Essay: "The New Needs Friends"

"In many ways, the work of a critic is easy. We risk very little yet enjoy a position over those who offer up their work and their selves to our judgment. We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read. But the bitter truth we critics must face, is that in the grand scheme of things, the average piece of junk is probably more meaningful than our criticism designating it so. But there are times when a critic truly risks something, and that is in the discovery and defense of the new. The world is often unkind to new talent, new creations, the new needs friends."

 

Anton Ego - from Ratatouille

It seems to me that artistic criticism has two purposes.  The first is essentially didactic; to identify the artist's mistakes to help him or her improve.  The second is evaluative; to determine whether the art is "good" or "bad" and how it deserves to be ranked in comparison to other works.  The value of didactic criticism is obvious but the worth of evaluative criticism is less apparent.  Why do we need to classify art as good or bad apart from whether it's popular? 

One reason is to let people know what art they should check out and what they should avoid.  I think this is clearly useful.  But I think most critics also seek, through their criticism, to contribute or detract from a work of art's prestige or influence its popularity.

I suppose we can probably all agree that sometimes art which is very popular is quite "bad".  But what does this mean?  How can a film (like, say, Transformers 2) than millions of people watch and (apparently) enjoy be "bad?"  What possible standard of evaluating art is there other than whether people enjoy it or not?

 

I think when we say that a popular movie is "bad" what we really mean is that, over time, more people will think that it is "bad" than "good".  Although everyone raced to theatres and shelled out money to see it, in twenty years, almost no one, even its current defenders, will look back on Transfomers 2 as a great movie.  So a reviewer who says that Transformers 2 is bad, even while millions of people are enjoying it, is really saying that over time more people will give Transformers 2 the "thumbs down" than the "thumbs up".

 

It seems to me that, as a critic performing this function, there are two things you can do wrong: the first is to give a "good" work of art a "bad" review, and second, to give a "bad" work of art a "good" review.

 

Now, of these two sins, I think the latter is much less serious.  A "good" review of "bad" art will, at worst, waste the time and money of the critic's readers.  If a reviewer gets swept up in Transformers 2's special effects and Megan Fox's sex appeal and gives it a great review, he will eventually be corrected by time as the film is swiftly forgotten.  If it's not forgotten, then it was a good movie after all.  Time has the final say.

 

Does this mean that there is no point in identifying good or bad art, and we should just sit back and let time make its final judgment?  Well, no.

 

Because here's the thing: although a bad movie cannot, by definition, continue to remain popular over a substantial period of time, a good one might be totally forgotten if it, or its good qualities, are not brought to people's attention.  So one of the most important things a critic can do is to bring minor or unpopular works the reader's attention, or explain an artistic work's finer qualities which might not otherwise be appreciated.

 

Too many critics forget that this is the point of their job.  Too many critics think that their job is to bash the art they hate, to knock overrated art off of its pedestal, to make nasty jokes, to be funny.  But as we've seen over and over again, time will eventually take care of overrated art.  Back in 1998, I didn't need to worry about telling everyone how Titanic sucked, even though I was right and everyone else was wrong, because by 2010 everyone has realized it on their own.  My time would have been better spent championing art that loved that no one else did.  To save it from being lost.

 

Also, I have come to believe that there is something spiritually impoverished and bullying about explaining to someone who enjoys something why they shouldn't, about insisting that people only like the "right" movies, about trying to guilt the joy out of people's lives.  Let everyone have their fun, for crying out loud.  We can all appreciate attractive women and robots punching each other.  If people are relying on your recommendations, then you need to be honest with them, but otherwise, life is short, and we should let everyone take their pleasure while they may.  

 

And so I'll use this space to positively review works that I feel may be underappreciated, or of which people may be unaware.  I'm not going to castigate works of art that I feel are subpar, leaving them instead to the implacable judgment of posterity.