The Critic as Artist

[Ecurb]

I had a long discussion last night about movies, with a couple of (semi-professional) film-makers. Being a literature-lover, I probably know more about film criticism than about films. I’m a fan of criticism in general, as an art form. If one likes art, one likes talking about it, or reading about it. After all, isn’t that what we all do by posting on this board?

One of the film-directors liked criticism, but disapproved of “rating” movies. That’s fair enough. A “rating” is always going to be simplistic. The other disliked criticism in general. He didn’t like the notion that the critic thought he could A) judge a film, and B) mediate between the artist and the audience. I’ll grant that (with the exception of some incomprehensible post-modern art) it is not the primary role of the critic to “explain” the film. Instead (as Oscar Wilde pointed out in his essay “The Critic as Artist”) it is to entertain, amuse, and stimulate the reader. If the critic can point out things that improve our enjoyment of the film, so much the better. But a critique is a work of literature, and it’s value is as such, not as a mediator between the film-maker and his audience.

My favorite current film critic is Anthony Lane (New Yorker), not because I agree with him about movies, but because he writes funny, amusing, enlightening essays, the subject of which happens to be films. Pauline Kael is my favorite recent movie critic. Anyone else a fan of movie critiques, or criticism in general?

[Alexander III]

I agree with you, I too am in the Wildean Camp.

It is like this. Michelangelo's Pieta inspired Ugo Foscolo writing a sonnet about.

So art in one medioum was the direct source of inspiration with another medium.

A Poem and an Essay about the poem. It is one source of art inspiring another source of art in a different medium.

The critical essay can be just as much a work of art, or just as little a work of art as the poem -

But the essay is just that, a work of art sourced from another work of art.

The critic is just another type of artist who reliez heavily as ather art as a source of inspiration.

The artist creates art from the world and other art, and the critic creates art from other art.

[cafolini]

I had a long discussion last night about movies, with a couple of (semi-professional) film-makers. Being a literature-lover, I probably know more about film criticism than about films. I’m a fan of criticism in general, as an art form. If one likes art, one likes talking about it, or reading about it. After all, isn’t that what we all do by posting on this board?

One of the film-directors liked criticism, but disapproved of “rating” movies. That’s fair enough. A “rating” is always going to be simplistic. The other disliked criticism in general. He didn’t like the notion that the critic thought he could A) judge a film, and B) mediate between the artist and the audience. I’ll grant that (with the exception of some incomprehensible post-modern art) it is not the primary role of the critic to “explain” the film. Instead (as Oscar Wilde pointed out in his essay “The Critic as Artist”) it is to entertain, amuse, and stimulate the reader. If the critic can point out things that improve our enjoyment of the film, so much the better. But a critique is a work of literature, and it’s value is as such, not as a mediator between the film-maker and his audience.

My favorite current film critic is Anthony Lane (New Yorker), not because I agree with him about movies, but because he writes funny, amusing, enlightening essays, the subject of which happens to be films. Pauline Kael is my favorite recent movie critic. Anyone else a fan of movie critiques, or criticism in general?

Without criticism there can be no development, no evolution. Besides, to take a position against criticism is analogous to taking a position against politics or business. But beyond that, literature is anything that has to do with letters. A word is literature. And great literature is what sells, because no one has more authority than the people to determine what's needed, what's wanted.

[My2cents]

It's a fun way to make a living I would think. I wouldn't mind being paid to rip apart in print whatever I deemed garbage. John Simon comes to mind, but he seems to have either mellowed out or marginalized, or both.

[JBI]

It's strange though when poets act like their own critics, like Eliot footnoting the Waste Land, or Coleridge writing in the margins of The Ancient Mariner - it really confuses things.

Then again, most poets seemed connected one way or another to criticism. It's part of writing poetry I guess.

[Alexander III]

And great literature is what sells, because no one has more authority than the people to determine what's needed, what's wanted.

I must disagree, Great Literature is that feeling where you realize that men such as Rimbaud and Lermontov can't be forgotten. Not because of their words, or because of anything solid. But they cant be forgotten because you can't help but know that all the beauty that makes mankind so perfect is pinnacled in some individuals.

But to be less romantic, as I am sure most of you read my above post and laughed or scoffed - a more academic description would be

I personally believe that great art, or attempts at great art, then again I suppose no one begins with the intention of creating mediocre art, but I digress, Art does not seek an audience per se, it is nonchalant and indifferent to targeting a certain class or audience, rather, in literature's case, it seeks to enter the great debate hall that is literature, and to speak its voice amongst the bellows of past greats, to build on past arguments, redefine them, discredit them, or try to form new ones on the ashes of past ones.

