Your opinion of the critics

Discussion in 'Visual Arts' started by Django, Apr 6, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Django

    Django Forum Resident Thread Starter

    Location:
    Dublin, Ireland
    I have to say I've always enjoyed reading/listening to the critics. Films. music, books whatever.
    Proper critics, people who know what they are talking about. Most of the time I prefer hearing the criticism rather than the actual thing they are reviewing, especially true with films. (i've spent the last hour listening to Mark Kermode reviews on youtube). I find I agree with him more often than not.
     
    mikeyt likes this.
  2. peter fuller

    peter fuller Forum Resident

    Location:
    Vermont
    Critics are ridiculous concept to begin with. As if there opinion on art is more (or less) valid than others.
     
  3. htom

    htom Senior Member

    Location:
    Montreal, Canada
    By that standard, no opinion from anyone else should get any consideration either.
    Everyone's a critic. Some get published. Some get paid. Some get neither. The same game is being played by all of them. The only variation is in how much attention any of them gets from you.
     
    peter fuller likes this.
  4. guidedbyvoices

    guidedbyvoices Old Dan's Records

    Location:
    Alpine, TX
    Great critics can make you see things in a different light, or add to how you see things. Ebert did that a lot for me, which is why I still miss the guy.

    I don't care what some high school blog thinks, but there is value in a well thought review from someone with a wider and deeper background than me

    And I don't think maybe a single critic is the only opinion that matters. But if 95 critics say Freddy got Fingered sucks, then Im not gonna waste my time
     
  5. ralphb

    ralphb "First they came for..."

    Location:
    Brooklyn, New York
    There are a hell of a lot of critics on this forum.
     
    bopdd, lbangs and mikeyt like this.
  6. Maggie

    Maggie like a walking, talking art show

    Location:
    Toronto, Canada
    Except some people have more knowledge of art than others, and are able to justify their opinions more convincingly.

    Great critics also do the work of making sense of art, i.e. taking a stab at explaining what it's "saying." And that's a useful cultural function.
     
  7. ralphb

    ralphb "First they came for..."

    Location:
    Brooklyn, New York
    The French "new wave" (Godard, Truffaut etc.) would probably be relegated to obscurity were it not for critics like Andrew Sarris.
    Not to mention a genius like Fassbinder.
     
    Henryflowr, PHILLYQ and lbangs like this.
  8. Robin L

    Robin L Musical Omnivore

    Location:
    Fresno, California
    Thing is, criticism is a genre of writing. Some are good at it, most are not. This forum displays that fact of life every day.
     
  9. tcj

    tcj Senior Member

    Location:
    Phoenix
    It's not a ridiculous concept at all. A critic should be someone who is far more familiar with whatever medium about which he's speaking. They're valuable because they've heard/seen/read everything and they know what stands out and just as importantly, can tell you why it stands out. Ebert was great because he lived and breathed movies - all movies, of every genre, and every time period. Does that mean he was always right? No, but I understood why I felt he was wrong because of his deft explanations and because of the depth of his knowledge. I could easily make a value judgment based on his reviews that I have rarely found in other critics.
     
    Django likes this.
  10. knob twirler

    knob twirler Senior Member

    Location:
    Cleveland, Ohio
    But those films were a sort of critique of American films of the 40s to begin with, right? Godard and Truffaut were both film critics before they began making films themselves.
     
    Rufus McDufus and ralphb like this.
  11. peter fuller

    peter fuller Forum Resident

    Location:
    Vermont
    Hey it's just my opinion and honestly, I was thinking more about art/music critics. I do appreciate the information the way someone like Ebert can provide though. I simply question the concept that one person's opinion is some how more valid than somebody else's opinion on the subject of art (and I will throw movies in the "art" category for the purposes of this discussion).
     
    Tree of Life likes this.
  12. C6H12O6

    C6H12O6 Senior Member

    Location:
    My lab
    The idea of "The Critics" isn't even accurate, it's an over-generalization of everyone involved in that profession.

    A critic that writes for a film periodical, an alternative weekly, a newspaper or who doesn't even write but appears on morning talk shows will all have very little in common. Even if they generally like or hate the same movie, they're going to focus or articulate on different things, or possibly have a completely different perspective on the same movie. They may all be called critics but they're all working towards different goals. The guy on the local news isn't going to be hired or expected to perform his job the way Jim Hoberman is expected to do his.
     
    Solaris and ralphb like this.
  13. Django

    Django Forum Resident Thread Starter

    Location:
    Dublin, Ireland
    If the critic has a deep knowledge of their subject I would say, yes their opinion is more valid than Joe public.
     
    Dudley Morris likes this.
  14. Ghostworld

    Ghostworld Senior Member

    Location:
    US
    Before the internet, we weren't drowning in critics -- that's the real problem.
     
  15. peter fuller

    peter fuller Forum Resident

    Location:
    Vermont
    So if a critic loves the music of Miles Davis and knows everything there is to know about Miles does that negate the opinion of one who knows less but simply does not care for his music?

