| ABOUT US | ARCHIVES | LINKS | RSS FEED | MONDAYS | |

3quarksdaily

An Eclectic Digest of Science, Art and Literature

« Time for Some Campaignin' | Main | origins »

July 17, 2008

Nobody's a Critic

Brilliant piece by our own Morgan Meis in The Smart Set:

Screenhunter_03_jul_17_1719The word criticism has its root in the Greek word krinein, which means — in its most original sense — to divide or separate. It’s about sorting things out and making distinctions. Criticism is thus about doing something that is, in this era, almost impossible to do. It is difficult simply to keep up with the vast global cultural output, let alone to make determinations and judgments.

So the critic lives in terror and humiliation, without purpose, without audience, without platform. Newspaper book reviews are shutting down (as are the newspapers that used to house them). Magazines are less and less inclined to devote space or resources to traditional criticism. The blogosphere and social networking sites allow anyone to communicate tastes and opinions directly to those people with whom an outlook is already shared. Criticism is essentially bottom-up now, whereas it used to be practically the definition of top-down. The audience does not look to an external authority to find out what to think — it looks to itself.

In response, critics have become bemoaners. It seems that every week a new article comes out lamenting the state of criticism in field X, Y, or Z. The critics are bemoaning the state of their craft, bemoaning the state of contemporary culture, bemoaning the fate of the world. A few centuries ago the intellectual world trembled at the steps of Samuel Johnson. More recently, careers were ended by a few words from Oscar Wilde or Walter Lippman. A generation of Americans checked in with H.L. Mencken on a daily basis to figure out what they thought about any given subject. Most of these figures were angry and disdainful to some degree or other. But they were not bemoaners. They stood confidently atop the world and proclaimed.

More here.

Posted by Abbas Raza at 11:25 AM | Permalink

Comments

"If art," Nathan writes, "is organic expression, and every work of art is to be interrogated with the question, 'What has it expressed, and how completely?' there is no place for the question whether it has conformed to some convenient classification of critics or to some law derived from the classification." Classification, so to speak, takes us outside the work. Expression takes us further inside. And when you're inside the work pluralism ceases to be a problem."

If a work of art is to be evaluated solely on it's own merits without regard to any other work of art or any external aesthetic standards, then it follows that any expression that anyone wants to call "art" is art and anyone callin him or herself an "artist" is, by definition, an artist. No work of art can be "better" than any other. This is solipsism, pure and simple. In reality, works of art are always produced by artists who are well aware of other works of art, other tradtions. They are no more produced in isolation than a child can learn language in solitude. Art is communication and it is natural for humans to develop aethetic standards of excellence. Count me among the Kantians.

Posted by: Jared | Jul 17, 2008 11:58:20 AM

Jared: KUDOS to you!

Posted by: Felix E F Larocca MD | Jul 17, 2008 12:59:53 PM

Felix,

Thanks, and congratulations on being married 50 years. Now that's a headline we never see in supermarket tabloids:

Star happily married to loving wife for 50 years!

Posted by: Jared | Jul 17, 2008 1:27:17 PM

Morgan: I enjoyed reading this, thanks.

Jared:
If art is to be a mirror of human experience, it stands to reason that art will be subjective and so will criticism. Our shift away from the aristocratic age to a democratic one has reduced our patience for grand narratives, traditions, and authority. Art and criticism are both increasingly decentralized and plural. Some find this disorienting but is it entirely a bad thing? I believe the jury is still out.

So, yes, anyone can create "art" and call himself an "artist". You and I are free to disagree. The point, Jared, is that -- whether on not we like it -- there simply are no universal standards for judging this "art". We had fallen for the illusion of universality all along (built-up variously by religion, power, class, the guild, the French, etc.). This is not to say that I should therefore consider all art equally good. No, I strive for a nuanced and evolving hierarchy of art in my own mind. It's just that I don't expect it can hark back to any wellspring of universality. Much the same way that I struggle to refine and live by a code of moral conduct, while recognizing that morality is inherently subjective (and shaped by local social forces). To the extent we are able to converse about morality, we should also be able to converse about art. Why expect anything more (or less)?

