In Favor of Articulate, Discriminating Moderation: Irrational Positivity (Critic)

Irrational Positivity (Critic)

In my last post, I spoke about the breakout of irrational positivity found in the audiences of art - those willing masses (or small groups) who seem to want every new form of popular or niche stimuli they are exposed to be the ultimate/thrilling/romp-tastic/ridiculous/amazing thing that either holds their attention for all of two and half weeks until they move on to their next big catch OR remains in their big, slouching bag of opinions wrapped in a coating of superficial context. The important point I attempted to outline last time was distinguishing between genuinely positive opinions of works of art - wrought from reflection, moderation and discrimination - and blinded-by-science, rah-rah enthusiasm - a combination of short-term memory, lazy wonderment and fair-weather acceptance.

There's a major difference between enjoying Citizen Kane on a deeply felt, pure level and enjoying it because expectation and common wisdom have dictated it be so. I remember hearing my entire life how "amazing" Citizen Kane was, how much of an American masterpiece it was, how vital of an experience it was. I was bombarded with these grand-standing slogans at every turn and it was hard to form a cogent, personalized expectation of the film. I finally saw the damned thing and, of course, I didn't quite share the effervescent cheer that so many critics and fans (irrationally positive and genuinely positive) had.

It wasn't that I went into Citizen Kane with the resentful aim of hating it no matter what - that would be a hefty dose of hypocrisy. I went into it as neutral as possible and gauged it for what it actually was. I'll be honest, I thought it was an interestingly shot film with an engaging premise, but these particular elements of a film do not make the whole experience. I also found the film meandered and provided it's own painfully transparent self-importance. In short, I thought it was -alright-. The film, in my opinion, is not nearly worthy enough of the obligatory praise that it receives on a yearly basis.

There's a line of thinking where a work's historical context is the insurmountable argument against negativity towards it. Which, naturally, is total bullshit. There's a difference between respect given to works of art for the conditions they were fostered within and actually enjoying the work itself, IN ADDITION to respecting said context. And this, my friends, is where the IPCs (Irrationally Positive Critics) enter the game - because where else is historical context more perpetuated, than by critics?  

Citizen Kane is such a perfect example of this ideology. IPCs would have you believe that the film was the end-all-be-all of American cinema, ramming it's historical relevance down your throat until your personal taste is completely suffocated (whether you realize it or not). Citizen Kane contained many technical achievements and  an unprecedented amount of artistic freedom at that time in Hollywood, but is that merit enough to automatically enjoy it? IPCs think so. Their brand of irrational positivity comes from a dogmatic education and interpretation of film born from the halls of academia.

Common academic methods, such as analysis and contextualization, can be useful tools in forming coherent, discerning opinions on works of art, but there is a dangerous line to be walked when applying said methods. Academia can stifle intuitive understandings of the art work in question and even force people out of their gut feelings entirely in order to fit some subsidized cultural interpretation. The opinion, though eloquent and thoughtful, is representing one very specific way of reading a work of art. It voids most of the personal enrichment that could have come without the needling clockwork and societal extrapolations of academic theory.

On the other hand, you have the "feel-good" IPC, who turns even the shittiest, most detestable work of art on the planet into a light-hearted tease. Film critic Gene Shalit was a major proponent of this method, using ridiculous puns to soften the blow for any film he did not like and kiss the cheeks of the one's he did. The irrational positivity here is self-evident. How do you learn anything from a person so afraid to actually dig in and tear something to pieces when the need arises? How do you learn anything from inscrutable praise based on fluffy observations, marketing buzzwords and cute rhymes?

I am not a fan of Roger Ebert, but at least he has the gusto to be passionately negative about a film when he thinks deserves it. Ebert hates a favorite film of mine, I Am Curious Yellow, and though I disagree completely with his assessment of the movie, I respect that he had a genuine reaction to the film and articulately communicated thus to his masses. On the flip-side, Ebert adores the New Wave classic, Last Year at Marienbad, which I despise, but I appreciate that his positivity is culled from an authentic place within. He is primarily steeped in academia, but I do think Ebert injects enough personal reflection into his reviews to warrant respect.

Naturally, IPCs and IPAMs (Irrationally Positive Audience Members) are a self-perpetuating and self-congratulating lot, so it's hard to plunge your hand in and rip away the heart of the beast. Their fervor for positivity is so strong, they would see the world burn around them before they gave an inch on the merits of Community or the integrity of LCD Soundsystem. Still, folks who are aware enough of their own tastes can learn a thing or two from the world of spoon-fed enthusiasm. You can avoid the indiscriminate and unaccountable paths people take to arrive at their cardboard "opinions" on works of art. You can hold on to the works that really mean something to you, despite the tumultuous sea of endless new trends. You can sidestep preconceived notions, academic posturing and party-line critical praise in order to form your own opinion. You can do this and be proud of the fact that when you liked that movie, that album, that book, that sculpture, that mixed-media collage, it was an appreciation that came, first and foremost, from within.

In Favor of Articulate, Discriminating Moderation: Irrational Positivity (Audience)

I thought I'd take a break from movie reviews this week to drop some thick cultural observations on the various ways people react to arts criticism and the methods in which art critics present their opinions, all in an effort to expel some personal grudges and present how I developed my own methodology when it comes to reviewing art. These are opinions that have been marinating in my brain for a little while now, and I'm hoping they taste just right - that I did not put too little or too much brain-sauce on these slabs of thought. However, it's one of those things where passion tends to trump cordiality, politeness, benefit-of-the-doubting, etc, in favor of a wild dose of pure honesty.

