Criticism in the arts is as old as the arts. The teaching of critical
analysis of various fields of art - and other things - is taught, and
has been since recorded history, and was certainly all the craze as far
back as Aristotle and "Poetics."
A critical review is an important review, in one sense of the word, as
in "this is of critical importance." And critical views (as opposed to
fawning reviews, ignorant reviews, puffery reviews) is of vital
importance - shall I say, critical importance - to the study of the
arts.
I rely on critics to evaluate what I want to buy, see, or experience. I
have certain reviewers that I go to for certain things -Blair Kanin on
architecture, for example, the New Yorker and Michael Wilmington of the
Chicago Tribune for movies, Greg Kot of the Trib for concerts...
Read a critic enough and you know the standards and biases of the
critic. I could tell in two sentences from a Gene Siskel review if I
wanted to see the movie or not, regardless of his opinion, because I
knew what he looked for and what I look for and my experience of Siskel
allowed me to make an informed decision.
Critics know a lot more than I do about the subject at hand, where I am
really subjective, I trust their professional expertise. I may search
out a number of reviews, or sometimes, am content with one, depending on
my needs, but if I really want to know about something, I check many
reviews. I learn a great deal that way.
(And what have all of the posts on T'log been but critical reviews of
the album?)
Of course there are crappy reviewers out there, and each reviewer has
their places where I know my perspective differs. There a few bad
drivers out there too but I am not going to suggest that we ban all
driving.
Reading Pauline Kael, Stanley Kaufman, and Gene Siskel taught me so much
about cinema... Blair Kanin on architecture is an education in each
review...
As far as criticism, are we confusing this with nasty words said by
someone who doesn't like us with a critical evaluation? Never then go
see a movie with me, for I do a critical commentary on every movie I see
as I leave the theater. (Me: I thought that plot was weak. Gage: Yes,
it made no sense.) (An outstanding moment in my life was with Gage's
father, Jeremy went to see Beverly Hills Cop II when he was maybe 9 or
10 and came home and said, "dad, you were right, the movie sucked. It
was a series of disconnected scenes." Bingo, kid, you got it!)
If someone attends a worship service that I take part in, I want
critical commentary on me. Did I make sense? Did I present well? Did
I perform well? Were my words and gestures and style real and sincere
or wooden and forced? Did I speak too fast? Did I start talkin like a
Chicagoan an drop the ends off of de wurds in a flat Chicago accent?
The best sermon criticism I ever had, someone said, "good sermon but
your views on [that subject] are myopic." Well, upon further
examination, my views were indeed myopic! Thank God for the critical
commentary!
We had a sermon criticism class in seminary - we'd videotape ourselves
and with the class review our performance, and if anyone saw me at the
beginning (not that anyone has seen me now) you'd be as glad as I am
that I had that class. Any service now to this day that is videotaped,
I want to see to critically evaluate my performance. That is how I
improve! And I bet every performing artist in the JMDL does the same
thing with tapes and reviews from friends. We ask for, we desire, we
lust for, we need criticism, reaction, our own critical analysis, so
that we can improve.
When I served as a chaplain at the U of Michigan Medical Center, we had
small groups called IPR groups in which we would critique each other's
interactions with patients. Damn did I learn a lot! It was essential
to my growth in being a very good pastoral visitor now, and having
learned the verbatim/critical response process, I can "IPR" myself on
every visit and see where I missed something, where my approach was
wrong, where I wasn't listening, where I said something that mattered to
the patient.
Last Stones tour they were roundly criticized for formula performing.
They took it to heart. The current tour is amazing, and I doubt it
would have been had it not been for the reviews that suggested that
Rolling Stones, Inc. was selling a tired corporate product. The current
tour is far improved.
I learned so much in life reading book reviews, I can't imagine where
I'd be today without those little seminars each week. In last Sunday's
Chicago Tribune, an excellent review on Charles Bowden's Down By the
River, a book on the drug cartels and their interdependency with the
political aristocracy of Mexico, followed by a review on a subject of
which i knew less than I do now,. the pioneering role of women in social
activism in Chicago in the post Chicago Fire period which set the stage
for Jane Adams and Hull House and a total re-definition of what it meant
to assist those in need.
As far as studying criticism, any good school with a cinema department
will have classes in criticism. Hell, in seminary, I studied Biblical
textual criticism, historical criticism, redaction criticism, among
others, all vital to understanding the Scriptures and unlocking passages
and solving those passages which seemingly make no sense and finding
depths of meaning.
