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.
