If we don't critique it, we end up with ... well, the heaps of modern poetry written by people whose writing teachers told them that poetry was ineffable and couldn't be edited. :/ I tend to prefer the older stuff by writers who scribbled all over their drafts before finalizing it. Granted at this point I do almost all my editing in my head -- putting it on paper triples the time it takes -- but it is still in there. And I rely on my readers to spot typos I missed, or point out things that don't work or cause problems. That's not to everyone's taste and it's fine.
Except, it comes down to who should be the arbitrator of taste? Because to a degree yes - you can objectively critique any piece of writing for clarity, conciseness, and originality. If a student copies another's work, or in this age, AI does, then of course that should be critiqued. Or if the student tries to pass off something that well doesn't make sense - than yes. But if they write something akin to a Hallmark Card Greeting, sappy, and sentimental, who am I to judge? I may hate it, but am I correct in judging it?
I guess what I'm getting at is the line is somewhat blurred in "creative" writing in regards to criticism, when it is less so in "functional" writing or "business or legal or academic" writing or what some may more accurately entitle "formal" writing. I don't think for example that we can critique dreamwidth posts? Because people write differently and use DW differently? I tend to be "spontaneous" and less formal here. (Mainly because at work - I write formally with specific rules, guidelines, and tone. And desire a break from it.)
In critique of artistic expression - there's a fine line between critiquing the rules, grammar, etc, and the expression itself. Or can be. It's easier with students or amateur writers - in that they make clear mistakes, which require a copy-edit, and in many cases a good line edit. But a professional artist or writer, or even one who has been doing it for some time and knows the rules, and more importantly when and how to break them - it becomes a bit more difficult.
There is for example - a huge difference between criticizing someone who simply screwed up a sonnet, and someone who deliberately screwed it up and played with it, to comment on the form. The later - the critique becomes - did they pull it off - and can we see the commentary?
I think at the end of the day - it comes down to the fact that art is communication or expression. And has the art (poetry, photography, film, novel, etc) conveyed the artist's intent or if they didn't necessarily have an intent (not all do) - a message that is clear? And how can it be made "clearer" not necessarily "better" but "clearer" to the reader or viewer? And less misunderstood?
[A caveat? I don't know how I truly feel about any of this, I'm just musing. I may well change my opinion on all of it next month.]
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
Re: Thoughts
Date: 2024-04-01 05:15 pm (UTC)Except, it comes down to who should be the arbitrator of taste? Because to a degree yes - you can objectively critique any piece of writing for clarity, conciseness, and originality. If a student copies another's work, or in this age, AI does, then of course that should be critiqued. Or if the student tries to pass off something that well doesn't make sense - than yes. But if they write something akin to a Hallmark Card Greeting, sappy, and sentimental, who am I to judge? I may hate it, but am I correct in judging it?
I guess what I'm getting at is the line is somewhat blurred in "creative" writing in regards to criticism, when it is less so in "functional" writing or "business or legal or academic" writing or what some may more accurately entitle "formal" writing. I don't think for example that we can critique dreamwidth posts? Because people write differently and use DW differently? I tend to be "spontaneous" and less formal here. (Mainly because at work - I write formally with specific rules, guidelines, and tone. And desire a break from it.)
In critique of artistic expression - there's a fine line between critiquing the rules, grammar, etc, and the expression itself. Or can be. It's easier with students or amateur writers - in that they make clear mistakes, which require a copy-edit, and in many cases a good line edit. But a professional artist or writer, or even one who has been doing it for some time and knows the rules, and more importantly when and how to break them - it becomes a bit more difficult.
There is for example - a huge difference between criticizing someone who simply screwed up a sonnet, and someone who deliberately screwed it up and played with it, to comment on the form. The later - the critique becomes - did they pull it off - and can we see the commentary?
I think at the end of the day - it comes down to the fact that art is communication or expression. And has the art (poetry, photography, film, novel, etc) conveyed the artist's intent or if they didn't necessarily have an intent (not all do) - a message that is clear? And how can it be made "clearer" not necessarily "better" but "clearer" to the reader or viewer? And less misunderstood?
[A caveat? I don't know how I truly feel about any of this, I'm just musing. I may well change my opinion on all of it next month.]