    I will give you an example. I am a huge lover of 70s progressive rock (and jazz, classical and even some metal) but that genre has been vilified by critics over the years. I can pretty much guarantee I know more about that genre than say a David Fricke (who is no fan) but I still think his opinion is as valid as mine.

    That is the crux about what I am saying about critics. Their opinion is no more or less valid than mine.

    This is interesting because here I am criticizing the critic. Need to get my head wrapped around that one... :o
     
    Gumboo and Tree of Life like this.
  16. Purple Jim

    Purple Jim Senior Member

    Location:
    Bretagne
    I find that I nearly always agree with them.
     
  17. peter fuller

    peter fuller Forum Resident

    Location:
    Vermont
    Those are all valid points and I probably wouldn't either but.... If I like Freddy got Fingered is that less valid than what the critics think?
     
    Tree of Life likes this.
  18. Bill Hart

    Bill Hart Forum Resident

    Location:
    Austin
    A good critic should inform- you should learn something about context, history of the genre, where the film/book whatever fits in to the larger body of that art. It should also be well-written; something that takes time, at least for me. I think there is a tendency on the Internet to keep the content constantly refreshed, which means less time for research, thoughtful writing and editing; I doubt most writers are well-paid, and given the rough sledding at traditional print media, there are fewer staff writers.
    I can sort through the thicket, and will read reviews of books or films before I jump in with both feet as a consumer. Oddly, I find that book reviews are often more charitable and film reviews often trash stuff that I find passes muster. (Given that there are few "perfect" pieces of art or maybe I'm just more critical of books than movies- dunno). I'm not sure you can make any generalization about critics- some critics will really do a great job on a particular piece and not so great on another; but this is true of the art they are reviewing as well- how many great authors or film auteurs get it 'right' every time?
    Criticism, in the literary sense, also is contextual to its time. Wasn't it Pauline Kael who made 'Citizen Kane' the "best film ever made"? Is that film still as highly regarded today?
     
    Last edited: Apr 6, 2015
  19. ruben lopez

    ruben lopez Nunc Est Bibendum

    Location:
    Barcelona Spain
    Some of them actually do their homework.
    I really like the writings of Gary Giddins,if you don't get jazz music you better check him out.
     
    Monosterio likes this.
  20. Django

    Django Forum Resident Thread Starter

    Location:
    Dublin, Ireland
    With films I'm almost always in agreement. I hate dumb blockbusters.
     
  21. Robin L

    Robin L Musical Omnivore

    Location:
    Fresno, California
    Good example. Roger Ebert's commentary on the DVD of Citizen Kane is totally relevant to understanding what makes Kane so great. More "impossible' shots, explained and clarified, by watching Citizen Kane, then one is likely to encounter at film school. And writers like Pauline Kael might be more literary stylists than educators, but the passion and quality of her writing always comes through anyway.
     
    ralphb likes this.
  22. PlushFieldHarpy

    PlushFieldHarpy Forum Resident

    Location:
    Indiana
    I hate critics who give good reviews when they aren't deserved. Wonder why that happens. The modern movie critics (even Ebert) are very guilty of this. I'll never forget the experience of going to see this great "masterpiece" that was Crash.
     
    Tree of Life likes this.
  23. Erik Tracy

    Erik Tracy Meet me at the Green Dragon for an ale

    Location:
    San Diego, CA, USA
    I used to pay attention to critics for two reasons, 1)was the item being reviewed worthy of me parting with my brass, 2)a secret validation of my selection as being 'good'.

    But critics have such varying agendas and egos, it became a chore to find a critic whose 'tastes' aligned with my own.

    I remember a certain critic, Duncan Shepard, of the San Diego Reader magazine for movies. If a movie was 'foreign' it got an immediate 4 or 5 star rating - regardless of how mind numbing boring or indecipherable the supposed 'in' social commentaries. A Hollywood released film got an immediate black dot, or at best a 1/2 star.

    So, my decoder ring was if Duncan hated it, I went to see it. If he liked it, I avoided it. :righton:

    Same thing with record reviews - lots of critics panned records by artists I like, so it became an exercise in ignoring their reviews.

    Today, I find it more useful to take the average rating of products, movies, restaurants, records, what have you from public inputs. So called critical reviews are merely 'ticklers'...I keep the salt shaker handy.
     
    Last edited: Apr 6, 2015
    Tree of Life likes this.
  24. ralphb

    ralphb "First they came for..."

    Location:
    Brooklyn, New York
    Critics are just uber fans with a great vocabulary and a knack for writing. That's pretty glib, I know, but if you have an opinion, can back it up, and are reasonably articulate, you can be a critic. In your own head if nowhere else.
    The best critics are great writers. They can generate enthusiasm for something through a mixture of wordsmithing, knowledge and their own passion. They do it with style, grace and a true romantic notion in the power of the word.
    The best critics fire up the engines of our fandom, make us think, relate, understand, approach what we listen to, read and see in a different way, maybe from a better angle.
     
    Tristero, PHILLYQ, mj_patrick and 2 others like this.
  25. darkmass

    darkmass Forum Resident

    And how do you feel about metacritics, such as yourself?

    Do you believe your opinions of critics more valid than anyone else's?
     
    ralphb likes this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

molar-endocrine