[cafolini]

I must disagree, Great Literature is that feeling where you realize that men such as Rimbaud and Lermontov can't be forgotten. Not because of their words, or because of anything solid. But they cant be forgotten because you can't help but know that all the beauty that makes mankind so perfect is pinnacled in some individuals.

But to be less romantic, as I am sure most of you read my above post and laughed or scoffed - a more academic description would be

I personally believe that great art, or attempts at great art, then again I suppose no one begins with the intention of creating mediocre art, but I digress, Art does not seek an audience per se, it is nonchalant and indifferent to targeting a certain class or audience, rather, in literature's case, it seeks to enter the great debate hall that is literature, and to speak its voice amongst the bellows of past greats, to build on past arguments, redefine them, discredit them, or try to form new ones on the ashes of past ones.

You could say all you want about that, and venture some opinions, but one way or the other, it is because it sells. It is because the people is there who would buy it. You could write an essay on the psydchological motives for which people buy it.
I think it's very dynamic. I think best sellers are the greatest art.

[JBI]

Without criticism there can be no development, no evolution. Besides, to take a position against criticism is analogous to taking a position against politics or business. But beyond that, literature is anything that has to do with letters. A word is literature. And great literature is what sells, because no one has more authority than the people to determine what's needed, what's wanted.

What of traditions that don't have sales as a factor - for instance, Tang Poetry was pretty much a manuscript circulation game - people weren't selling books. Now, as a type of poetry, that is perhaps the most loved in the world, making a profound influence on Korean, and Japanese traditions as well (the original Japanese poetics, for instance, was an answer and continuation of Tang poetry) and then later had a profound influence on English and Western verse in general.

In terms of influence, appreciation and expressive power, there probably has never been a rival tradition, well, maybe certain Arabic or Persian traditions. But as for sales - Li Bai did not sell poems, Du Fu did not either. Poems were composed and distributed, but not sold.

What do you make of that hmmm? It really Jackknifes a misreading of the works of Walter Benjamin now does it?

The link between literature and sales is rather a new one, in terms of historical publishing. John Donne, for instance, circulated during his life time in manuscript form. Virgil never saw a cent of his poetry, and wanted the thing burnt.

A difficult argument to uphold - sales say nothing, Shakespeare sold tickets, not books, and Kyd outsold him by a long shot. Christopher Smart was published in the 20th century, and still has limited readership.

Novels seem bound to cash though, I will say that, but novels are a decadent form to begin with, and have a harder time convincing many that they are "great literature."

If what sold are the criteria, my friend, pornography would be the "great literature" of the past 50 years. I guess the people have spoken.

[cafolini]

What of traditions that don't have sales as a factor - for instance, Tang Poetry was pretty much a manuscript circulation game - people weren't selling books. Now, as a type of poetry, that is perhaps the most loved in the world, making a profound influence on Korean, and Japanese traditions as well (the original Japanese poetics, for instance, was an answer and continuation of Tang poetry) and then later had a profound influence on English and Western verse in general.

In terms of influence, appreciation and expressive power, there probably has never been a rival tradition, well, maybe certain Arabic or Persian traditions. But as for sales - Li Bai did not sell poems, Du Fu did not either. Poems were composed and distributed, but not sold.

What do you make of that hmmm? It really Jackknifes a misreading of the works of Walter Benjamin now does it?

The link between literature and sales is rather a new one, in terms of historical publishing. John Donne, for instance, circulated during his life time in manuscript form. Virgil never saw a cent of his poetry, and wanted the thing burnt.

A difficult argument to uphold - sales say nothing, Shakespeare sold tickets, not books, and Kyd outsold him by a long shot. Christopher Smart was published in the 20th century, and still has limited readership.

Novels seem bound to cash though, I will say that, but novels are a decadent form to begin with, and have a harder time convincing many that they are "great literature."

If what sold are the criteria, my friend, pornography would be the "great literature" of the past 50 years. I guess the people have spoken.

