Critics - Needed or Not?

Dierk Haasis · Aug 23, 2006

Alright, the subject line is a bit provocative but I still see what I wanted to post as layback [= entertaining non-issues for entertainment's sake]. Although some of us may not be interested in the movies, or at least not in the so called blockbuster summer movie, a rather long entry by noted critic Jim Emerson in his blog at the Chicago Sun-Times has a bearing on so many issues - including photography - I can not let it go unnoticed.

The issues at hand: film criticism vs. public taste, truth vs. truthiness, news vs. slow news day, art vs. entertainment, art and entertainment, statistics vs. numbers, arguments vs. straw man arguments ...

Mary Bull · Aug 23, 2006

Dierk Haasis said:
Alright, the subject line is a bit provocative but I still see what I wanted to post as layback [= entertaining non-issues for entertainment's sake]. Although some of us may not be interested in the movies, or at least not in the so called blockbuster summer movie, a rather long entry by noted critic Jim Emerson in his blog at the Chicago Sun-Times has a bearing on so many issues - including photography - I can not let it go unnoticed.

The issues at hand: film criticism vs. public taste, truth vs. truthiness, news vs. slow news day, art vs. entertainment, art and entertainment, statistics vs. numbers, arguments vs. straw man arguments ...

Thanks for posting the link to this article. It's an excellent read--I've just come from there. Worth a second perusal, as there's much that bears on all the issues you list above.

Recognizing truth over truthiness--I can, myself, use Emerson's pointers on how not to get taken in. And that's as important with photographs as with words, for the viewer/reader.

As well as for the producer of photographs, or the writer of the words, who should be endeavoring not to offer specious stuff.

I hope somebody besides me will join this thread!

I hang out a lot in the Layback Cafe, ever since you pointed me to OPF, and I'd be interested in others' reactions to the Emerson article.

Dierk Haasis · Aug 24, 2006

'[What t]hey want is an "objective" assessment of the movie, without understanding that there can be no such thing as "objective" criticism of art or entertainment -- which is inherently subjective.'

From Jim emerson's second essay on [art] criticism.

Asher Kelman · Aug 24, 2006

I don't think critics are now unimportant. Very few new productions can stay open if the critiques are all aweful. So there is some power. However, movies are hug $Billion/10 butterflies that grow quickly and die.

They are in fact transient corporations that grow from nothing over two years to a maximum employed staff and then precipitously shed employees in a couple of months. Then a skelton staff handles its franchise to be marketed all over the world.

The investment is fat to large to be held to the whim of the critics.

Still, critics can be troublesome, so movie makers look for name-brand stars and name-brand re-makes are franchises the next episode of some imagined epic.

However, small companies do take risks with lower budgets and bootstrap their creativity. They are driven by a need to bring their work to fruition. Here, film critics can really help them with great reviews, (or the opposite). The theaters are usually smaller and there is spread of such a movie by word of mouth.

The main thing for the consumer of entertainment media (film, theater, art and photography exhibits and books, is the person of the reviewer.

When one has read the reviews of a critic and comes to respect that person's work, one gets a friend who's word means something.

His opinion it becomes a useful tool in deciding where to put one's entertainment money and time.

I think that these people are a great resource, but they are not, and never were the omnipotent angels of life and death of art or drama.

Asher

Mary Bull · Aug 24, 2006

Dierk Haasis said:
'[What t]hey want is an "objective" assessment of the movie, without understanding that there can be no such thing as "objective" criticism of art or entertainment -- which is inherently subjective.'

From Jim emerson's second essay on [art] criticism.

Indeed, the heart of the matter. I've just read the whole piece, which is beautifully, exquisitely subjective. Jim Emerson's writing gives me the feeling of being in conversation with him--an illusion not easy to create, but one that I always enjoy, even as I know I am fooling myself. (One of his points.) Willing suspension of disbelief, in the famous phrase.

I liked, among many of the points he made, the final half of this sentence of Emerson's: "...but they know it when they see it, and will immediately buy or drive or boink or even marry it when they do."

From Jim emerson's second essay on [art] criticism.

Brings to mind "Do you believe in love at first sight." I do, I do, I do!!

But that's not the whole of this rich essay, by any means. Go read it, fellow Laybackers (advises critic Mary).

Incidentally: The final sentence of the piece puzzled me a bit. I went to Google and searched "scanners" and found a movie, complete with reviews, for instance, at IMDb.

Wow, there actually is a movie of that title, though I didn't know that before. And then I looked at the top of Jim Emerson's page: scanners is the name of his blog. Duh, Mary!!

Enough for now.

Mary Bull · Aug 24, 2006

Asher Kelman said:
I

<snipped>

The main thing for the consumer of entertainment media (film, theater, art and photography exhibits and books, is the person of the reviewer.

