On Criticism
Published October 07, 2002
I have reappraised Disco music recently. Mainly because my daughter enjoys it, but also because it is enjoying a resurgence in popularity. When Disco first came out, I hated it. I hated it in that way only a teenager with a passion for music can hate - with utter assurance of the correctness of his hate, his disdain, his artistic vision. Anyway, now I enjoy it, and I enjoy it for what it is - fun dance music. It does a great job of conveying a certain mood. What more can be said?
That has led me to a further consideration of criticism in general. Most criticism is artistic. Music, movies, plays, writing, artwork, artistic endeavors all are the usual subject of critics and criticism. But how absurd! Is one person's reaction to art any more valid than someone else's? No, if I have learned anything since my earlier, utterly assured days, no. There is nothing objective about the criticism of art. The worst a critic can say is that the artwork did nothing, provoked no response in herself. But that doesn't mean that the same artwork won't elicit a profound response in someone else.
Criticism really falls into two categories - engineering analysis and art itself. When the critic tells you that the trumpet player blew a flat note at an important moment - that's engineering analysis. When the critic describes the effect of the music on herself - that's art. Of course, most reviews mix both. Still, engineering analysis of art is difficult because it requires an assessment of how well the artifact met its creator's goals, which assumes you understand her goals in the first place, and it requires an assessment of how much the intended goals matter to everyone who encounters it. Consequently, the engineering analysis that is undertaken is usually of the most superficial nature and it serves the purpose of demonstrating to the critic's audience that she knows what she's talking about.
But does the critic need to be accomplished, let alone competent in the field they are criticizing? For engineering analysis, this is of course important, but for art, who cares? We all have a soul, don't we? Does Roger Ebert have to a master film maker to be a great critic? Or is it more important to have a love and appreciation for the subject? Art and Science are both concerned with experience — science with the repeatable, and art with the extraordinary. A good critic must be able to have an extraordinary experience and bring it back alive for the rest of us.
- On Criticism
- Published: October 07, 2002
- Type:
- Section: Culture
- Writer: Kevin Murphy
- Kevin Murphy's BC Writer page
- Kevin Murphy's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
Jacob,
The engineering analysis would be based on intent. The artistic analysis would be based on the effect it had on you, regardless of the intent.
But in either case, the question of how much the effect matters to you is important as well. If Disco is a one note song (fun), can't it be eclipsed by music that provides a full range of emotion, often within the same piece (classical)? But even granting that, is there something wrong with putting Donna Summer on instead of Mozart when you want to dance the night away? Even if you find Mozart to be better in every other situation?
There is certainly nothing wrong with that scenario, in fact it describes the reality of what I do when I pick out a CD. The cover art that catches my eye, the mood I am in, and a half-dozen phrases from memorable parts of songs all conspire to help me make a selection. There is no engineering analysis, I couldn't care less at that point about the artists intent.
So if we strip away the engineering aspects and leave the purely artistic effect we might come to the conclusion that Mozart doesn't quite do it on the dance floor. But what about 'bad' disco? Why should we put that on when we could put Donna Summer on to dance the night away. Is there a time/mood for bad disco? My gut reaction is human souls may overlap, and can agree on some kind of artistic aesthetic however basic. After all people may disagree on genre but these are 'generally' derived from the same chords, scales, etc. that have been used for centuries. I am interested in your thoughts on this rambling post.
Jacob,
If I understand you correctly, there's no reason to put bad disco on except where you can't help it. If your'e playing CD's, you may get a song you don't like mixed in with songs you do. Or if listening to the radio, you can't always choose the station. Or maybe you know the some of the people dancing with you love certain songs, even though you don't, so you play them.
Or, it could be you're somewhere where everybody is dancing, except you have a broken leg. In that case, if they played bad disco, you might enjoy it.
The other issue is that I don't think there is an absolute ranking independent of all other variables. YMCA is a crowdpleaser that I wouldn't play if there were just one or two of us. Does that make it a bad song? If I've heard I Will Survive a bunch of times since I last heard Knock On Wood, I'd rather hear Knock On Wood even though I wouldn't say I like it any better.
So I'm going to have to agree with Von Mises that value is not within objects, but within us. As we change, so then the value we place on things changes with us. That what we considered bad at some point can become good, and vice versa.
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/1147)
Fair enough, but there is something unsatisfactory about the implications of your argument. If we judge based on the success of the artists intent then Disco gets an A+ for 'fun' - fine - and the same for classical with, say 'emotion'. I want to buy this but I can't, it doesn't seem to ring true, there is something that seems intrinsically more enduring about classical (although I would be at a loss to explain it).