That's twisted. Many traditions have been imposed by force. Many others could not be traditions if they didn't sell in order to get established. Not to speak of the implications of a tradition when it comes to effects and affects regarding what sells. Many traditions sold as barter and that's how they got established.
Pornoraphy? What is pornography? Many thought that De Sade was the only true revolutionary and it sold like crazy. Pornography? Michael Jackson grabbing his genitals as he dances on stage? What? Nudes? Showing on stage what people do in the bedroom? Courtroom where the jury could not come to terms and they flip a coin to resolve the life or death of a man?
I think you are talking about elitism as great literature. History has shown its work galore. Thank goodness it's now in a museum of history and it's not coming back unless the people buys it back. But as I see it, that's never going to happen to the classics other than through the ability of the people in marketting. They are good business because they cost very little to produce and can be promoted. But they come and go by the same token like everything else. The stage is far more dynamic than you state.

[JBI]

That's twisted. Many traditions have been imposed by force. Many others could not be traditions if they didn't sell in order to get established. Not to speak of the implications of a tradition when it comes to effects and affects regarding what sells. Many traditions sold as barter and that's how they got established.
Pornoraphy? What is pornography? Many thought that De Sade was the only true revolutionary and it sold like crazy. Pornography? Michael Jackson grabbing his genitals as he dances on stage? What? Nudes? Showing on stage what people do in the bedroom? Courtroom where the jury could not come to terms and they flip a coin to resolve the life or death of a man?
I think you are talking about elitism as great literature. History has shown its work galore. Thank goodness it's now in a museum of history and it's not coming back unless the people buys it back. But as I see it, that's never going to happen to the classics other than through the ability of the people in marketting. They are good business because they cost very little to produce and can be promoted. But they come and go by the same token like everything else. The stage is far more dynamic than you state.

Don't give me that self-righteous crap. Tradition's imposed? Well, what gets published, how much do novels sell for, how many people are literate? Truth be told, the only reason why someone like Walt Whitman is as well-read as he is is because they force him down every American school-child's throat. Imposed what?

You know absolutely nothing about Chinese poetics, and the Chinese tradition - someone like Li Bai would be the chief example of a populist poet, yet he did not exist in sales, and he did go against the court, more than once - likewise his follower Bai Ju Yi who is regarded as a socialist poet in some circles of modern academia was also incredibly influential, and loved particularly well in Japan as a chosen import over more canonical Chinese poets.

What do you mean then by imposed? By pornography I meant porn, porno, - the cheap sleazy crap that have bigger sales than people admit - the articles written next to photos of varying exposure and vulgarity. Nobody will deny the sales of porn. So what?

Take someone like Bunyan - very little read despite being one of the biggest sellers of its time. Take Dickens, handing his middle-class audience what they want. Take J. K. Rowling who put out the most expensive children's book at the time of some of her volumes' publications.

Are they not elitist in some form? Who is buying books if not a specific class of person? That is even more evident 150 years ago when a membership in a lending library would have been a month's salary for an emerging middle-class person, let alone a worker! Let alone buying books themselves!

Your talk is complete self-proud nonsense which is not justified by any evidence, however well you misquote commonplace arguments from 30 years ago by scholars who have since either gone out of favor, or changed their opinions.

The people have never decided anything, and will not decide anything, for the simple fact that they do not buy books - they buy copies of books. How do you know what to buy? Well, first a publisher buys a manuscript, then they put it out, then they advertise it, then the book store picks it up, then they put it out, then they advertise it, then a reviewer is paid to review it, then they put it out, then the newspaper runs an ad bellow it, then you go to buy your book, and you see it on the special shelf, or on the best seller list, and you read the back, which an editor composed, and maybe read two pages, which an editor prepared.

You see my point. Best sellers are made more than written, and they are not made by poor people - they are made by rich people, or big conglomerates, mass publishers and the like.

I do not know what you are trying to say, much less do I see any point in it. Literature and traditions exist, is true, but they are not formed by sales - sales are a new phenomenon in answer to the esteem of a few who either decide something can be sold, or, otherwise, decide something is worth publishing based on its merit (for instance, university presses and the like). To think anything else is silly.

The people, as you will, have a say in things. But ultimately their say is merely a game of buying what is presented or not - it is not a game of selection, since numerous rounds of selection have already been done for them.

You should perhaps reevaluate your posting methods, rather than derailing any more threads, as you come off as both impolite, off subject, and worse, rude, self-proud and condescending, which I am sure you have no intention of being.

I would suggest you think more about how dynamic the stage is, and realize that there is far more history, and far more geography, and far more going on than the simple proclamations you try to justify as truths without any evidence, without any topical relevance, and without any real justification.