When one has read the reviews of a critic and comes to respect that person's work, one gets a friend who's word means something.

His opinion it becomes a useful tool in deciding where to put one's entertainment money and time.

I think that these people are a great resource, but they are not, and never were the omnipotent angels of life and death of art or drama.

Asher

Well, it feels like a friend whose word means something, even though he/she doesn't know you from Adam. Still, I know what you mean--one puts a sort of conditional trust in the critic's opinions.

I'm one of those, whom Jim Emerson identifies, who enjoys reading criticism for its sheer entertainment value, even if I've never seen and never plan to see the movie. So for me his writing style and what I sense of candor in him (no hidden agendas, one hopes) are major factors in whether I'll continue to read him or not. The information I gain is then secondary in importance.

Dierk Haasis · Aug 24, 2006

Like all humans I tend to drift towards those critics I more often agree than disagree with. My main reason for reading them is neither entertainment in the vernacular understanding nor to get my own opinions vindicated or have them tell me what movies to watch and which not. I actually very often disagree with my favourite film critics*.

What really brings me to read them and listen to other people's opinions is getting ideas and another PoV. It is impossible for an individual to really get all aspects of a non-trivial [no pun intended] work of art. Even the most banal genre fodder has a few nooks and crannies we may overlook. Admittedly I have given up on finding anything worthwhile in an Adam Sandler film.

Just to put this into perspective, I am a huge fan of the so called 'blockbuster' - as long as it is a good movie. All six Star Wars entries are, Armaggedon is [I may be the only one], Peter Jackson's King Kong is not [read my review on IMDB]. The same reasoning holds for art movies, if they are good I am interested. Unfortunately I am rarely interested in introspective works, where the issues at hand are rather singular. I'd like to see a personal take on universals.

Point is: Either I will not read reviews, and consequently not listen to other people's advice, hence missing interesting movies. Or I am of an open mind and want to experience something new, then I have to read reviews - even of Adam Sandler movies.

*Talking about film because book and art criticism does not interest me anymore, most of that is either simple 'read it' or some introverted perspective put in what the author thinks is language [or even scripture in the case of the fine arts].

Mary Bull · Aug 24, 2006

Dierk Haasis said:
Like all humans I tend to drift towards those critics I more often agree than disagree with. My main reason for reading them is neither entertainment in the vernacular understanding nor to get my own opinions vindicated or have them tell me what movies to watch and which not. I actually very often disagree with my favourite film critics*.

What really brings me to read them and listen to other people's opinions is getting ideas and another PoV. It is impossible for an individual to really get all aspects of a non-trivial [no pun intended] work of art. Even the most banal genre fodder has a few nooks and crannies we may overlook. Admittedly I have given up on finding anything worthwhile in an Adam Sandler film.

Just to put this into perspective, I am a huge fan of the so called 'blockbuster' - as long as it is a good movie. All six Star Wars entries are, Armaggedon is [I may be the only one], Peter Jackson's King Kong is not [read my review on IMDB]. The same reasoning holds for art movies, if they are good I am interested. Unfortunately I am rarely interested in introspective works, where the issues at hand are rather singular. I'd like to see a personal take on universals.

Point is: Either I will not read reviews, and consequently not listen to other people's advice, hence missing interesting movies. Or I am of an open mind and want to experience something new, then I have to read reviews - even of Adam Sandler movies.

*Talking about film because book and art criticism does not interest me anymore, most of that is either simple 'read it' or some introverted perspective put in what the author thinks is language [or even scripture in the case of the fine arts].

Well, I had to do a search for Adam Sandler. Read down the film titles at IMDB, thinking no wonder I've never heard of him, and then hit *Spanglish*. Oho. Yuk. I did see that one.

Guess I should have defined "entertainment" a little more closely, when I said I read the critics for sheer entertainment. One sub-category of sheer entertainment for me *is* getting new ideas and another point of view.

On book or art reviews vs. film:
You know, I hadn't thought of it recently, but I haven't read any book reviews in a long time. Dropped my subscription to *New York Review of Books* a couple of years ago. One exception to that: If the book's title is intriguing, or if I know the author, I'll read any reviews of it which *The New Yorker* publishes. Or all reviews of any book by a favorite *New Yorker* critic.

But, in general, if I'm desperate enough, I'll read anything that comes to hand, even the back of a cereal box. Addicted to words in print, I guess.

Guy Tal · Aug 24, 2006

Getting back to the original article, I think it brings forth the ease of manipulating statistical data to "prove" just about any point. Really most any poll results and random statistics so prevalent in the media are meaningless without a deeper understanding of the qualitative data (sample, fitness, variance) and methodology applied. I remember my Statistics professor once saying he could use any statistic to prove anything - even opposite conclusions based on the same test.

