As far as the JL/DE conversation about criticism goes (and I have no idea who JL or DE are, frankly, and I've only read Section 1 as I'm a busy man currently shirking my work):
1. Thus, far, they've assumed that the artists in question are earnest/sincere in their attempts to put forth works of art to the critical consumer. Yet, the most damning criticism usually comes about when artists are perceived as being insincere (i.e., "THE BIG SELL OUT"). That is, Bowie's crappy LPs aren't just bad or boring or not to a particular taste, they ache of bandwagon-jumping or profiteering, which (while perhaps it shouldn't) appears to negate the artwork in the eye of the beholder.
2. This of course is irrelevant to judgments that a particular Dylan LP, on which he has appeared to expend creative energy, is less good than another one. That _does_ become a more subjective affair and the email discussion focuses more narrowly on that (at least in section one). I see nothing wrong with trying to critically analyze the strengths and weaknesses of a particular work of art, in comparison to other artists or the particular artist's own past output or even some gold standard. The point would seem to be that critics themselves lay their expectations and preferences on the line. I mean do you really trust a movie review by Joel Siegel? Hasn't the educated consumer learned to discriminate Vincent Canby from Amy Taubin? I guess I agree that the critic's appraisal, in written form, should be seen as creative output in and of itself, laced with unseemly hidden motivations, value judgments, half-baked ideas, and brilliant moments that may exceed the artwork under discussion. These are the same qualities that might exist in the original artwork (at least according to a particular critic). In my eyes, there's no detaching the singer from the song.
3. As far as the Narcissism of Infinite Difference (was that it?)--there's a modern social psychological theory called the Self-Evaluation Maintenance model that suggests that, when similar others perform well on tasks that are important to our own identity, we suffer. When they succeed in areas that are not important to us, we can laud them. Sounds like envy but it has more to do with ego-threat in this view.
That's all for now--in re-reading Bill's comment, I realize I probably should have read the later sections before writing. But in reaction to Bill: I don't believe of criticism in the form of a Platonic ideal (e.g., "disinterested Arnoldean standard"?) but believe that the critic's self (whether through experience, taste, learning, personality, grudges, whatever) will always be represented and to attempt to hide these things is shameful. That said, I don't believe that critics need to wear their influences on their sleeves--CAVEAT EMPTOR, my friends.
Art
Posted by at February 15, 2001 05:40 PM