Ahira's Hangar

OK, I'm dipping my foot in the water, rather cautiously, if this thread does not follow my expectations, it will be locked or deleted. Sorry, but my hope is to initiate and have a vigorous, but kind and generous, discussion.

Are all 'critical' assessements concerning cultural endevours (pop culture, low brow lit, high lit, films, classic plays, etc.) no more than matters of personal taste and caprice? Are all critical measures of analysis subject to the whims of subjectivity, or are there objective measures that can be used for analysis?

A related question, is it possible for folks who are 'fans' of a particular form, creator or strain of creativity to actually give objective judgements? IOW, does their affinity and genuine affection for the items under scrutiny preclude them from making a measured and reasoned judgement? IMO, many from the academy might agree with that.

have at it. taraswizard
Allan Rosewarne N9SQT/WDX6HQV
Chicago area
W/T forever, always
Plan C - http://planc.bravepages.com/main.html<i>Edited by: taraswizard at: 9/30/06 11:02 pm
</i>

The evil hack messed with this thread of messages IIRC, there were some interesting messages here.

Deviating a little from the original message, what is the role of critics and criticism? Are critics trying to persuade you to share their taste in books, movies, music, regardless how noble and refined your existing tastes are already? IOW, are they advocates for a certain kind of art? Well, maybe but that role (of advocate) exists independent of their role of critic. Role of critic is more didactic and less advocative. Taking Judith Crist, at one time the regular movie critic for TV Guide and first movie critic I ever heard of, she did not generally like Westerns, would she prefer Westerns were never made, probably, but her role as a critic was not to persuade one that all Westerns were bad and not to be watched. Consider Robert Hilburn, well known rock critic for LA Times, I listened to an interview of his many years ago, and ATT he said one of his roles as critic was to identify who among current musicians are to be great touchstones or icons of the future; to explain, he said when the early british rockers came to America, all were asked who are your favorite musicians and biggest influences, their answers were invariably almost the same Chuck Berry, Elvis, Little Richard, etc. So Hilburn said part of my criticism is to indentify who will the next generation of rockers call their favorites and influences. That is clearly a didactic role and not a role of an advocate.

Sorry this message is long and says very little about movies, books and TV, but I hope one can see the parallels. Or maybe I'm just blowing smoke and blathering here. taraswizard
Allan Rosewarne N9SQT/WDX6HQV
Chicago area
W/T forever, always
Plan C - http://planc.bravepages.com/main.html
Buff_fans_Chicago http://tv.groups.yahoo.com/group/buffy_fans_chicago/
live journal http://taras-wizard.livejournal.com<i>Edited by: taraswizard at: 5/5/06 10:21 am
</i>

Something I greatly value in a critic is bringing things to my attention that I would otherwise not know exist. The local movie critic for our paper watches a lot of indie movies that might show for a few times at one of the art houses in downtown Ann Arbor and then never be heard of again. Well, in the past I have seen the reviews and thought something sounded like it might be good, not been able to get into town and see the movie, and that would be that.

Now that I have Netflix rental, I can just add the ones that sound like they might be good to my rental list. So far none of them have been out on video yet, but when and if they are, they go on the active list and will eventually be sent to me.

In the meantime, I am sure my Netflix friends see a long list of odd and unavailable films no one has ever heard of on my waiting list and wonder what on earth is going on. ******************************************************

Our lives are the songs that sing the universe into existence.~David Zindell
<i></i>

Duchess, thanks for replying and I think you're agreeing with my message. A critic is a didact and not necessarily an advocate.

To another point, this might be less on point. Most everyone in SF has heard of 'Sturgeon's Law' a legendary quote that '95% of anything is crap'. However, was this glib bon mot made up to justify every little idiosyncrasy of ones individual tastes and preferences. Do not like rock music to the preference of classical music, jazz or bigband swing era tunes, well just trot out "Sturgeon's law" and now you've become some champion of musical standards and traditions, and not just a stick in the mud fudey dudey. Not a fan of modernist art (Jackson Pollack, abstract art, cubism, surrealism, etc.) just batter its proponents with 'Sturgeon's Law' and now instead of being a closed minded boor who has no vision regarding artistic visual representations, your now a self styled upholder of visual integrity and authenticity.

