Criticism in art – why it is a waste of time.

Wes Anderson and Vampire Weekend are the reason why I’m writing this. Both are my favorite artists in their respective field. As geeks would, I’d like to be informed about things that I like – and also things that I don’t like, sometimes (So I know how to make an informed insult about them. HAHA)

Anyway: the internet is the best easiest channel to be informed about stuff, so I’ve been reading a lot of articles about both of them.

Besides of finding out gazillions of facts and mind-reeling anecdotes about them (Wes Anderson’s middle name is Mortimer Wales, and Ezra Koenig’s favorite food is hummus), I also find out one other thing: BOY, DO THE CRITICS HATE THEM.

Both Anderson and VW have become subjected to a lot of hatred and ridicule for one overarching reason: critics find them ostentatious with their own brand of quirks, capital Q. What bothers me greatly is not this reason or the criticism, but it’s the act of criticism itself.

How relevant is criticism in art, really?

The matter has been cooking in my head for some days and I have come to the conclusion:

Criticism may be the antithesis of art.

WHOA.

Here we go.

Art is a celebration of individuality. The essence of art is subjectivity: one individual’s interpretation of an “objective” reality. How you experience or create art is inseparable with who you are, your ‘self’.

But, one may argue, isn’t criticism also an expression of subjectivity as well?

No matter how many other people’s names, quotes or theories you throw into your criticism as an attempt to make it more valid or ‘objective’ (and hence more agreeable, compelling, persuading, or in short: winning for the readers), it is still only one’s individual opinion. It is an expression of individuality..right?

How could two things that may come from a common origin become antithesis to each other?

Well, I don’t think the ‘danger’ in criticism is not in the act of making a criticism but rather in reading one. Because by reading it, on a subconscious level at the very least, it will become a part of your own set of experience. It will affect how you feel or think about that specific work of art.

The stakes are even higher when you read criticism about a work of art before you experience the work of art itself – before you see the painting, read a book, watch the movie or listen to the album.

(I’m not completely missing the point that criticism these days are in fact used as a pre-purchase guide by the post-modern consumers. It has become a very powerful marketing tool. I’m also not saying that your purchase decision shouldn’t be based on external values or opinions posited by others unto you (I believe and work in advertising, after all). But let’s isolate your decision on purchase with the decision on how you feel about the artwork. Let’s focus on the later.)

As a part of society, I think every individual has this undeniable tendency or obsession to the ‘norm’ or the consensus. Some people get the kick out of finding out that their personal opinion does not deviate from the consensus, while others are pleased to know that their personal opinion is a polar opposite of the consensus. Upon finding out about the extent of deviation, one may intentionally calibrate his opinion to approach the norm or go the other way around (rebellion brings joy to some people, apparently).

Reading criticism is an act of succumbing to that tendency.

Writing criticism, which at first may come from a budding sense of individuality, often turns out to be an attempt to make the writer’s opinion the new norm. I’m not saying that every critic wants all readers to agree to his opinion (that would be a very wan and futile pursuit), but isn’t every criticism based on the conviction that the writer’s vision should be valid for others? Isn’t that kind of making your opinion the norm – to which others should measure their deviation? Isn’t the only two possible basic reaction to a criticism is either to agree or to disagree to it?

See, by succumbing to this tendency, you’re limiting yourself to a dichotomy.

On the other hand:

Art, in its process of creation, should be free of this kind of propensity. Art should be regardless of consensus and norms. It should not be bound by any imposed limitations formed by society. Again, art is a celebration of individuality. It should be the creator’s own rehashed version of reality. It’s about the creator’s own vision of reality. Like JD Salinger said (I paraphrase): the true painter or poet is the only seer we have on earth.

And in the process of experiencing art, it should also pivot on individualism: you project your individualism through other’s individualism. This is not an argument about using your ‘heart’ or your ‘brain’ (emotional versus cerebral). I think one experience art both in affective and logical manner because art has its aesthetic and contextual level. It doesn’t matter if you choose to only see one of the aspects.

The important thing is that art presents you the right and entitlement to be self-centered. A privilege you often have to dispossess if you want to be accepted and thrive in your social contacts and interaction. While actually: self-centeredness is actually the default in which each individual operates. Every part of this ‘reality’ you shared with others is only real if you have experience it. Everybody has the tendency to make himself the center of every experience (further reading: David Foster Wallace – This is Water).

There are infinite possibilities of how we could react to a work of art, not just to agree/disagree or like/dislike.

So in the context of experiencing art, succumbing to this tendency will liberate you.

So why deprive yourself of this opportunity?

And for those who says “I read criticism on a film/book/album/etc so I know whether it would be a waste of time or not”:

You’re already wasting your time by reading that criticism.
And also: get over yourself.

Advertisement