That aside, I believe the question of the importance of critics is is too broad to address generically. The easy answer is - we need good critics. What makes a good critic is another topic altogether.

What I generally dislike about critics who get paid to critique is conformity to the fad/flavor/hype of the day. A critic tasked with improving readership/sales cannot always be trusted to be honest. This is not unique to film or literary critics either - just look at equipment reviews in magazines that rely on advertising dollars.

"Why the critics, like a flock of ducks, always move in perfect unison: Their authority with the public depends upon an appearance of unanimous agreement. One dissenting voice would shatter the whole fragile structure." -- Edward Abbey

Guy

Mary Bull · Aug 24, 2006

Nicely said, Guy, and well taken points.

Sean DeMerchant · Aug 24, 2006

Guy Tal said:
Getting back to the original article, I think it brings forth the ease of manipulating statistical data to "prove" just about any point. Really most any poll results and random statistics so prevalent in the media are meaningless without a deeper understanding of the qualitative data (sample, fitness, variance) and methodology applied.

In politics, one should note that whenever a politician starts quoting statistics it is because their position is untenable. I have never* seen a politician use anything but highly biased statistics that quote a point that sounds good but when looked in a wider context is meaningless. I would be interested in seeing any quotes that non-biased if you have an online reference (but please stray away from divisive topics if possible). In short, when you have someone dumping statistics at you the odds are they are trying to pull a fast one on you (I do it too).

Beyond that, the author uses just such poor methods rhetorically throughout the article in reference to Venn diagrams. The "smaller" Venn diagrams he refers to are actually going to be larger on paper the smaller he calls them. The final subset he refers to will be smaller subsets of the whole, but the diagrams themselves will need to be larger to accomodate more sets if font size is kept legible. Albeit, this may simply be lack of knowledge of what a Venn diagram is or intentional usage of a rhetorical mechanism while spreading dis-information into the meme set.

enjoy,

Sean

* A statistic if I have ever read one.

Mary Bull · Aug 24, 2006

Sean DeMerchant said:
Albeit, this may simply be lack of knowledge of what a Venn diagram is or intentional usage of a rhetorical mechanism while spreading dis-information into the meme set.
[

I thought when I was reading the Emerson article, that he was trying to say "smaller intersecting circle," and so I regarded his words "smaller Venn diagram" as a typo of the brain.

I'm not a mathematician*, but I've encountered Venn diagrams in my reading. Still, I did a search to find some examples, so that I could visualize better your explanation.

It's important to scotch the disinformation, whether intentional or not. Better, perhaps, if Emerson had simply written about sets, subsets, and sub-subsets. (If sub-subsets is a mathematical entity? Don't know. I'm just a retired grade-school teacher, and the last time I taught set theory to the youngsters entrusted to me was over 30 years ago.

*Read your profile, Sean, so I know that you are.

Sean DeMerchant · Aug 25, 2006

Mary Bull said:
I thought when I was reading the Emerson article, that he was trying to say "smaller intersecting circle," and so I regarded his words "smaller Venn diagram" as a typo of the brain.

I am unsure. Such misuse as a rhetorical device could potentially be ironic in using poor wording/logic mixed with a valid concept. Nonetheless, it is clear enough even if it does spread mis-information about Venn diagrams (the diagram is the whole, not a specific subset of it).

Mary Bull said:
It's important to scotch the disinformation, whether intentional or not.

I agree. Unlearning things is much harder than learning things.

Mary Bull said:
Better, perhaps, if Emerson had simply written about sets, subsets, and sub-subsets. If sub-subsets is a mathematical entity?

The extra level of sub is not needed as a subset of a set is a set. Hence a subset of a subset is a subset which is also a set.

Mary Bull said:
Don't know. I'm just a retired grade-school teacher, and the last time I taught set theory to the youngsters entrusted to me was over 30 years ago.

At a basic level set theory has not changed in a long time AFAIK.

enjoy,

Sean

Mary Bull · Aug 25, 2006

Replying to post by Sean DeMerchant:

The extra level of sub is not needed as a subset of a set is a set. Hence a subset of a subset is a subset which is also a set.

Thanks, Sean. Echoes of "a rose is a rose is a rose" here, which I enjoyed.

Critics - Needed or Not?

Dierk Haasis

pro member

Mary Bull

New member

Dierk Haasis

pro member

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief

Mary Bull

New member

Mary Bull

New member

Dierk Haasis

pro member

Mary Bull

New member

Guy Tal

Editor at Large

Mary Bull

New member

Sean DeMerchant

Inactive

Mary Bull

New member

Sean DeMerchant

Inactive

Mary Bull

New member