The section I found interesting in Carroll’s book was the discourse about the involvement of politics and criticism.
Though I am both atheist with respect to the Christ and an anti-Stalinist with respect to the Soviet collectivization, I can acknowledge that both films (Mel Gibson’s Passion of the Christ and Sergei Eisenstein’s The Old and the New) posses artistic value. That the films are at odds ideologically with each other as well as at odds with my political convictions, I submit, indicates that my evaluations are based on something other than politics.
Rather, I would contend that my evaluations are derived from the reasonings I’ve employed to establish that the means these two directors have invented for advancing their very different points in each case were extremely appropriate and effective.
I agree with Carroll when he says, “even if some critics are political that hardly shows that all critics are political.” I also want to point out that, as a practicing evangelical Christian, it bothers me when “Christian critics” use their power as critics to push agendas for example, against gay relationships in movies(I remember Brokeback Mountain causing stirs in the Christian community, and because of the “Christian critic’s” reviews I was not allowed to see it).
My question then is –regarding Carroll’s non-political criticism of Mel Gibson’s Passion of the Christ– wouldn’t critics with different backgrounds –christian, atheist, agnostic, catholic etc.– have slighty different understandings of the movie, and therefor have different results of criticism even if they are doing their best to be non-political in their evaluations as Carroll says he is? It seems to me that Carroll is saying that a good critic is able to remove himself from “real-world political affiliations and interests, and to evaluate the artworks before them on the basis of good reasons.” So where do the backgrounds and beliefs of critics come into play with their writings? If critics are not affected by their beliefs and past, wouldn’t every critic say the exact same thing?
How do you guys feel about this?
4 comments
Comments feed for this article
January 17, 2013 at 11:38 am
Katie O'Donnell
Personally, I think that everyone’s backgrounds influence their criticism. I also think that people can try to de-emphasize certain (political or otherwise) leanings, but even then it will creep in, subtly.
Is this a good thing or a bad thing? How much context do we need about a critic’s personal life in order to understand their perspective? Do we need to have any context?
January 17, 2013 at 9:32 pm
raynezhou
I agree with you. My answer to your questions and to the questions in the post is that it is neither good or bad to have a particular political or religious background, especially when considering about the specific context and properties of the thing that we critique. However, there may to two solutions if we do wanna be as objective as possible:
1. Try to be aware of your background. Sometimes simply be aware of your own background will bring something objective as yourself won’t even expect. Maybe the best way to deal with some bias is to accept them, even only temporarily.
2. Bring more backgrounds in. It would be better if people with various backgrounds are brought to discuss or critique something other than people with a single background. More voices will be more likely to bring objectivity.
January 17, 2013 at 12:15 pm
sborude
According to Caroll, being a good critique is primarily observing where the art lies objectively. What the artist is trying to convey and if the artist conveys it correctly it becomes a good art and then gets a good critique. I think what carroll thinks of as subjective critique is somewhat different than what we know as subjectivity. If you as a critique start to evaluate an object of art it will be firstly observing what value it has and that value is basically from the perspective of the artist and so the culture which is supportive to the development of the art. Not from the perspective of the audience, nor the critique himself. If this is put into practice I think that it make a good a critique will evaluate the object into consideration and then will write critique on it, and this can result in having any kind of bias. A critique is not just an opinion. It is a guide to the audience for observing the art form in the correct way.
January 17, 2013 at 3:32 pm
meredithelzea
This discussion reminds me of the TED talk by Eli Pariser on the news filter bubble. How information that is in our news feeds through facebook, google, etc is being tailored to fit within the same type of information that we search for (you can watch it for a better explanation. link is here: http://www.ted.com/talks/eli_pariser_beware_online_filter_bubbles.html). But why this reminds me of the discussion here is because the point is that if facebook and google keep doing this then they might be narrowing our worldview or perspectives on different subjects. Personally I agree with you Katie that everyone’s backgrounds influences their criticism in some way or another. My personal opinion is that people should allow their backgrounds to influence their criticism. I don’t mean this in an extreme agenda pushing way but I do believe this helps others hear out different perspectives or criticisms that they might not have seen or thought of.