Howard Who?

There are several debates which represent ongoing issues related to writing about and having opinions about culture. They derive largely from the tension that art produces within a society. They are probably never going to be definitively answered, but for the purposes of any critic, one must take a side and let the reader understand that that’s the position his writing will be filtered through. If you don’t like the premise of said critic, that’s fine…but understand that it’s not because he/she is an idiot…which brings me to point number 1.

1. Ad Hominem

A great example are the Presidential campaigns being waged at the moment. Each person is trying to paint the other as having this flaw or that flaw, some candidates more than others. Instead of saying, I don’t like that person’s ideas for these reasons, the attack sounds more like kindergarten recess verbiage. It is the argument of insult…except that it’s not a real argument. It’s a logical fallacy. Calling me a tool doesn’t make me wrong…sticks and stones may break my bones. What makes an argument wrong is that the things someone said was proved to be incorrect or shortsighted etc. Emotionally it is very satisfying to call people names, especially on the internet where you don’t have to deal with them face to face…but because of the posterity and textual nature of the internet, the better arguments tend to win I think and hope.

2. What do you do?

Perhaps the most common ad hominem attack I see is the “What do you do?” argument. It goes like this: Who are you to criticize an established and beloved artist? What have you done that gives you the authority to comment? Could you do any better than the artist? If not, you should shut up.

Well, my problem here is that NO ONE needs artistic credentials to critique art. The artist has willingly told his audience that they are free to criticize his work as they wish. That is the pact they sign when they put their art out into the public realm. If they didn’t want critics to chime in, they should not have put it out there. In fact, the purpose of art is to criticize, discuss, love, hate, and ponder art. J.D. Salinger hasn’t published anything for decades…he has chosen to shelter his work from outside opinion. That’s his decision. Alicia Keys is not sheltered, and is probably one of the most visible artists in pop music today, and by doing so, is asking everyone to critique…either with album sales or in writing.

Of course, having some artistic credentials does help your argument. Roger Ebert and Pauline Kael both worked in the film industry for a time. But even if I haven’t (I actually have), it’s more impotant that I experience lots of art, be emotionally involved, and have some kind of quality standard. That’s what it means to me to be a fan of art.

3. Is art subjective?

Everyone has been told at one time or another that their opinion of art is merely subjective. Love or hate is equally valid, there’s no right answer. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Et cetera.

And this is true to some extent. People do have genuine disagreements about works of art. However, I would have to argue that not all of art criticism is subjective. In fact, the whole purpose of maintaining the “classical” arts is that our culture has decided that certain art is actually not debatable. Perhaps you might prefer Beethoven’s third symphony over his ninth or fifth, but you can’t say outright that his symphonies suck or have no value. Maybe Sgt. Peppers is overrated, but The Beatles were not trash. It may have no personal value to you at the moment, but you can’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.

The next question might be who gets to decide whether some art deserves unqualified masterpiece status. I don’t know. The fact is though that there are lots of people who are digging deeply into these works, covering every angle of their quality and relevance. By the time the opinion of these tastemakers trickle down to the public through magazines, the internet, TV, we are getting something far more definitive than we expect. This process continues on through months, years, decades, and perhaps even centuries. And if you look at what has survived that process, you have to respect, even if you don’t like, the art that has remained relevant. They’ve done something right. It’s the critic’s job to have an understanding of what that is.

4. I don’t like it so it must not be good.

This is when we equate the value or quality of something with the way we immediately feel about that thing. I’m not saying that we need to start detaching ourselves emotionally from art. But I argue that just because something has titillating value at the moment, that doesn’t mean it is good. Lots of stuff feels dated very quickly because it is in fact not good and is able to get your attention through other means…sex, controversy, etc.

Some exclusively think that there can be no other criteria other than “I like it. I enjoyed it.” But I’m sure you know a few movies that you knew were stupid and poorly made and yet enjoyable and not boring at the same time. Rush Hour 3 is one of the most reviled films in history, and when I saw it, I couldn’t help noticing how crappy everything about it was. Yet, I sat through it mildly enjoying yet another Jackie Chan/Chris Tucker adventure. Part of it was it took place in Paris, part was I like Jackie Chan. But that doesn’t mean I’d give it a proverbial thumb up.

5. High Low

It’s been argued that there should be no such thing as a guilty pleasure, that high and low art should be judged equally. My argument is not about that. I don’t even think there’s such a thing as high versus low art. My argument is that anything of high quality will remain of high quality no matter how we connect to it emotionally. If a high art piece is crappy (I mean there are bad painting by good artists, bad symphonies by good composers, etc.), then it’s crappy. If a low art piece is of the highest quality, then it deserves to be given all the respect and praise in the world.

What is quality then? I don’t want to decide that for you, but it does exist. That’s why we look back to the classic works of literature, art, music, etc. They did things at a high quality that their forgotten contemporaries didn’t. It’s the critic’s job to have that quality control and describe it for interested people.

6. Millions versus me

So does the evidence of millions of fans and millions of sales invalidate artistic criticism? No.

I would take this in the opposite direction too. Just because tons of critics love something doesn’t make it good either. My own quality control is what makes it good.

Art too often is a popularity contest (see the Oscars and other awards). People are scrambling to like something that is cooler and newer and more hyped than someone else. If too many people like it, there is an inevitable backlash. Just as it’s stupid to following a bunch of Lemmings to their death, it would be dumb to ignore your own sensibilities just to up your street cred. Whether I’m the lone person writing against something everyone else loves or if I’m the millionth person to praise it, it should ultimately come from the same place.

And the debate goes on…

This entry was posted on Tuesday, March 25th, 2008 at 2:43 am and is filed under Uncategorized, Howard Who?. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.