas Willard. We read John Dewey towards the end of the course when discussing grand theories and criticism. The class also focused on developing a definition of art, and exploring that definition based on real life artistic examples. We also went into the individual arts, creative and performance, and discussed the aesthetic possibilities---what they do well, and what they don't. It was a very eye-opening experience, and I'd love to talk about it more.

The current fashionable philosophies have really dragges art through the mud, so much that people can't tell mediocre artistic attempts from truly great works. It doesn't help that the National Endowment of the Arts continues to fund substandard artists. I support the NEA, but I think there needs to be more discretion to the kinds of art that it supports. It often fails to live up to its own slogan, "A Great Nation Deserves Great Art" by churning out substandard after substandard pieces, and supporting artists that completely lack vision.

I'm not sure if the NEA supported , but its a prime example of post-modern art without vision. When someone asked the "artist" what the piece means, he said "it doesn't have to mean anything, its ART!". This is an aestetic philosophy I do not support.