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.
