This semester has been nothing but reflective. Reflecting on texts, then reflecting upon my reflection of those texts, then reflecting upon my reflection’s reflection of those texts, and so on. Continuously questioning, what is my opinion, why, and more importantly, how it matters? As I struggled for validation, I was provoked by one of the first questions posed in class, ‘what makes a critic, a critic?’. Aware that a level of education and insight is necessary, as most successful opinions surpass superficial, 2-dimensional understandings of the text, and instead use the subject as an instrument reflective of their environment. A good review delves deep into the psyche of not so much the creator but the substance itself, disrupting my previous understandings as credentials moved away from traditionalist thinking and towards the comprehension of culture itself.
One of the first reviews I completed was instigated by the anniversary of Ted Hughes passing, leading me to consider his criticism and contribution to the art world. Hughes became infamous due to his traditionalist opinion that debated the authenticity and contribution of modern art. Cementing his legitimacy as a critic through his understanding of art history, he cut through the frenzied nature of what constituted modern art and formulated its hysteria into a succinct comment on the 21st century psyche. However, I couldn’t help but recognize that Hughes’ rebuttal of modern art’s transition was more reflective of his taste than the work. Although always warranted and exceptional, his traditional background encapsulated the prominent characteristics of criticism’s contradicting climate. Contemporary art’s shedding of the old worked as a catalyst for traditionalists such as Hughes, who delved into hysteria of judgment. He deplored new concepts as shallow, unreliable and not genuine, mostly because of their lack of historical validity. Thus inducing me to reflect upon my own tastes, as I previously had depended on traditionalism as a counterpoint for ‘better’.
Thus, I explored things I presumed I hated. Delving mostly into commercial TV, I watched The Kardashians, The Bachelorette, and anything else I previously would have deciphered as ‘trash’. Realizing quickly that most of these texts were feminine based, I attempted to reform my perception of commercial figures, hoping to find a hidden truth, possibly feminist and progressive in theory. Although not always entirely successful, the experience tested my pre-conceptions, making me question where I had obtained my opinions and why.
Around the time of mid semester, Alexandra Heller-Nicholas came to class and gave a talk about criticism itself as a form of privilege. Presumably, if one has time to critique another’s work, they usually have enough time to create their own. Exploring the nature of taste and how one obtains it, Alexandra illuminated some ideas already forming in my head regarding the construction of taste and it’s hierarchal nature. My study and passion for film has already exposed me to a certain type of judgment that deciphers ‘quality’ consequent to the visibility of a text. This visibility usually needs to be limited, as the hidden nature of a text and its trouble to be found, translates as a credential to the person who’s bothered to find it. Alexandra disputed this idea due to the privilege of privilege. Asking how one could expect a single mother with two jobs, to find enough time to research cinema and find Tommy Wiseau’s The Room, and then critique it? This confirmed my journey trying to determine the ethics behind criticism. With the role of the critic seeming to become more and more infiltrated with their responsibility and dedication to finding niche culture.
Thus, my interpretation of the role of the critic shifted. Initially, I skeptical of websites such as Rotten Tomatoes, with their investigation of texts as succinct as one line. My opinion of the role of the critic this semester has changed just as much as the critic themselves in the last five years. Realizing that, like the concept of art, criticism doesn’t have a singular viewer. Instead, it’s a source of information, of what you want it to be. Originally my understanding of the critic was that they held an onus of responsibility, a responsibility that was constructed and validated through education and understanding. Although this thought has not wavered significantly, my perception of an educational format has. Delving into critiques during class, we mostly agreed that a good review encompassed a passionate and original perspective about a text. However, these opinions were consequent to an education that enabled us to understand what we were reading, along with coming from a place of privilege enough to discuss their successes and shortcomings. Concluding in my perception that a critic is someone that provokes people like us (the class). Who attempts to disrupt the foundations we rely on and re-delegate our deciphering of credentials. Thereby creating their own credentials in an attempt to shape the world, like the artist before them, like no one else has seen it.