Criticism and its Humble Cousin

 

The New York Times obituary of the film critic and historian Richard Schickel, who died recently at 84, said that he understood that the public's perception of who a critic was had changed in the era of social media, blogging, and instant online comments.

A critic, he said, is “a very endangered species in a nation that wants indulgence more than a criticism that questions its fatuity.”

And he responded to the notion that blogging was making book reviewing more democratic. He wrote in the Los Angeles Times, “Criticism — and its humble cousin, reviewing — is not a democratic activity. It is, or should be, an elite enterprise, ideally undertaken by individuals who bring something to the party beyond their hasty, instinctive opinions of a book (or any other cultural object). It is work that requires disciplined taste, historical and theoretical knowledge and a fairly deep sense of the author’s (or filmmaker’s or painter’s) entire body of work, among other qualities.”

I don't agree with Schickel that criticism should be an "elite enterprise." But I do agree it should be done by "individuals who bring something to the party beyond hasty, instinctive opinions." 

It needs to be more than just "hooray" or "boo," as I always remember my philosophy professor saying in a course in Aesthetics.


 

I always asked my arts writing students to describe what they were seeing, rather than rushing to make judgements.  Avoid value words like "tedious" and "bad."  And particularly avoid hackneyed value words like "unique," "fantastic," and "awesome."  Describe the work with understanding of what the artist is trying to accomplish.  Help your readers see it more fully.  Help them see what you see is there. Or isn't there but maybe should be there.

I really do like Schickel's calling reviewing the "humble cousin" of criticism.  If this blog is trying to do anything, it is what my professor said was the true job of the critic (and his humble cousin): putting you in the presence of the art work.

I jumped into reviewing theatre in Asheville as a short-term experiment to see what theatre makers and theatre audiences might think. I deliberately did not start out with a statement of my reviewing principles.  

But I did think about what my obligations were to the artists, the audience for the artists, and the vitality of the arts in Asheville.  How can reviews help artists? How can reviews help audiences?  Could the arts in Asheville become better, and better appreciated, if we had reviewers who could go beyond "hooray" and "boo?"

I discussed this with my friend and former student Jason Sandford.  I think Jason has his finger more firmly on Asheville's pulse in more contexts—political, social, cultural—than any other journalist in town.  He agreed to help me run this experiment.

If you'd like to tell me what you think about reviews and reviewers in Asheville, submit a comment below or email me at awengrowresearch@gmail.com.