To ease the presentation of these scattered thoughts on arts criticism, I've decided to explain my ideas in four sections that I feel succinctly organize my whole point - Irrational Positivity (Audience), Irrational Positivity (Critic), Irrational Negativity (Audience), Irrational Negativity (Critic) - sections that highlight the disparity of opinions and overblown reactions to specific works of art. I'll end things with a fifth section, Discriminating Moderation, in which I'll explain how my own critical methodology (both as a critic and an audience member) was formed in an effort to avoid the pitfalls of the previously mentioned mind sets.

Irrational Positivity (Audience)

Firstly, what do I mean when I say "irrational positivity" as it applies to arts criticism and an audience? Irrational positivity  describes the way some people act after they have experienced a work of art (especially right after), where discrimination goes out the window and the work gives them a kind of exuberance (in this case, a mixture of genuine and forced) -  so much that it's practically oozing out of their eyeballs. It's not to say a  person is "wrong" for developing a fervent bond with a work of art, I don't think that has to be explained. However, I do find that there is a disparity between the honest construction of a newly formed positive opinion and a slippery synthesis of collective appreciation, first-timers syndrome and a general lack or all out negligence of self-reflection.

Let's use Jurassic Park as an example. Let's say Ted goes and watches Jurassic Park  for the first time, well after its prime and initial popularity, but riding a wave of nostalgic or classic popularity. He says that he loves the movie. But does he love the film itself or the film's reputation? Does he love the film or does he love the director's reputation? Throughout his life, Ted has likely been told how great Jurassic Park and Steven Spielberg are (conversely how much they suck, but I'll get to that view point later) by friends, family, an indiscriminate assortment of web writers and, if he's enough into reviews, critics he enjoys reading.

With all that outside influence, can Ted watch Jurassic Park in any kind of true, original fashion? Personally, I don't think so. Not unless Ted is self-aware enough to step back from all the opinions he has synthesized, really open his eyes and watch for himself - not his friends, not his family, not the critics - himself. If he can place himself within the space of the movie and just let it be, than he can have a genuine reaction, whether it be positive or negative.

Comedian Pete Holmes phrased it well in one of his podcasts, where he talked about people actually having an "opinion". In speaking about one of his unfinished bits, Pete explained that he hated when he went on dates and asked them what they thought about something, like a movie, and they simply said, "it's amazing" in response. For Holmes, that is NOT an opinion. There is nothing backing it up, it has no sinew attached to it. They just blindly adore that particular movie.

And fuck forbid you actually challenge the sweeping joy for a film or record of one of these IRAMs (Irrationally Positive Audience Members), because they will crucify you with smugness and passive aggressive condescension at every turn. Even suggesting some lack of even-handed observation on their part will send them on a tilt-o-whirl of over-compensation, with wildly aimed judgements at your own thought process. It's that kind of "oh, well, he's questioning my joy for this thing I love and suggesting that maybe, just maybe, this film I love is not the definition of perfection - time to undercut his criticism by making him out to be a negative, pretentious troll".

The issue that IRAMs don't seem to understand is - especially in a public space like Facebook, a forum, a club meeting, a comment strand or other communicative arena - opinions are fair game for scrutiny, even by friends and acquaintances. I understand that trolls have kind of ruined the credibility of those who actually have reasonable but discriminating taste, but IRAMs certainly don't understand the distinction. It wreaks havoc on a genuine, fair-minded exchange of thoughts. Even if IRAMs ask why their opinion of a beloved work has been questioned or criticized, it's nearly always posed as a challenge rather than a welcome cycling of ideas.

A great example of this lies in the arena of highly anticipated Hollywood blockbusters. It's not like Hollywood has ever given us a consistent reason to anticipate anything they put out, but if you speak a single critical word about a serious huge flick, ala The Dark Knight Rises, such as the possibility it's just rehashing ideas of previous entries in the series, which weren't amazing to begin with, IRAMs will eat you alive. You haven't suggested that the movie is going to be downright terrible, you haven't said it's not worth watching, but it doesn't matter to the positive lynch mob. In fact, I think IRAMs are more obsessed with the anticipation and trends surrounding the film, rather than the film itself.

This definitely happened when Kick-Ass was coming to theaters, everyone rode that bandwagon hard and never gave a second thought as to how it'd be executed. It was a graphic novel movie with a slight post-modern twist on comic book heroes, and that was enough. Then it was pretty much universally terrible, except a few interesting elements, and people said it was still "a good attempt" to save face with their social circles.

I feel many lessons can be learned from the IRAM view point, not least that you can love something to pieces and still recognize and tip your hat to the flaws in it. Another lesson to learn is that there isn't always justification for those flaws found in some round-about logic. Naturally, all art is subjective but there is a line where people need to just let go and admit that, yes, this part of this work is personally shitty to me and I don't like it. The most important lesson, though, is taking art with a grain of salt from the get-go. Some might assume this stifles natural reactions and expression to a work, but in fact, tempered scrutiny will only strengthen your bond and allow you to take the negativity in stride, debate with reasonable coherence and set the bedrock for a well-informed, multifaceted taste.