Quote:I am sorry, but this is barefaced nonsense.
Well, no; it's not, really.
Quote:Even if such guidelines exist, not everyone will agree about what the guidelines are, or what they should be. Nor will everyone agree how to apply the guidelines, or about whether a given artist fulfills them in his work. For instance, you and Jim certainly have not convinced me of the objective merit of Campbell's writing. But then, I suppose that that is because I am merely obstinate, and because you are objectively right and I am objectively wrong. *chortles*
Not at all. It is a truism that no writer, no matter how great or poor, will appeal to or repel every reader. (Or even every intelligent or perceptive reader.) A particular reader may simply be blind to the merit of that writer, or that writer may simply write in such a way or on such subjects or from such a perspective as to leave a particular reader unmoved. That is the subjective part of reading, and is perfectly valid for that reader and their judgment of that writer's work for them. But... once you enter into a different frame of reference, that of appeal to a broader, more representative audience, then you can indeed rely on said guidelines, as they have been formulated over a very, very long period and have been found to work quite well in allowing one to form a judgment on what is good or bad in art.
Nor does this require that the critic like the writer or work in question; merely that they have the ability to recognize whether said writer or work fulfills these guidelines well or ill. Again, these guidelines are founded on rather general principles of what has worked and continues to work for a representative number of readers, for a reasonable length of time; which is why it can transcend technique and focus on the ability of the writer to artistically convey to such an audience that with which the work is concerned.
And I never said anything about an "objective art"; what I said was
Quote:there really are good, largely objective, guidelines when it comes to judging "what is right and wrong, good or bad" in art
which is a different thing, based on the experience of generations, even millennia, mentioned above. That these things rely on consensus is quite true; but then, when it comes to anything except the physical sciences, what other form of "objectivity" is there? The final criterion of objective versus subjective in criticism is whether or not the critic is influenced more by his (or her) knowledge of the things mentioned above, or by personal bias, prejudice, or emotional responses. This sort of thing, as I mentioned, can allow a critic to appreciate and write intelligently about both the strengths and the weaknesses of a writer or work, whether they strike a responsive chord with that particular critic or not.
Which goes to something that Kyngatin said, as well:
Quote:the line between criticizing the craft and the art becomes blurred in many criticims. It becomes a matter of personal taste. You argue as if critics are objective observers, whereas I believe very few of them have any such abilities.
This may well be the case (though I think I'd draw a distinction between those who are genuinely thoughtful critics and the mass of "reviewers"), but it hardly calls into question the critical method itself, any more than abuses by individual scientists disproves the validity of the scientific method. The practice has withstood the test of time rather well, because it is based on methods which have gradually evolved, rather than being a set of arbitrary assumptions of an individual or select group. I doubt that anyone could support an argument that there is no way of telling what is good or bad in art, as we all make distinctions irrespective of our personal biases. (I, for instance, am extremely fond of the old Doc Savage stories, but there is absolutely no way I can claim the title of art for them, save the telling one of "pop" art -- which has, to me, always been a particularly apt phrase, as it not only denotes "popular art", but art the period of whose relevance and resonance quickly bursts, like a bubble being popped. That they may continue to appeal to a limited audience is quite true, but their relevance in general is quite another thing.)
As for the CAS versus HPL point:
Quote:I mean, look where you are posting: In a Clark Ashton Smith forum. Clark Ashton Smith: An author whom most of us esteem very highly, and yet one whom critics and academics do not even consider to be a worthwhile "minor poet" of the 20th Century; an author whose literary works have been banished to the fantasy small press ghetto, and whose reputation survives mostly because he was a friend and correspondent of Lovecraft's. Few who consider the matter carefully would consider Lovecraft to be a superior prose styst to CAS, but Lovecraft is published in the prestigious Penguin collection, and CAS is published by... Night Shade Books. Why have the editors at Penguin failed to notice CAS's objectively superior qualities?
So, in addition to the likes of Penguin, has critical and popular consensus simply "missed" CAS's objectively superior qualities, whereas we have not? Or did CAS simply have the misfortune to live and write in an era that was subjectively antithetical to his personal aesthetics and values?