Do not misunderstand my discussion, I'm not arguing that junk, crap does not exist. Consider the movie I, Robot, the acting is not very good, the directing not good, writing not well done, the special effects not so special, and the movie shares few of the elements of the 'source' material. The movie is real mucked up fess. Or the recent sitcom Joey, based around Matt LeBlanc's character from friends.

Comments, please. taraswizard
Allan Rosewarne N9SQT/WDX6HQV
Chicago area
W/T forever, always
Plan C - http://planc.bravepages.com/main.html
Buff_fans_Chicago http://tv.groups.yahoo.com/group/buffy_fans_chicago/
live journal http://taras-wizard.livejournal.com<i>Edited by: taraswizard at: 5/23/06 11:43 pm
</i>

Still trying here to initiate some conversation. Going on let me relate an anecdote about Jane Espenson (TV writer, BtVS, BSG, Gilmore Girls, Ellen, Tru Calling, etc.). A friend (Matt from my BtVS meetup) recently met her at an event in California. Matt asked her what she thought about academics (David Lavery MidTennessee University and Brunel University, and Rhonda Wilcox Gordon College, Barnesville GA) who study and write about her work, primarily regarding Buffy, with academic rigor and integrity. Her reply was a little dismissive and along the following line, 'well, it might be a little silly to devote that sort of attention to some idea I came up while retrieving a soda from the refrigerator, in my bathrobe after spending eight hours in the writers room'.

OK... Let's step back 500 so years ago, and if one was to have asked William Shakespeare the same question one can imagine his answer would have been like this: 'it's probably a little shallow to devote some much exalted attention to a silly story about fictional silly acting teenagers set in Italy's recent past, based on a story that was hammered out by me and some other Globe actors over a few whiskey's and some pints of ale'. Everyone needs to remember it was through the actions of Samuel Johnson (the dictionary guy) that Shakespeare was made acceptable to the academy.

Do not misunderstand I've not equating BtVS to Shakespeare, but... So there's all these efforts and commentary like newspaper essays saying in inflammatory headlines 'HOW SCANDALOUS college has class on Simpsons' or 'Look at the lowering standards local university hosts conference on Comic Books'. Even today one hears the criticism that film studies is not a legitimate university level academic discipline. y taraswizard
Allan Rosewarne N9SQT/WDX6HQV
Chicago area
W/T forever, always
Buffy fans Chicago
my livej<i></i>

I can't find two excellent quotes on critics, but one goes something like this:

Critics, being unable to create, satisfy themselves instead with commenting on the creations of others.

The other is along the lines of:

Critics are useless at judging masterpieces, because genius operates on self-derived standards.

Niether are quoted quite accurately, and both IIRC, are by R.A Wilson.

I like them.

And yes, I think that everything is subjective and down top personal taste, for which, as we know, there is no accounting.

--A ____________________________________

A sense of the sardonic preserves a man from believing in his own pretensions. -The Sayings Of Maud'Dib<i></i>

One has to remember that most literary and music masterpieces, from Homer to Shakespeare and Mozart's comic operas to Beethoven to the Beatles on into modern times were originally meant for popular consumption.

It doesn't matter how good something might be if no one has ever read it, seen it, or heard it.

I know this is off subject a bit, but whenever I read the book reviews from someone or something like the New York Times reviewers, I think that a lot of the stuff they review is pretentious crap that most people would not be willing to read and that will probably never pass the test of time.

******************************************************

Our lives are the songs that sing the universe into existence.~David Zindell
<i></i>

:rorw Good discussion folks; however, isn't R.A. Wilson's comment really just a cliche. (consider and compare "Those who can do, but those who cannot teach") Consider this in the realm of film anaylsis and evaluation; apparently , Hitchkock was apparently asked once what made a 'good' film and his reply was 'boxoffice is the only measure of a film's worth and merit'. Consider the last of the Marx Brother's last movie for Paramount in 1932 or so, Duck Soup, a failure at the box office, but the movie is considered by most today as a comedic masterpiece.

