If you are like most of us, the first thing that pops into your mind upon hearing the word “critic” is a handy little column in the newspaper, a weekly bit in the evening news, or a website like rottentomatoes. It is places like these where we get our biggest doses of media criticism. This criticism tells us whether something is good or bad—worth our money or not. We don’t have to decide what media experiences to go forth and grab, because the decision has already been made for us in a one to five ranking system decided upon by the professional consumers.
Is this really what criticism is? We are all under the misperception that criticism is all about a group of persnickety connoisseurs recommending to us what to and not to watch, read, do, and buy. The best books win awards from critics. The best movies win prizes from critics. The currency of new media has become critical acclaim. A well-known critic can immediately determine whether a certain percentage of the population will or will not see X movie before it is available for DVD rental or read X book before it can be borrowed from the not-so-enlightened acquaintance who actually wasted his cash on it.
Those critics who aren’t hitting it big-time by formulating the tastes of the masses aren’t happy with this situation. I hesitate to call this school academic criticism, but some such demarcation is necessary: pure criticism, high criticism, consumer-indifferent criticism…I’ll just call it real criticism. It is this type of criticism that this class is concerned with. For us, criticism goes beyond points of like and dislike. How many stars you would award something or how you would point your thumb at it are irrelevant for all practical purposes. What matters is understanding the media and appreciating it.
Appreciating is different from liking. It takes a sadist to enjoy a sitting through One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest, but it takes an oaf not to appreciate the quality of its content and the mastery of its delivery. That is the nature of real criticism: an educated analysis of the quality inherent in the content and delivery of media. These can be analyzed myriad ways in terms of the physics, technology, history, trends, popularity, or any number of other subjects pertaining to the material. A real critic doesn’t tell his or her reader whether or not to like something. Readers can figure that out easily enough on their own. A real critic gives readers informative insights into a piece of media, allowing those readers to appreciate the piece in a way they would not have been likely to before.
So real criticism isn’t about skill in controlling consumer impulses. But on some level, we have to ask ourselves the question: isn’t it? The way people use and define a thing controls what the essence of that thing is. The Platonic embodiment of criticism can look down on the world of American media and proclaim, “That’s not what I’m about!” Is it lying to itself? That is what it is about to the majority of Americans and in the way that most affects the media world. We have made criticism the monster that it is, and it may not be able to stand against the flood of newspaper readers and Entertainment Tonight watchers who use it as their consumer guide. When does the misperception overtake and replace the reality?
January 17, 2007 at 10:36 am
I think there’s a place for what might be termed consumer guide criticism and academic/”serious” criticism. If I’m at my best, I hope that I’m writing something in between those critical poles.
Whether you like it or not as a writer, most people who read film criticism are looking for basic plot details and if they’ll like the film. In my opinion, it’s vital for critics to relate their interactions with the films and appraise them accordingly. I hate to say it all boils down to taste or personal preference, but it’s a pretty major component. Writing reviews isn’t like writing scientific proofs, which is how the bulk of academic criticism reads to me. (Much of it is inscrutable and impersonal.)
The way I look at it, my job as a critic is to talk about how the film affected me, not to make guesses about who will like it. (As much as I try to resist hypothesizing who might like particular films, I can’t say that I never do it, though.) There’s still room for “serious” criticism–talking about technique, etc.–but the best writing handles this in a way that’s clear and, well, not condescending. After all, a good teacher takes complicated ideas and makes them accessible to students rather than muddying the waters.
I think you’re on the right track when you write, “A real critic gives readers informative insights into a piece of media, allowing those readers to appreciate the piece in a way they would not have been likely to before.” It’s possible to do that within consumer guide criticism. I don’t view myself as being in a position to sway people to see or avoid a film but to give a (hopefully) informed analysis that is entertaining on its own and instructive to those seeking guidance regarding what’s good, bad, and mediocre.
February 8, 2007 at 6:40 pm
Author’s Note:
In this post, I am writing about the nature of criticism because I want to know the differences/relationships between appreciation and judgment. This is important because people should be aware that there is a deeper dimension to criticism than consumer recommendation.