Poll

Choose one.

True
0 (0%)
False
8 (100%)

Total Members Voted: 8

Author Topic: Art criticism/discussion should exist in a vacuum: True or False?  (Read 370 times)

Will

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 336
  • Take my views with a few gallons of salt
    • The Alice Guy Blache Show
Re: Art criticism/discussion should exist in a vacuum: True or False?
« Reply #10 on: January 13, 2018, 09:28:42 PM »
Among my Essentials is Dixie (1943) starring Bing Crosby. It's a biopic about Daniel Decatur Emmett, an American songwriter, entertainer, and founder of the blackface minstrel tradition. Like it or not, blackface was one of the most popular forms of entertainment well into the 1940s. What elevates Dixie to art is the presentation of minstrel shows without modern hindsight. It presents it like it was and does it as a form of light, popcorn entertainment.


I'm 1000% positive black people hated minstrel shows at the time as much as they do now. In fact, I believe a part of FIVE CAME BACK specifically talked about how the government had the foresight to talk to a black scholar at the time to make better suited propaganda movies that focused on gaining support from the black community for the war.

Will

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 336
  • Take my views with a few gallons of salt
    • The Alice Guy Blache Show
Re: Art criticism/discussion should exist in a vacuum: True or False?
« Reply #11 on: January 13, 2018, 09:32:39 PM »
Criticism and valuation are two entirely different things.

Are they? Why? Why do I see so little of the latter and so much of the former?

valmz

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 355
Re: Art criticism/discussion should exist in a vacuum: True or False?
« Reply #12 on: January 13, 2018, 11:17:55 PM »
Criticism and valuation are two entirely different things.
Are they? Why? Why do I see so little of the latter and so much of the former?
I have no idea what you're looking at, but the great majority of what I see, using film as an example, is "Film Review", which is essentially a person evaluating which aspects of a film they liked and which they didn't, which is to say it is entirely valuation and lacks an analytical, self-reflective perspective on the work that is best achieved by refraining from judging at all. I see so much of people telling people whether something struck them as good or bad without even considering what the role of that "goodness or badness" was. If a piece of art is to challenge the viewer, then there are likely going to be many elements that are not immediately rewarding and pleasurable because there is some deeper complexity that requires reflection and consideration prior to judgment, and that seems to be the opposite of how people approach art these days. The shallow, hedonistic approach reigns: If something is not immediately pleasurable, and something could have been changed to make it more pleasurable, then the work is "flawed", no matter whether there was a function for that piece not being immediately pleasurable and whether there might be a greater structure at work than merely immediate satisfaction.

I rarely read writing about art that has a rating attached to it anymore, as it is irrelevant to the ideas presented. Valuation comes after all of the ideas are understood.

Teproc

  • Elite Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2630
Re: Art criticism/discussion should exist in a vacuum: True or False?
« Reply #13 on: January 14, 2018, 06:03:21 AM »
Criticism and valuation are two entirely different things.
Are they? Why? Why do I see so little of the latter and so much of the former?
I have no idea what you're looking at, but the great majority of what I see, using film as an example, is "Film Review", which is essentially a person evaluating which aspects of a film they liked and which they didn't, which is to say it is entirely valuation and lacks an analytical, self-reflective perspective on the work that is best achieved by refraining from judging at all. I see so much of people telling people whether something struck them as good or bad without even considering what the role of that "goodness or badness" was. If a piece of art is to challenge the viewer, then there are likely going to be many elements that are not immediately rewarding and pleasurable because there is some deeper complexity that requires reflection and consideration prior to judgment, and that seems to be the opposite of how people approach art these days. The shallow, hedonistic approach reigns: If something is not immediately pleasurable, and something could have been changed to make it more pleasurable, then the work is "flawed", no matter whether there was a function for that piece not being immediately pleasurable and whether there might be a greater structure at work than merely immediate satisfaction.

I rarely read writing about art that has a rating attached to it anymore, as it is irrelevant to the ideas presented. Valuation comes after all of the ideas are understood.

Well, obviously I don't agree there. I think there is value in the kind of criticism you want, but I don't think starting from "I like this, don't like that" is inherently flawed... stopping there would be, but I'd say there is a lot of value in trying to explain why we like some things and don't other things, and the intersection of that is where I'd say the most interesting discussions about art happen. Academic, detached commentary is interesting too, but not the only valid form of criticism, as it seems to me you're suggesting.

DarkeningHumour

  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 10456
  • When not sure if sarcasm look at username.
    • Pretentiously Yours
Re: Art criticism/discussion should exist in a vacuum: True or False?
« Reply #14 on: January 14, 2018, 06:17:27 AM »
This should not be a yes or no answer. People can discuss art in both ways according to their needs, interests and preferences.
Society is dumb. Art is everything. - Junior

https://pretensiouslyyours.wordpress.com/

valmz

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 355
Re: Art criticism/discussion should exist in a vacuum: True or False?
« Reply #15 on: January 14, 2018, 08:11:07 PM »
Criticism and valuation are two entirely different things.
Are they? Why? Why do I see so little of the latter and so much of the former?
I have no idea what you're looking at, but the great majority of what I see, using film as an example, is "Film Review", which is essentially a person evaluating which aspects of a film they liked and which they didn't, which is to say it is entirely valuation and lacks an analytical, self-reflective perspective on the work that is best achieved by refraining from judging at all. I see so much of people telling people whether something struck them as good or bad without even considering what the role of that "goodness or badness" was. If a piece of art is to challenge the viewer, then there are likely going to be many elements that are not immediately rewarding and pleasurable because there is some deeper complexity that requires reflection and consideration prior to judgment, and that seems to be the opposite of how people approach art these days. The shallow, hedonistic approach reigns: If something is not immediately pleasurable, and something could have been changed to make it more pleasurable, then the work is "flawed", no matter whether there was a function for that piece not being immediately pleasurable and whether there might be a greater structure at work than merely immediate satisfaction.

I rarely read writing about art that has a rating attached to it anymore, as it is irrelevant to the ideas presented. Valuation comes after all of the ideas are understood.

Well, obviously I don't agree there. I think there is value in the kind of criticism you want, but I don't think starting from "I like this, don't like that" is inherently flawed... stopping there would be, but I'd say there is a lot of value in trying to explain why we like some things and don't other things, and the intersection of that is where I'd say the most interesting discussions about art happen. Academic, detached commentary is interesting too, but not the only valid form of criticism, as it seems to me you're suggesting.
Examining why we like some things and don't like other things is vitally important... for getting to know yourself! I can't say that I intuitively think of a way that it is relevant to bettering or deepening or widening an ability to appreciate a work, though.

Nothing about commentary needs to be detached, though. On the contrary, I would say that merely passively watching and indulging in one's dopamine circuitry is the detached way of engaging (or not) with the art. Hollywood films are constructed in such a way that there is no time to engage in any other way (and often there's not much else there to engage with), so the result of either approach is the same - you get only what your pleasure circuitry gets in the moment, and nothing else - but to me there is nothing more intellectually lazy and detached. When I think of a detached engagement I think of a couch potato, not someone delighting in the intricacies and unique perspectives of a work.
« Last Edit: January 14, 2018, 08:17:31 PM by valmz »