We Should Be More Critical of Our Criticisms

[Kannik]

Hear hear! In my view, there is a distinction between an opinion, a review, and a critique. And while language and everyday parlance can be squishy, it's good to recognize and hold them separate. We don't always have to engage in each of them -- it's alright to just state your opinion if you liked something or not! -- collapsing them especially in that "I didn't like it, so therefore it must be poorly made, and I will therefore use this as a cudgel against others" / "I like this, therefore it must be excellent, and I will take a sword against anyone who says otherwise," is not productive in the least.

And I really like this notion/suggestion of occasionally doing a critique of our critiques and of our likes/dislikes. I mused about this a couple of months ago and wrote this: "And in that way, critiques have this interesting, dual nature. On the one hand, a critique is distinct from whether we like or dislike something. While a critique may include whether we like it or not, but during the bulk of the critique we aim to stand outside of ourselves in that regard in order to consider the work from all those [other] lenses. Yet, at the same time, to make a critique is to put ourselves on the line, vulnerable. Vulnerable, as we have to open ourselves up fully to the work to engage it without the filter of “like/dislike”. And vulnerable too because to make and share a critique is akin to the vulnerability that comes from making and sharing that art to the world. We’re putting ourselves on the line. It’s not an unassailable gut feel. And any gut feels we have we both bear it and examine it and take ownership for it."

Partially that's the whole notion behind the idea of "guilty pleasures" too, right? While we probably shouldn't actually feel guilty about it (or, worse, shame), it at least is a recognition that this thing we like isn't necessarily well done but it still speaks to us such that we love it anyway. Maybe that's a good first step for people to begin to understand and explore this distinction?

 

[Kannik]

I'm not sure I entirely agree re: only listening to "peers" though - critics sometimes really have interesting or informed opinions, and sometimes really dumb or weirdly unqualified-seeming ones, but it depends on the critic and what they're criticising.

This is one of my most favourite things about many of the critics/media analysis people I follow regularly, where I may not agree with everything they are espousing or where their conclusions led them, but as they are doing it in a long-form show-me-your-work kind of way (some of them VERY long form ), I always get something out of that journey. Often something opens up for me, or I deepen my appreciation for something, or it dampens my enthusiasm for another thing, or I recognize a connection I hadn't before, or...

And for certain, sometimes these have made me reconsider my take on a piece of art. I may not still like it, but my view always broadens.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I don't have them jumbled. I've been speaking English for over 50 years. I know what the definitions of justify and explain are. The nuanced distinction being made here doesn't matter in context.

I disagree, but okay.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I disagree, but okay.

Not going back to try and parse this discussion, but usually the common-sense approach of trying to use two words in a similar context is helpful.

Two interrogatories:

1. Explain your actions.
2. Justify your actions.

Do those two questions carry the same import? Do they have the same connotations? I mean, I don't use words much, but IMO, I think that the two are used differently.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I don't use words much.

Bwahahaha!

... but you make good points.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I'm responding negatively to the idea that critics know better than everyone else and should be listened to or deferred to.

For the record, that's not what I was arguing. I was saying that people who have a lot of experience with X or Y often have something meaningful to contribute to the discussion of something, even if I disagree with their opinion on said thing.

If I don't like a Western, I think there's still value in hearing thoughtful analysis from someone who's seen hundreds of them. I'll likely understand more about what the movie was responding to or referencing, or hear about works that did similar things that I might want to seek out.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

How did that limit even come about? Like, I heard somewhere that it somehow goes back to alphanumeric pager technology, which seems ridiculous to me. That's like having a limitation that's a holdover from carrier pigeons or the pony express

Twitter was originally built to use the SMS standard, which -- at the time -- limited messages to 140 characters.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

What's "proper" Mexican food is a matter of debate here in the United States though I think there's universal agreement that Taco Bell isn't it.

Ironically, Glenn Bell started off by 100% ripping off a well-respected Mexican restaurant that was kicking the crap of his nearby burger stand.

At a certain point, though, he and his successors clearly decided it wasn't worth putting that kind of effort into things going forward.