How does Carroll derive his claim in Introduction? By comparing his intention of writing this book and the content of this book with the other type of criticism books, as Jeff has talked about in an earlier post today. I underlined the process of how Carroll derives the main claim when I was reading his book unconsciously, but I realized that that’s how he does that after I finishing reading Jeff’s post. So I would like to shall Carroll’s process with you. Maybe we can use the same way to introduce our own claim later. 
1. Page 4
In contrast, my book is neither a theory of criticism nor a summary of fashionable critical theories. Rather it is a philosophy of criticism.
2. After giving a large context of the book, which is about “philosophy of criticism”, he then talks more about what this means on Page 5
…, whereas my concern is with, among other things, the nature of and constraints upon anything that we should be persuaded is an authentic specimen of interpretation.
3. So that’s a step deeper. Then, still on Page 5
They take interpretation to be the leading task of criticism. In contrast, I argue that evaluation is of the essence of criticism…
4. So he finally states that, and of course, he would love to restate this claim again and again from different angles. (From Page 5 to Page 7)
Yet there is still a difference between us, since, as indicated above, I maintain that what might be called artistic evaluation — evaluation in light of artistic categories — is fundamental…
Instead, I place far more emphasis on the artwork as the intentional production of the artist as an individual creator of value.
This book is also describable as humanist insofar as it does not recommend a general or theoretical approach to all artworks, but advocates the evaluation of particular artworks on their own terms…
Rather, I maintain that evaluation is the crux of criticism and …
Basically, these are all I can find before he introduces the structure of his book on Page 8. Notice all the bold words are either key words for comparison(distinguishment) or claiming.
2 comments
Comments feed for this article
January 17, 2013 at 10:57 pm
Katie O'Donnell
This is such a great post, Rayne!
Being able to break down structures and claims is really important in this class! The Carroll book was not yet published when I took this class so some of the readings are new to me too; this is very helpful.
January 18, 2013 at 9:44 pm
slouraine
Nice post. I think the difference he points out in including the “intentional production of the artist” makes his framework (if you want to call it that?) particularly relevant to design, since we as designers are so often required to rationalize what we’ve done.