[cafolini]

Don't give me that self-righteous crap. Tradition's imposed? Well, what gets published, how much do novels sell for, how many people are literate? Truth be told, the only reason why someone like Walt Whitman is as well-read as he is is because they force him down every American school-child's throat. Imposed what?

You know absolutely nothing about Chinese poetics, and the Chinese tradition - someone like Li Bai would be the chief example of a populist poet, yet he did not exist in sales, and he did go against the court, more than once - likewise his follower Bai Ju Yi who is regarded as a socialist poet in some circles of modern academia was also incredibly influential, and loved particularly well in Japan as a chosen import over more canonical Chinese poets.

What do you mean then by imposed? By pornography I meant porn, porno, - the cheap sleazy crap that have bigger sales than people admit - the articles written next to photos of varying exposure and vulgarity. Nobody will deny the sales of porn. So what?

Take someone like Bunyan - very little read despite being one of the biggest sellers of its time. Take Dickens, handing his middle-class audience what they want. Take J. K. Rowling who put out the most expensive children's book at the time of some of her volumes' publications.

Are they not elitist in some form? Who is buying books if not a specific class of person? That is even more evident 150 years ago when a membership in a lending library would have been a month's salary for an emerging middle-class person, let alone a worker! Let alone buying books themselves!

Your talk is complete self-proud nonsense which is not justified by any evidence, however well you misquote commonplace arguments from 30 years ago by scholars who have since either gone out of favor, or changed their opinions.

The people have never decided anything, and will not decide anything, for the simple fact that they do not buy books - they buy copies of books. How do you know what to buy? Well, first a publisher buys a manuscript, then they put it out, then they advertise it, then the book store picks it up, then they put it out, then they advertise it, then a reviewer is paid to review it, then they put it out, then the newspaper runs an ad bellow it, then you go to buy your book, and you see it on the special shelf, or on the best seller list, and you read the back, which an editor composed, and maybe read two pages, which an editor prepared.

You see my point. Best sellers are made more than written, and they are not made by poor people - they are made by rich people, or big conglomerates, mass publishers and the like.

I do not know what you are trying to say, much less do I see any point in it. Literature and traditions exist, is true, but they are not formed by sales - sales are a new phenomenon in answer to the esteem of a few who either decide something can be sold, or, otherwise, decide something is worth publishing based on its merit (for instance, university presses and the like). To think anything else is silly.

The people, as you will, have a say in things. But ultimately their say is merely a game of buying what is presented or not - it is not a game of selection, since numerous rounds of selection have already been done for them.

You should perhaps reevaluate your posting methods, rather than derailing any more threads, as you come off as both impolite, off subject, and worse, rude, self-proud and condescending, which I am sure you have no intention of being.

I would suggest you think more about how dynamic the stage is, and realize that there is far more history, and far more geography, and far more going on than the simple proclamations you try to justify as truths without any evidence, without any topical relevance, and without any real justification.

Of condescendence we have enough in your highly contradictive discourse to fill a pork barrel. Thank goodness you would not sell a bit of it. The people wouldn't buy it.:wave:

[B. Laumness]

Well said, JBI. Calofini, it’s fascinating to see that everything you say is nonsense.

[kelby_lake]

I think criticism is an art. Good criticism is when the critic admits that they are being subjective and does not aspire to be the high judge of literature/film/theatre. They are subjective but because they are intelligent, well-read, and know how to use words to their full effect, their criticism is useful.

[stlukesguild]

Well said, JBI. Calofini, it’s fascinating to see that everything you say is nonsense.

Indeed. A rather poor advertisement for his own view of the "exceptionality" of his generation... and himself, no doubt. I cannot help but recognize just one more clever boy with a few years of college under his belt who imagines that not only does he know everything... but no body else knows anything.


Yawn!:sleep:

[cafolini]

Well said, JBI. Calofini, it’s fascinating to see that everything you say is nonsense.

Indeed. A rather poor advertisement for his own view of the "exceptionality" of his generation... and himself, no doubt. I cannot help but recognize just one more clever boy with a few years of college under his belt who imagines that not only does he know everything... but no body else knows anything.


Yawn!:sleep:

Hey, if you keep with this you are going to make me think that I'm even more important than you think.
Now, on the other hand, I don't see why you are so bitter about this. What have you got to lose if you are correct? If you are correct, we are the losers. You are not going to tell me that such dumbos have any power to get you upset. They are unimportant. Let it be, let it be, let it be. There will be an answer.