Several things come into play here, I think. Recall that even writers such as Shakespeare have had their periods of eclipse and rediscovery. As I recall, Smith's better works were rather popular in their day, falling out of fashion with the rise of science fiction over fantasy and, more importantly, of modern styles over more retrospective, formal, or precisely nuanced styles. It took a long time for Lovecraft to begin to garner the recognition he has today, and I think we're seeing something of the sort gradually happening with Smith, as well. Part of this is due to Smith's use of recondite phraseology -- even more than that of Lovecraft -- as well as his tendency to use an often lapidary style even when it did not necessarily quite fit the chosen narrator on the level of psychological verisimilitude. This is a flaw (albeit a somewhat minor one) in some of Smith's work, but I would argue that it is more than compensated for by other factors. However, such a style -- with its attendant aesthetics, values, and philosophical background -- has been out of favor for the majority of the twentieth century, and is only now once again being recognized by a growing number as not inherently incompatible with either a modern sensibility or the presentation of concerns in modern terms -- a part of great art being a reflection, in some fashion or other, of the times from which it emerges.
So far, we've only had a few decades of Smith being in decline. This is hardly unusual in literary history and, as I said, I think we are seeing a rediscovery of Smith, with a consequent reexamination of his work and an emerging recognition of his talent and abilities, as well as an understanding of how he, too, has relevance to his (and our) time.
Kyngatin says:
Quote:I think you overestimate the role of critics, in shaping the work of artists and writers.
The role of professional critics, I should say.
Perhaps. But I have dealt with a fair number of writers over the years, either through correspondence, personal conversations, or -- at furthest remove -- by reading what they have had to say on the subject, and the majority of them have repeatedly stated that intelligent criticism -- even if negative -- has had a notable and salutary effect on their writing. This is true whether it be from professional critics, or from thoughtful, critical readers.
Yes, artists do have a certain amount of what you describe, but it is often faulty, clouded by their own egos -- especially when they are either starting out, or when they achieve a notable degree of financial and popular success. It is in these periods, especially, when unvarnished, honest critical appraisals of their work can be (and most often are) helpful when it comes to avoiding the pitfalls any artist is prone to. The two points above rather argue against your position here:
Quote:The talentented artist with creative drive, finds his way totally disregardless and free from what the critics have to say. The artist who chooses to read the critics, may get temporary ego encouragement from positive criticizm, or if emotionally insecure be hampered from further attempts at evolving if the criticism is massively degrading.
I generally despise critics who are not creators themselves. They are part of the herd. And write for the herd.
(And how, precisely, does one tell "the talented artist with creative drive" from the hack, without some more objective form of criteria?) It is not necessary that a person be able to do something himself in order to be able to understand and make perceptive comment (or useful suggestions) on it. The question thus again becomes how much the critic is motivated by personal bias and how much by a genuine love of and concern for (as well as knowledge about) the art itself.
Quote:(That's what I mean by journalists and critics having become the real "stars" that people look up to in our time. The masses are herded by the crap "expertize" that fills the papers, TV, and books.)
This, too, has always been -- and is always likely to be -- the case, as the majority of people simply do not stop to examine deliberately when it comes to such matters. They respond emotionally to what tickles their fancy or repulses them, without looking into the matter any further. It is only the more thoughtful who do so, and thus can make a worthwhile contribution to a discussion of such.
Quote:I appreciate reading a good, well thought out, criticism... but I also realize at the same time, that it is to a large degree personal reflections on the critic's part, his particular perspective. The best critcics are those that themselves are accomplished artists, because they often have the ability of undertstanding on deeper levels, and comprehend what is relevant, and don't go stepping on other's toes needlessly (unless at the same time plagued by boisterous unbalanced egos). And I am not refering to criticism of the purely technical side of the craft, in which flaws may be obvious to the less observant among us, (besides, sometimes the artist may intentionally steer away from given rules of the craft, for their own intentions.)
The first point I believe I have addressed -- perhaps at tedious length -- above. The second... not necessarily. There have been many excellent critics who were not artists themselves (at least, in the usual sense), or whose efforts in those realms were less than successful either artistically or professionally. Again, one need not be able to do in order to understand. And I think you'll find that the majority of accomplished artists who have turned their hands to criticism have been among the harshest critics in existence, rather than the opposite. (Again, Poe comes strongly to mind, as does Pope; among others.)
As for "steering away from"... again, this doesn't mean a darned thing, when it comes to whether a given work is good or bad artistically in the larger sense; it simply means the artist is being more or less self-indulgent unless they can use such "steering away" to improve their abilities to better convey to a representative audience the core -- and perhaps even the nuances -- of what they wish to convey... in which case, upon closer examination this tends to be more a reformulation or modification rather than a renunciation of such guidelines (not rules; rules being by nature more constricting, guidelines allow for a great deal of freedom of play). Thus you have such examples as Joyce's
Ulysses, or the best of what came out of the New Wave in sf in the 1960s-1970s, while many other experiments along those lines simply failed.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 1 Aug 09 | 04:13PM by jdworth.