Kate points to an article by a Worried Critic.
In a world where no piece of professional media can exist without an accompanying Internet message board, the barrage of commentary, courtesy of You™, may be doing irreparable damage to an intellectual tradition that stretches back thousands of years: that of the cultural critic. The word “critic” itself comes from the Greek kritikós (one who discerns), and implies a certain level of scholarship, perspective, education, aesthetic/historical understanding, and calm, considered, reasoned thinking. It’s a concept that seems to be directly at odds with the public’s ability to put 10 or 15 poorly-spelled words into a little box and click “post.” And yet every day, at publications big and small, the public is doing just that… and being celebrated for it.
So I ask: In light of this trend towards all-user-generated-content-all-the-time, can those of us who get paid to have opinions maintain our dignity, our sanity… and our jobs?
Egads, I hope not!
No, really, this sort of intellectual snobbery — “I am a man of discernment! I bring a certain level of scholarship, perspective, education, aesthetic/historical understanding, and calm, considered, reasoned (and, of course, tasteful) thinking to my critiques, unlike you hoi-polloi with your LOLs and your ROTFLs and your misspellings and your MySpace picturebooks and execrable web design skills” — is exactly why we should applaud popular communication in this era of the Internet. Because those are the people who, rather than being put up against the wall by the Revolution, will simply be ignored in the future.
That having been said, a truly worthwhile critic — one who challenges, discerns, enlightens, entertains, provokes, and informs — is likely to do well. If I want to know if a given play is worth seeing — or if there’s anything to a movie I just watched beyond the obvious — am I going to hop over to some blog full of “10 or 15 poorly-spelled words” and rely on that? Probably not. On the other hand, if I know of someone who writes well, whose taste seems to complement mine, who provides some thought-provocation and rewarding guidance, does it matter if they’re a paid professional or an amateur? If it’s just some guy with a blog, does that make him less qualified than some hoity-toity NYT columnist with a PhD and complementary front row seats?
It seems to me that there is a free market of ideas. It’s not perfect, and it’s not always just — any more than any other free market is — but it is better served by full access by all the buyers and sellers available, and let the meritorious chips fall where they may — than by longingly looking back on a time when only the “qualified” and “special” and “discerning” had seller’s permits, and the rest of us relied on their high priesthood to tell us what was good and true and beautiful.
There is room for the paid, professional kritikós, just as there is room for the political commentator, and the author, and the artist, even though those abound among the part-timers and amateurs on the Net. There may not just be as much room, and what room there is may be more competitive. That’s not a bad thing — except for those who can’t make the grade.
Now, that having been said …
The full article is more about whether what the public wants from its critics is feel-good “yes, you’re right, that band is the r0xx0r!” plugs. “Public” here is defined as comment boards for a review website. And here I have almost the opposite reaction: if you can’t stand the heat, then choose a kitchen that doesn’t have comments turned on.
I mean, really. What is he thinking?
- “Those old-time critics in the New Yorker never had to put up with this.” You’re right — aside from angry actresses throwing their drinks at them, and the occasional outraged letter (written in longhand) to the magazine, critics in those days were insulated. So? Are you saying it’s bad that you’re now more “in touch” with the mob?
- “The peasants are revolting! Their opinions are uninformed and crude and unworthy of consideration!” So? Then ignore them.
- “But — but — they don’t like me!” What? You expected to be a critic and be liked?
- “But — but — they aren’t listening to me!” Egads. Not very discerning, are they? Do you think they were listening to you before you could hear their comments back at you? Is their failure to listen their failure? Or yours?
Why should a critic be any more immune to criticism — good or bad, just or unjust — than, say an actor or writer? They’ve been lambasted by the critickistas for eons. They’ve learned to be either cranky or thick-skinned, but woe betide any creative talent that pisses and moans about how the critics are being unfair, are being unappreciative of the creative talent, are only looking for performances that match their particular critical aesthetic. Which is, in fact, sort of where critics are today.
Now, in a world where being popular means having a job, the role of a critic is, in fact, a bit dicey. There may be a temptation to avoid all controversy, to go with the flow, to be a modern-day Gene Shallet. Of course, there’s always been that temptation — witness Gene Shallet, or any other “critic” who always seems to get quoted in movie ads. The only difference is that you have to truckle to the vocal comment board types, rather than just the studio execs and publicity agents.
The other thing to bear in mind is that, well, who’s the voice criticizing you? For the most part it’s either (a) a fan of the artist/work, in which case, duh, they’re going to dislike you saying anything but something positive, or (b) a troll, looking for trouble, in which case if you’re not being criticized (ha!) as a talentless hack you’ll be criticized as an ass-kissing hack. Such are the dangers of being able to hear the vox populi.
Really — if your criticism is your profession, you shouldn’t be worried about what others think, be they bad-spelling yahoos or that guy at another prestigious. If your job depends on whether folks in the comment gallery like you — you may be at the wrong job.
But don’t throw your pretentiousness out at us, either bragging (or whining) about the value of your considered opinion.