Posted by: Namit | Jul 17, 2008 6:43:59 PM

Art and morality are only partly subjective. The themes of Shakespeare's plays - revenge, power, jealousy are universal and would be perfectly comprehensible to tribal people in New Guinea, as would the powerful rhythms of the Rite of Spring. Far from seeing work of art as existing in isolation, I see it in relation to every work of art that has preceded it, going back to the cave paintings in France and Spain. We are fortunate to be living in a time when there are no geographical or temporal limitations on the art we can be exposed to. There is no one universal standard to judge these works, but it is natural for people to pick and choose, to think some art is "better" than others. And some is, in fact better than others. Many people agree than Handel is a great composer, not because they are deluded conformists, but because he is a great composer, one whose music could be enjoyed by just about anyone in any time. Hierarchy in art is not a bad thing, but a natural sorting process by which many people, over time, select the wheat and reject the chaff.

Posted by: Jared | Jul 18, 2008 9:36:49 AM

> "Art and Morality are only partially subjective."
The flip side is that art and morality are partially objective? You're on very slippery ground here my friend.

To say that art exists in a historical context that critics should factor in, is a true but trite observation. Who doesn't? No one lives in a social vacuum. The question is whether there is a single "historical context" that can be privileged over others. Revenge, power, and jealousy are universal human instincts. Don't confuse them with art or morality, which arise when such instincts are put into play (instantiated) in specific cultural contexts. Shakespeare will make little, if any, impression on New Guinea tribals without adequate awareness of European social codes, romantic love, courtly/chivalrous ways, etc. They have their own beloved stories that speak about the perils of power and jealousy, for instance, and which might make no artistic impression on you. Ramayana, the ancient Indian epic, is beloved across India, but few non-Indians resonate with it, even though the same universal human instincts are visible in it.

> "And some [art] is, in fact better than others. Many people agree that Handel is a great composer, not because they are deluded conformists, but because he is a great composer, one whose music could be enjoyed by just about anyone in any time."

And some veggies are, in fact better than others. Many people agree that spinach is a great veggie, not because they are deluded conformists, but because spinach is a great veggie, one whose taste could be enjoyed by just about anyone in any time.

Posted by: Namit | Jul 19, 2008 1:22:08 PM

Post a comment






Subscribe to this blog's feed  

3QD Science Prize

Logo designed by Vicki Winters

Iran Twitter News

Andrew Covers Iran

The Lede on Iran

HuffPo Liveblogging

Help 3 Quarks Daily

3QD on Twitter

Search Using Lijit

Lijit Search

Bookmark This Page

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

3QD FEED FOR GOOGLE


Add to Google

3QD ADVERTISING


Compare prices

  • Canada (French)
  • Australia
  • New Zealand
  • South Africa
  • Brazil
  • Recent Comments

    Jonathan on Sex, Evolution and the Secrets of Consumerism

    Chris Horner on Sex, Evolution and the Secrets of Consumerism

    Pete Chapman on Saturday Poem

    Jonathan on Sex, Evolution and the Secrets of Consumerism

    Lambness on Sex, Evolution and the Secrets of Consumerism

    Billie Mintz on The Ponzi Avenger

    fred lapides on The History of Jazz, by Darcy James Argue

    Louise Gordon on Everyone Should See "Torturing Democracy"

    Louise Gordon on The Swedish dream is no more

    atomburke on Will Europe’s Economies Regain Their Footing?

    aguy109 on my ten favorite fetishes

    Elatia Harris on my ten favorite fetishes

    Elatia Harris on my ten favorite fetishes

    Elatia Harris on crowds, clowns, contempt, and cacophony

    maniza on Friday Poem

    Jesse on crowds, clowns, contempt, and cacophony

    David Schneider on Friday Poem

    Dave Ranning on Friday Poem

    maniza on The Improbable American

    Ruchira on Friday Poem

    D on Philosophy as Complementary Science

    Dave Ranning on The resignation speech of Sarah Palin: a deconstruction

    bill on Ah the singing, ah the delight, the passion!

    Fill on The resignation speech of Sarah Palin: a deconstruction

    Luke Lea on tatlin

    Acclaim For 3QD

    ------XXX------

    "I couldn't tear myself away from 3 Quarks Daily, to the point of neglecting my work. Congratulations on this superb site."—Steven Pinker, Johnstone Professor of Psychology, Harvard University.

    "I have placed 3 Quarks Daily at the head of my list of web bookmarks."—Richard Dawkins, Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University.

    "Just wanted you to know I’m one of many who reads and enjoys 3 Quarks....almost daily."—David Byrne, musician, former lead-singer of the Talking Heads, artist, intellectual.

    Subscribe to this blog's feed