In Lady in the Water, M. Night Shyamalan’s sub-plot involving the critic clearly represents his feeling that picking apart an artist’s work can become an act of hubris. One can become caught in the criticism of a piece and lose what is most important: the soulful expression the artist is trying to convey. While Shyamalan goes too far by villainizing anyone who tries to understand what is going on in another’s mind, there is definitely a point of exploration here.

Someone trained to look at a medium with a critical eye bears a burden of knowledge that the average reader lacks. This is good for analyzing the quality of the art and is generally thought of as a high road to art appreciation. But can it have an opposite effect?

Why does an artist make art? Is it to evoke a sense of technical appreciation in the consumers, or to immerse them in an experience in which technical knowledge of what is being thrust on them is irrelevant and sometimes even counter to the aims? Does the artist want the consumer to say, “Ooh, look at the way he moved—that’s so awesome,” or “Excellent use of zip-ribbons and blurring to create the illusion of movement?”

Much, if not most, of what goes on in television, movies, comics, and perhaps art in general is illusion. Those images aren’t moving. You just think they are. You are made to think that those static pictures are dynamic, living creatures in which there is a world of goings-on. Really, they are just static images in series on paper or film. It is magic at its most refined.

But does the magic show seem the same after you figure out the bag of tricks? Once you know that nobody is really levitating or getting cut in half, does it detract from the sheer pleasure to be taken from the experience?