Art criticism - a subject unto itself and I learned art appreciation by
reading the critics and reviewers.
Criticism is not trash talking. Criticism is a good thing. Of course
it can be done meanly, in spite, and that perhaps happens far more in
our personal lives than in our public lives. We have all been trash
talked to the point of pain and tears and we can all cite reviews that
just plain are no good.
But that does not negate the essential and positive role that critical
study, critical reviews, play in our own growth and understanding of
ourselves and the arts.
The simple sentence: Joni Mitchell is ______________ artist. Whatever
you put there, is a critical comment.
Which recorded version of Woodstock do we like best? The answer is a
critical study of her various versions - not that critical means
negative, it simply means a thoughtful examination based on one's
knowledge, insights, and feelings. And because each critical review is
not only objective ("her jazziest version") it is also subjective, and
thus, I need either one very skilled critic whom I can rely upon (I know
the biases and the amount of knowledge and can make my own judgment
accordingly) or we need 800 critics to give us a body of critical
studies from which to draw. And has not each of us had our
understandings of T'log enhanced by the number of critical (not
negative, but evaluative) comments posted on these boards?
When I write something important I circulate the text amongst people I
trust and beg for, pled for critical comments, not just proof reading,
but critical comments. And, for example, on my last paper, Laurent
found a serious flaw in my application of a descriptive word on a series
of events that indeed not all of them fit that description. Since on
that description my paper rises or falls, Laurent's critical comment
(not negative, but critical, evaluative) was essential to fixing a fatal
flaw in the paper, as well as challenge me on some too easy assumption I
made and forced me to think and rethink in that area - so it was all
good. The critical process is essential to the production of good
work. (Another friend made some critical comments that were less than
insightful and I noted them but the impacted nothing. Not all criticism
is equally valid. And the friend who contributed nothing to me this
time has made wonderful contributions through criticism in the past, and
will again, i hope.)
Last word; I did a public prayer at a community Thanksgiving service
which brought together two communities that never do anything
together. I worked very hard to work in some humor - ever try to write
a prayer with humor in it and not make the prayer a joke? - with some
simple jump points that would cause a sudden inversion of the symbol so
that a new meaning would be lifted up: i.e., we give thanks not for what
we have or want, but rather, we give thanks for what God has: us.
So here is me, flaming leftist, with my prayer with humor that inverts
the old understandings for new meanings and I got knowing laughs (no one
laughs during prayer, it was a milestone new achievement and I loved it
as the humor was not in the joke which didn't exist but in the irony of
human life that is funny), a few humorous quips from the congregation
(at least they were involved in the prayer!) and accomplished my goal of
waking every one up to hang onto my next word rather than snooze through
another typical, boring thanksgiving prayer. Then I did several symbol
inversions, ending with the major symbol inversion re-emphasized as
*the* point.
Results: the very conservative preacher made a point of my "great
prayer" and two rather conservative pastors commented that they loved
my familiar, easy way of talking to God in public prayer as if it were a
real conversation and not church talk (aha! I did it!) as well as grab
common symbols from the gathered community that made the prayer about
their reality, not about "spiritual" things (aha! I did it!) and the
other conservative pastor said it was "really God-centered" which
indeed was the attempt with the inversion of symbols. So I got
reinforcing critical comments. Which was cool. And had someone pointed
out something that could have ben better, where my attempt did not work
as well as I had hoped, that would have been valuable as well so that I
can improve my ability to do this.
Long and boring, but I feel compelled to support the good and utterly
essential role that critical evaluation, critical comments, critical
reviews play in improving and understanding the arts and public
performance.
the ever boring (self criticism at its finest) Vince
PS I would affirm that Britney Spears is a major talent, and a better
talent, in the world of dance tunes usable in aerobics classes - a sub
category of music in which she excels and Joni sucks, unless Joni is big
time re-mixed and not always then. Will Britney last? I think not.
But she has her niche, and she does her niche art well. The fact that
other than its application in aerobics I have little use for it is just
a factor of my life.
The critical study of office furniture is a major concern of Herman
Miller, located about 30 miles from me, where criticism of function,
structure, lay out, and ergonomics of office furniture allows them to
improve their products. Many people are in that field, critically
analyzing office furniture, and every time I set in my new office chair,
I am thankful. And I look to those people with a key to getting the
feng shi of my office right. too.
more boring - that's me!