Now: Am I a Frank Rich or a Pauline Kael? HELL to the no. But I consider myself a proud part of that tradition. I’ve spent the better part of my adult life educating myself, cultivating opinions, learning about the journey of art through the ages. I take in almost-inconceivable amounts of music, movies, books, television, and media so that I can report on pop culture with an eye on its place in history. I also take time to craft that reporting, to shape my opinions. I take time to present them in a compelling way. I worry over commas, I fret over em-dashes. I use spell-check. I’m inspired by all those amazing voices that came before me, and, as with any craft, I aspire to be excellent at mine. And I believe that, if used properly and responsibly, it is a craft that has great value. I do not know that our society would be a better place if everyone was allowed to perform surgery or build skyscrapers or drive big-rig trucks just because technology came along that made those activities available to the masses at the click of a button. I don’t see what makes cultural criticism any different. Just because you can type into the little box and press “post” doesn’t mean you should.
And just because you’ve educated yourself, cultivated your opinions, and learned to use a spell-checker doesn’t mean that anyone should pay any attention to you because of it. The value of criticism — in this context, at least — is how it affects the audience. If you make me want to come back and reread what you have to say about something (which doesn’t necessarily mean being a “yes-man”), then more power to you. If you can’t, I don’t care if you have a wall of diplomas and can quote Pauline Kael at length, any more than a particular writer or actor or artist is made any better by their diplomas and academic knowledge.
Criticism is not a science. It is an art form. That it’s now subject to a much broader feedback loop isn’t a problem, it’s a solution.
Now….with comments! 🙂
There will always be a place for the “professional” kritikós…either as an Ebert (agree with mostly) or a Thomas Delapa (If he hates it and whines about it in his review….9 times out of 10 I’ll like it) just to get in put. Heck even the guy on KCFR on fridays does a good job of informing and giving a good back ground on a movie (He does a *really* good job discussing film history and film comparison).
The Amature reviewer is also a good thing, it provides word of mouth and and word of mouth, or BUZZ can make or kill a movie.
Certainly there is a place for the professional critic — but to claim that the amateur should be ignored or discounted just because they aren’t “professional” is the sort of hubris that deserves slapping down.
When you say
it sounds like you’re saying that education has no value. Clearly some critics make too much of their education — they are pretentious — but, all other things being equal, an educated critic is more valuable than an uneducated one, particularly for well-informed, rational, and critical commentary on complex material.
It seems to me that there is a genuine worry here, and even if the critic who you quote is worried for purely selfish reasons, I think there is reason for all of us to worry. It seems to me that modern popular culture is headed toward the lowest common denominator in part because society does not generally respect education and intelligence and in part because the goal of keeping costs down promotes use of the cheapest possible sources of content. I think it is possible that the free criics (ie the amateurs) will drive the more costly ones (the ones who are trying to make a living at it) out of the market. It seems to me that there is a tendency to cheapen our public discourse both in respect to its intellectual content and in respect to its financial costs and rewards.
I think Delapa and Ebert are symptoms of the problem. When I read either one, I don’t get the impression that either one is making use of an educated and critical analysis of the movie they’re describing. To me, Delapa seems to hate everything without any distinctions between what is good and what is bad. My impression of Ebert’s work is based on a pretty small sample, but my impression is that he’s a chearleader, basically always finding some reason to recommend any given movie. I want to learn something about movies by reading a review, and I want to learn why the movie under discussion is or is not worthy of my time. A critic who gives universally negative or universally positive reviews isn’t doing anything I find useful, but the popularity of Ebert and Delapa seems to suggest that this is what the market wants.
Well….
There is a lot that going about these days and not just amateur film critics either.
Take political pundits (please… ;P ), especially those that are wedded to the power of Washington. There is now a whole country that is ignoring them, they have been wrong for years and now there are all these dirty freaking hippies with blogs….and people are reading them….LOL’s and all and all the Professional Pundit can do is demand Blogger ethics panels and while at the same time still feeding the public whatever their cocktail circuit buddies whisper to them off the record.
I think it both the professional critic and the professional pundent are in the same boat now. If you have been looking at Time’s Swampland you should, it has been hilarious. Joe Kline and Tamulty have been having to defend their vapid stupidity for a few months against folks that now get to comment on that vapid stupidity…and they are not dealing with it at all well.
So, yes times are changing and there will be those that are upset and take pot shots at the great unwashed masses like they always have.
Something to be said for what you say — and I don’t want to denegrate education (Cecil Sagehen forbid) — but I’d suggest that the majority of material being critiqued is not so complex that an education in theatrical history, or literary theory, etc., substantially adds to much of what is written. There are times when that’s not going to be the case, but most of what’s being critiqued doesn’t lend itself to litcrit analysis — but, too often, too many critics use their credentials to assert their personal taste as an arbiter of value.
For what most people are looking for critics to do, assertion of some sort of aesthetic authority, as a critic, is not productive. Establishing reliability/trust (over time), explaining the basis for a critique (in understandable terms), and being up front about what is opinion vs. what is Judgment from the Mount, is all key. In theory, a professional critic should have a leg up on those elements, but the amateur certainly has a role to play.