Avatar wrote the follwing and attributed it to RA Wison Quote:Critics are useless at judging masterpieces, because genius operates on self-derived standards. Well, is that statement anymore than an intellectualized justification of any self indulgent subjective measure and standard that anyone would be able to apply to anything. It seems to me that quote would justify the equivalency of Andres Serrano's 'P*** Christ' or Robert M******horpe's more provocative pieces to the work of Georgia O'Keefe and the photographs of Diane Arbus. Yes, I know the stories of how the music critics hated Stravinsky's Rite of Spring at its premier. So to me the quote seems a little to self indulgent. Because, my point is not necessarily against standards and 'objective criteria, my point is that those criteria are more subtle and fine in their application and discovery. Avatar, do not take this as ranting on you.

Duchess, your point on the books reviewed by NYT Review of Books is well made and very probably true. Consider in 1900 Theodore Dreiser published Sister Carrie, and conicidentally the same year Frank Baum published The Wonderful Wizard of Oz. And how many people have read WWoO compared to SC since then. Not knowing for certain, but my best guest is that there's been a bit more analyses written about WWoO than the Dreisser text.

taraswizard
Allan Rosewarne N9SQT/WDX6HQV
Chicago area
W/T forever, always
Buffy fans Chicago
my livej<i>Edited by: taraswizard at: 10/2/06 9:30 pm
</i>

Actually, I have read Sister Carrie (which I actually think is a pretty good book which scewers the social mores of its time) but I have not read the Wizard. I should read the Wizard, though, since I love the movie.

I love critics like Dragonlily - those who read books that are not pretentious in nature and try to match up those books with people who might like them. Music and TV and film critics the same way. Rather than sneering at action movies, for example - tell me what is better than average about this particular action movie and why I might want to see it. ******************************************************

Our lives are the songs that sing the universe into existence.~David Zindell
<i></i>

Tut tut Taras...I would have thought you knew me better than that by now. You're welcome to disagree with me or anything I say without fear that I will feel insulted or attacked.

Anyway, while we may often dismiss things as cliche's, it never hurts to consider the reason that cliche's become cliche's in the first place...

(Was Duck Soup the one with the Dictator? I love that one. )

As for the self-indulgence of the second, I agree of course. However, lacking any real belief in the possibility of objectivity, or the existence of a true objective standard, (even what we consider "classic" objective standards for judging art were once somebody's opinion that got codified and widely accepted), I don't have a problem considering the equivalence of Serran or M******horpe (why do we star this out?).

I might not like some of it, but it clearly falls within the ambit of legitimate art. And what about that guy with the preserved, flayed and laquered corpses?

Critics are just people looking at things through their own filter of perception and perspective...whether their judgements will be borne out popularly or by history, there is no way of knowing. Your own (or my own) judgement has pretty much an equal chance of being that.

--A ____________________________________

A sense of the sardonic preserves a man from believing in his own pretensions. -The Sayings Of Maud'Dib<i></i>

Good replies Ducchess and Avatar.

A thinking point to consider before I make some replies. Consider M******horpe's and Andres Seranno's works are so provocative, that it might be virtually impossible to evaluate their text with any objectivity.

Duchess wrote Quote:Rather than sneering at action movies, for example - tell me what is better than average about this particular action movie and why I might want to see it IMshO, that statement says exactly what I was trying to say in my earlier messages, the critical role is a didactic function and not necessarily an advocative function. Consider how many, many movie critics accept horror movies and will not accept other speculativ genre movies, and the group of movies are casually cast aside as silly stories about make-believe stuff; BTW, many horror movies are sillier stories about make-believe stuff.

Avatar wrote Quote:Anyway, while we may often dismiss things as cliche's, it never hurts to consider the reason that cliche's become cliche's in the first place... Always a good point to consider. However, like my discussion of Sturgeon's Law in a previous message, many people use the cliche as the final and only arguement in their discussion. Consider my examples given of music and modern art.

taraswizard
Allan Rosewarne N9SQT/WDX6HQV
Chicago area
W/T forever, always
Buffy fans Chicago
my livej<i></i>

Quote:Consider M******horpe's and Andres Seranno's works are so provocative, that it might be virtually impossible to evaluate their text with any objectivity.

A very good point. By necessity, per force in fact, we see the world ony through our conditioning and our preconceptions. The same holds true for everything though I think.

We are defined by our prejudices, and they do not lead us into objectivity.

--A ____________________________________

A sense of the sardonic preserves a man from believing in his own pretensions. -The Sayings Of Maud'Dib<i></i>