October 18, 2009
-
The Nature of Criticism
B. What is the nature of criticism? Can one be critical without seeming disagreeable?
To be a critic means many things but the universal nature of criticism is the judgment of the critic of the work or idea being criticised is applied against a standard.
Some critics seem to enjoy being as nasty as possible and raking the author/artist over coals the critic has provided; but criticism is also one of the fundimental methods by which we learn and polish our artistry.
To be critical, means in the most positive terms, to be serious and thoughtful about what you are criticizing.
Most of us can probably remember examples of both sarcastic, vituperitive criticism and criticism delivered in a helpful, even kindly manner – and sometimes both critiques were about the same thing!
Being a critic may be enjoyable, but what makes a “Good Critic”?
Perhaps another interesting question would be: When is criticism called for, when is it not?
Comments (6)
Ok, Ok, You’re linked
Hi Dick, I was reading your comment that said: Why do you suppose many modern humans equate “prior” with more primitive? Is there some kind of tendency for us to regard our times as the culmination of an ever-advancing move toward perfection? Where did we ever get this idea?
I’ve been wondering about this myself as well. Something with the Western (though I’m not sure if it’s exclusive) belief in Progressivism… it made me wonder if our conception of time as having a beginning and going to infinity has something to do with it. Infinity is an idea (as is the number zero); we don’t know if it exists, so why think about reality as if it’s real? Surely if you have a linear conception of time (or anything else for that matter, such as wealth), instead of cyclical, then the ever-advancing picture becomes more concordant than if you were to conceive of time as cyclical.
Strange mix of physics and meta-physics.
Ah Ha! The economic definition of progress : Many or much is better than few or none – b e it money, goodies, or hours
Actually, you have a major point – we probably do tend to unconsciously think we are moving through time to a better and higher place.
Dear Dick,
It takes me a while, but I always get around sooner or later. (Later in this instance, but since you haven’t posted anything since, I don’t feel “late”.
As I stated in my own essay, the nature of criticism has been around for millennia, and it was never meant to connote negativity. Do you find in your everyday dealings (as I certainly do) that people have bastardized the idea, and use “criticism” to deride something, or do you find honest critical thinking to be the norm?
I guess it depends upon where you look. I do a lot of reading on the internet lately. (I’ve even taken to reading my news online. My favorite print newspaper, The Los Angeles Times (the last of three major metropolitan newspapers left) actually has MORE news in it’s online edition (which is free) than in the print edition, which now costs 75 cents. When I mix the blogosphere in with other media, (and national media “qutotes” and references the blogosphere these days) I seem to find the nature of critical thinking disappearing, and being replaced by vitriolic and opinionated essaying.
Do you think that (in the cyclical nature of things) true critical thinking is on the decline, has never really left, or is only in a waning state, and will rise like a phoenix sometime in the future?
Is the nature of critical thinking a generational concept? Do different generations view criticism in different ways?
I’m a film buff and minored in film history back in college. I like to use film ciriticism as an example. (And did, in my essay, if memory serves.) Back when true critics like Bosley Crowther, Pauline Kael or more recently Sheila Benson and Roger Ebert were writing weekly columns, the tone of the pieces never seemed to be wholly negative, even if the critic didn’t champion the film. These pieces were learned and erudite. However, nowadays, it seems the public doesn’t even want to sit still long enough to digest true criticism, and would rather just see a general consensus of opinion (as on rottentomatoes.com) to let them know if they need to have an interest in a film. If a film critic doesn’t like the movie, he seems to dispense with true criticism for an attack on negative elements. Even respected writers seem to be falling into this pit of negativity. Richard Shickel, who used to write for Life if memory serves. (I know I’m on the internet and can look it up easily) recently wrote an op ed piece in the L.A. Times which was supposed to be a review of a book about filmmaker Robert Altman. Instead of a critical essay on the book, the piece seemed to be a personal attack on Altman as a filmmaker. I see this as a trend where critical thinking is totally forgotten nowadays, replaced by negativity even by writers who used to practice criticism as an objective comparison of a work held up to an ideal.
And getting back to the original theory of criticism, do you think that an ideal can be formulated in the first place?
Michael F. Nyiri, poet, philosopher, fool
Mike: Welcome to the age of vitriol.
When you mix “criticism”‘ with the relative immediacy and anonymity of the internet you get the kind of irresponsible nastiness that passes for criticism nowadays.
I’m sure criticism grew out of stylized teaching techniques. Back in Greco-Roman times the Trivium and Quadrivium curriculum necessary or the education of a Free Man (The origin of Liberal Studies) included Rhetoric and Declamation as well as Logic – the stuff debate is made of -
Remember, a major part of formal debate is criticism of the opponent’s facts and viewpoint.
as far as criticism being a sort of comparison with an ideal; I think the “ideal” has always been in the mind of the viewer/declaimer.
Dear Dick,
Thanks for dropping by my blog. I almost forgot to come back and see if you’d responded to my comment! The big book of Critical Theory I mentioned in my Socrates Cafe entry (Which, memory is now telling me is actually titled “Critical Theory Since Plato” although I might be wrong) was a very difficult read. I was always flummoxed by philosophy texts in college. Erudite criticism and philosophical theories always seem to have been built on a house of cards, when I delved deep into the subjects. I can still remember some 50 pages being spent analyzing whether or not a rose is really “beautiful”.
And as we all know, beauty is almost always in the “eye of the beholder”, and true critical thinking is purely subjective, no matter how many ways we try to establish rules on how to compare and criticize. Nobody compares apples with apples anyway, and if they do, then whose to say one apple is really better than the other anyway. (I’ll take the one WITHOUT the worm thank you!)
The Age of Vitriol. Maybe it’s good that we won’t be living long enough to see the historians write that in future timelines when discussing the early 21st century.
Michael F. Nyiri, poet, philosopher, fool