I agree that asserting aesthetic authority is not appropriate for a critic or for an amateur. After all, if what I like is subjective, then how can they possibly have any rational grounds for telling me what to like? But for other matters, including ths historical significance of a piece of art, its other cultural references, and whether it is innovative with respect to current practice, I think the professional is generally in a better position to give authoritative and educational information. Of course a well-educated amateur who does it out of love rather than for a paycheck may be as good or better at what he does than a paid hack who hates his job but can’t quit because he doesn’t have any real skills. But I think that on average, someone who is paid to do criticism and who spends their days working at that task will be better at it and will produce higher-quality output than an amateur.
If you’re right that people just want critics to give them a reliable guide to whether or not they will like a movie or other artwork (not whether or not they should like it), then perhaps we need to make a stronger distinction between what we might call a ‘reviewer’ and what we might call a ‘critic.’ Using this terminology, I think I’m trying to argue that it is potentially a bad thing if the demand for reviewers results in the disappearance of critics.
And yes, I’d make similar arguments for other fields too, including political punditry. I agree that there are lots of hack pundits out there, just as there are many hack reviewers. But society should not throw the baby out with the bathwater. I would hope that society will become more discerning consumers of intellectual content rather than allowing the internet to drive the really good ones out of business because they’re more expensive than the cheap ones.
My bias, of course, is in favor of highly educated intellectual workers since one of the few things I’ve accomplished that makes me ‘special’ is my excessive education and my ability to do the kind of intellectual work that critics are good at but which reviewers and modern society appears to shun.
I agree that the role of the critic, as you define it — providing “ths historical significance of a piece of art, its other cultural references, and whether it is innovative with respect to current practice,” is of value, and is an area where criticism is worthwhile and should be encouraged.
My observation goes right to a phrase you (intentionaly) drew a distinction with: “whether or not they should like it.” Too many critics go from the items mentioned above to draw a judgment as to whether people *should* like it, and too often beyond that pass negative judgment on those whoses taste are different (and, presumably, more plebeian).
I definitely think there is a place — a large and valued place — for “highly intellectual workers,” and I also agree that sometimes their intellectual work and judgment are shunned and devalued in society.
I mentioned Thomas Delapa earlier in a comment here. Interestingly, his latest column seems to comment on the very issue we were discussing.
See Fort Collins Weekly – Movie Review: The Host.
Delapa concludes that many movie critics don’t know what makes a movie good or bad. I think this is Ironic, since that’s essentially the charge I make against him. Every movie review I’ve ever read by Delapa indicated that the movie was bad. If he believes that every movie is bad (as seems to be the case based on my unscientific survey of his work), and in fact there are good movies (as seems to be the case based on my uneducated movie-watching) then he doesn’t know what makes a movie good or bad.
While I argued above that I think movie critics are valuable, I don’t think Delapa is particularly valuable. I’d shed no tears if he reviewed no more movies.
By the very contempt dripping from his keyboard in the first couple of paragraphs, Delapa makes my point for me.
Or, put another way, I’m not necessarily willing to equate “good” with “popular” — but I’m not willing to dismiss the connection, either. Delapa’s thesis seems to be that because the movie is (a) wildly popular, (b) lauded by various critics, and (c) disliked intensely by him, that the viewing public are infantile cretins, and the other critics are all pandering morons. Nice.
Or, put another way, if Delapa wants to assert that it’s a bad movie, he should give some serious reasons for it, not using that it’s being lapped up by pablum-loving crowds and truckling critics as the his primary arguments.
*does happy dance*
Speaking of Delapa, he is no longer doing reviews for the Boulder Weekly. 😀
Oh, he has liked movies, it is just so rare that it is hard to find them. Think of a film snob that hates anything not made in ’50’s or 60’s France or Italy, and that is Delapa.
Not at all sorry to see him gone.
Fear of the great unwashed hoi polloi seems to be a meme of sorts…
The Washington Monthly article pointed to a column from the LA Times by Richard Schickel. At the end of the essay, Schickel says
Seems to me that if Schickel can’t see that the democratic literary landscape would allow those who he admires to continue their work, then he’s just proved to me that he doesn’t deserve my attention, regardless of his credentials.
I can understand how people might be worried that the economics of the internet might make their jobs less lucrative, but to suggest that there will be nothing of value on the internet is pretty damn stupid.
Indeed. I did like the comment (very French) that individuals could not simply assert their right to have an opinion — they had to *prove* it. Au contraire. The right is inherent. The only thing I have to prove is that people will find value in *listening* to my expression of opinion.
It is perhaps not surprising that some critics (and some authors) seem to prefer an authoritarian environment, where certain folks are worth listening to because They Are The Authorities, by dint of credentials or by being published or both (and, of course, the folks so claiming do, in fact, consider themselves Authorities). The reverse of that would seemingly be a democracy — ignoring that a democracy can just as easily find “oases of intelligence and delight” as an authoritarian regime — if not more easily.