A Criticism of Criticism
Subjectivity of art in a world of objective opinions.
“What is art?” is a question that has been asked a million times since the conception of art criticism. The concept of art is deeply rooted in philosophy and aesthetics. I mentioned in my last post that I am no expert in psychology so I avoided trying to act like I was. Luckily for us, my school required me to take three philosophy courses. On top of that, I also took a class called “Visual Aesthetics” because the name sounded fun. Much to my chagrin, it was just another philosophy class disguised as an art class. I ended up not hating the class because it was a deep dive into why humans appreciate art, and what qualifies a piece as art.
The main take away from my philosophy classes is that there is a level of subjectivity to philosophical beliefs. For example, in ethics, some philosophers argue that there is more value in the intent of an action, rather than the outcome. There are other philosophers that believe that your intentions don’t necessarily matter as much as the outcome, in the spirit of a philosophical moral decision. As I “studied” in my philosophy classes, I realized that the goal for philosophers is to look for the objective truths of morality, God, and big metaphysical questions. The problem (for lack of a better word) with this is that while philosophers are on the hunt for universal truths, none of their theories and discoveries necessarily ARE these truths. This was a very mediocre explanation of my experience in philosophy, and you’re probably wondering what the point of me saying any of this is. What I noticed is that the subjectivity of philosophy and aesthetics made me feel comfortable in looking at art through with my own opinions, while also welcoming other opinions, because there are no discovered objective truths.
My personal view of art is that of an optimist. I can see just about everything as art. To me, it depends on intention. If it’s meant to be art, I can accept it as art. Art is meant to be experienced, so in the case of obscure contemporary art where many people say “How can this be art, it makes no sense, it’s stupid”, I can’t help but feel like these criticisms secure the piece’s place as art. The discussion on the definition of art can get extremely convoluted, especially for me trying to put it in writing, but the bottom line is I tend to lean more welcoming for art. I just can’t get behind the exclusion and pretentiousness of some art criticism. I may not personally like a piece of art, but I can’t deny its existence as art.
The connection I’d like to make between the way we view visual art and the way we view film and television is the importance of subjectivity. Even the worst movies ever made should be viewed in the light that they are still art. I think an interesting way of looking at it is 2003’s “The Room”. Not to be confused with critically acclaimed 2015 film “Room”, “The Room” is widely considered as the best terrible movie ever made. What I appreciate about the reaction to this film is that it may not be revered in the traditional sense of a film, such as praise for the script, acting, directing, etc. Viewers hold this bad film in such high regards because of its poor creation. Now you may be thinking, “You’re calling this movie bad, why are you trying to defend it as art?” Well that is because the non-traditional reception of the film is still a valid form of reception. Whether you like something or not, you still have an experience and feel a certain way.
Praise for any form of media is so strongly based on personal opinion. The concept of critical acclaim is based on cultural norms. Film and television have been around long enough that there are certain standards that we as viewers look for. For example, when you watch a movie and the acting is convincing, it makes you like the movie more. Another example is a good script, if the writing sounds conversational and is witty, you like the movie more. My problem is that oftentimes critics tend to rate films with the same criteria. To me, that is like judging singing and dancing with the same rubric. They are both forms of expression involving music, but they are very different in essence. Why rate a goofy Judd Apatow comedy from the 2000’s the same way you rate one of David Lynch’s experimental films?
We are own critics in our own rite, but people with a platform are tastemakers and can influence whether audiences will see a certain movie. When I read reviews of movies that say “jokes come up short, bad writing, horrible acting” I feel conflicted. My natural instinct is to not see the movie. I have found in many cases that while the critics may be right, there is more value in deciding for yourself. There is so much context that goes into the experience of watching a film. For example, “BASEketball” has poor critic reviews, but positive audience reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. Personally, I love this movie. I think Matt Stone and Trey Parker are great writers, solid actors, and original thinkers.
The key to this film is the context. I feel it is the responsibility of the viewer to manage their expectations. When you go to see a movie like “BASEketball” you must be looking for a fun movie. It’s the same idea as not rating movies with the same criteria. Some movies are meant to give you a moving narrative arc with twists and turns and a big resolve at the end. Other movies are just made to make you feel a certain way, whether it be a goofy comedy, or a cheap horror movie.
One major link I made between the consumption of art and my own personal experience is when I watched “Spring Breakers”. This part may ruffle some feathers because this movie is so polarizing. I know some people who love it, and many people who hate it.
I watched this movie not too long after it came out, which may have been too young for me to stumble upon Harmony Korine’s movies, but nevertheless I watched it. It made me feel so uneasy. I. could not explain how or why the movie made me feel that way, it just had a weird vibe. Years later, I returned for a second viewing. This time around it made me feel the same way, but I liked it. I then ventured into Harmony Korine’s other films (this being his biggest commercial project). After watching some of the others like “KIDS” and “Gummo” (I won’t get into these, if you know me you know I can talk all day about them). After diving deep into Harmony Korine’s work I became so fascinated with the idea that many of his films lack a structured narrative arc, but I still really liked them. It was then that I had an epiphany about my own personal experience in viewing films. If it makes me feel a certain way, and is entertaining, it still carries immense value as art.
The point I’m trying to make here is that there is no concrete way to experience art. I thought it would be interesting to share my own thoughts on how I consume media. I’m not here to tell you how to watch movies, look at a painting, or interpret a song. I just think it’s necessary that we all have our own personal experience when we do so. The entire essence of media is that there are messages and intentions, but they don’t always have to be the same for everyone. You are welcome to love or hate any piece of media. No matter how I feel about a piece of art, I can always respect its existence.
Also 1AM Media is on Twitter! @OneAyEmm
Thanks for reading.
-CJ
👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