![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Fosse/Verdon and Critiquing Art
May. 30th, 2019 10:21 pm1. Finished Fosse/Verdon finally -- and, I've mixed feelings about it. ( Read more... )
2. Critiquing art is not an easy thing. I was pondering it today. For the most part -- it's highly subjective. I mean -- take for example, Game of Thrones? Or Buffy?
Or Doctor Who? Whether you love or hate it -- is often emotional and personal. You just happened to fall in love with Ayra, so as long as Ayra survived and was happy at the end, you were. End of story. It could do no wrong. Or maybe you just thought it was cool -- and never looked past that. Or maybe in Buffy -- all you cared about was that Spike got redeemed or Willow did? OR maybe all you cared about in Doctor Who was that a woman finally got the role? That's a subjective response to art.
It doesn't look beyoond the emotional reward.
And there is the view that art shouldn't be critiqued at all. It's art. (I don't buy into that, obviously. Mainly because I was trained and taught to be highly critical of art -- and with detailed precision. If I wasn't -- I got a bad grade or smacked upside the head by the professor. I was an Literature and Cultural Anthropology major -- I was taught to critique all art and I went to school with people who did. I have friend who is an art history major -- who can do detailed critiques of paintings and I learned how from her. And there's my brother -- who went to film school and is an artist -- who is equally highly critical. We went to Silence of the Lambs, and on the way home did a detailed critique of everything in the movie, we did the same thing with Titus Adronicus and Twin Peaks.) Heck, I go to a MCU movie with movie buddy -- and afterwards, we rip it apart. My mother and I watch a soap opera or any television show, and enjoy critiquing it -- figuring out what worked and what didn't, and why. Does it track? Do the characters make sense? Why didn't it work? We can discuss this for hours and it's a blast.
But there are people who don't think like that. A lot of my family members don't. A lot of coworkers don't. And a lot of members of my church don't. Why do you think I came online with the Buffy fandom? I wanted to analyze and critique it. I enjoy reading professional film, book and television reviews. Constructive critiques are fun to read.
So this circles back to the principal question -- to what extent can it be critiqued? When I love something -- I don't want it critiqued. I hate it when people critique it -- although I am known to critique things I love, and often ruthlessly, including my own works. And if I had a hand in creating it or giving birth to it -- I really don't want it to be critiqued. It's akin to having something cut into me or tear off skin. It's painful. Also, there's another question -- should the artist be held to a certain level of responsibility for their work? Are they responsible for delivering a product? Or are they not responsible at all for it -- is it just an expression and is all the responsibility in the viewer or reader? OR is it a little of both?
I think artists are responsible for what they put out there, just as parents are responsible for the children they give birth to and put out into the world or the pets they decide to adopt. But more so for what we create or have a hand in creating. We have a responsibility to that -- and we have a responsibility for how it is perceived.
I used to think we didn't, but I've changed my mind over time. I do think those viewing the work or reading it -- also have a responsibility to it. What they do with it, how they perceive it, how they critique or love it. Do they love a work that is misogynistic and racist -- blindly? Or should they look at that work through a far more critical if balanced lense?
And to what degree do we as viewers or artists have a responsibility to each other?
To look beyond the work or beyond ourselves, and see how that work reflects the world around us, and what it says about us as a society, and what if anything we should do about it?
Granted to a degree, art is just escapism. Fun. But isn't also something else -- regardless of the subject matter or source? Should we treat a work that is determined to be literary differently than one that is say popular or pulp? Can nothing be learned from pulp? Sometimes I think more can be ascertained from a work of pulp fiction than the greatest work of literature. I certainly saw The Watchman and the X-men comics as a greater indictment of our culture than anything written by James Joyce -- even if James Joyce was the better writer from a purely technical standpoint.
I don't know. It's late and this is just something I've been pondering.
2. Critiquing art is not an easy thing. I was pondering it today. For the most part -- it's highly subjective. I mean -- take for example, Game of Thrones? Or Buffy?
Or Doctor Who? Whether you love or hate it -- is often emotional and personal. You just happened to fall in love with Ayra, so as long as Ayra survived and was happy at the end, you were. End of story. It could do no wrong. Or maybe you just thought it was cool -- and never looked past that. Or maybe in Buffy -- all you cared about was that Spike got redeemed or Willow did? OR maybe all you cared about in Doctor Who was that a woman finally got the role? That's a subjective response to art.
It doesn't look beyoond the emotional reward.
And there is the view that art shouldn't be critiqued at all. It's art. (I don't buy into that, obviously. Mainly because I was trained and taught to be highly critical of art -- and with detailed precision. If I wasn't -- I got a bad grade or smacked upside the head by the professor. I was an Literature and Cultural Anthropology major -- I was taught to critique all art and I went to school with people who did. I have friend who is an art history major -- who can do detailed critiques of paintings and I learned how from her. And there's my brother -- who went to film school and is an artist -- who is equally highly critical. We went to Silence of the Lambs, and on the way home did a detailed critique of everything in the movie, we did the same thing with Titus Adronicus and Twin Peaks.) Heck, I go to a MCU movie with movie buddy -- and afterwards, we rip it apart. My mother and I watch a soap opera or any television show, and enjoy critiquing it -- figuring out what worked and what didn't, and why. Does it track? Do the characters make sense? Why didn't it work? We can discuss this for hours and it's a blast.
But there are people who don't think like that. A lot of my family members don't. A lot of coworkers don't. And a lot of members of my church don't. Why do you think I came online with the Buffy fandom? I wanted to analyze and critique it. I enjoy reading professional film, book and television reviews. Constructive critiques are fun to read.
So this circles back to the principal question -- to what extent can it be critiqued? When I love something -- I don't want it critiqued. I hate it when people critique it -- although I am known to critique things I love, and often ruthlessly, including my own works. And if I had a hand in creating it or giving birth to it -- I really don't want it to be critiqued. It's akin to having something cut into me or tear off skin. It's painful. Also, there's another question -- should the artist be held to a certain level of responsibility for their work? Are they responsible for delivering a product? Or are they not responsible at all for it -- is it just an expression and is all the responsibility in the viewer or reader? OR is it a little of both?
I think artists are responsible for what they put out there, just as parents are responsible for the children they give birth to and put out into the world or the pets they decide to adopt. But more so for what we create or have a hand in creating. We have a responsibility to that -- and we have a responsibility for how it is perceived.
I used to think we didn't, but I've changed my mind over time. I do think those viewing the work or reading it -- also have a responsibility to it. What they do with it, how they perceive it, how they critique or love it. Do they love a work that is misogynistic and racist -- blindly? Or should they look at that work through a far more critical if balanced lense?
And to what degree do we as viewers or artists have a responsibility to each other?
To look beyond the work or beyond ourselves, and see how that work reflects the world around us, and what it says about us as a society, and what if anything we should do about it?
Granted to a degree, art is just escapism. Fun. But isn't also something else -- regardless of the subject matter or source? Should we treat a work that is determined to be literary differently than one that is say popular or pulp? Can nothing be learned from pulp? Sometimes I think more can be ascertained from a work of pulp fiction than the greatest work of literature. I certainly saw The Watchman and the X-men comics as a greater indictment of our culture than anything written by James Joyce -- even if James Joyce was the better writer from a purely technical standpoint.
I don't know. It's late and this is just something I've been pondering.
