Why We Need Criticism
by Jeet Heer
Monday, July 5, 2010
If you click here you’ll find a podcast of a lively discussion of Ben Schwartz’s Best American Comics Criticism. Panelists include Schwartz himself as well as R. Fiore, Brian Doherty, Sammy Harkham and Joe Matt. Lots of contentious ideas are put forward (and some Comics Comics regulars are insulted) but I want to focus in particular on Matt’s statement that he doesn’t need to read criticism because he can decide for himself what’s good or not. That’s not an uncommon opinion and I think the proper response to this contention depends on what we mean by “criticism.” If we define criticism narrowly as analytical essays on an art form or particular works of art, then it’s true that criticism is a minority interest. But if we define criticism more broadly as any discussion of art or works of art, including conversations and the response of artists themselves to earlier art, then criticism is as unavoidable and essential as art itself. To be more concrete, some of the best comics criticism has come in the form of interviews done by artists like Gil Kane, Robert Crumb, Art Spiegelman, etc. As Joe Matt mentions elsewhere in the discussion, he turns to interviews in The Comics Journal before anything else. Without these interviews, our entire sense of comics would be very different.
The best articulation I’ve ever read about the necessity of criticism came from an essay Henry James wrote in 1884 on “The Art of Fiction.” Here is the crucial part of the essay:
Art lives upon discussion, upon experiment, upon curiosity, upon variety of attempt, upon the exchange of views and the comparison of standpoints; and there is a presumption that those times when no one has anything particular to say about it, and has no reason to give for practice or preference, though they may be times of honor, are not times of development—are times, possibly even, a little of dullness. The successful application of any art is a delightful spectacle, but the theory, too, is interesting; and though there is a great deal of the latter without the former, I suspect there has never been a genuine success that has not had a latent core of conviction. Discussion, suggestion, formulation, these things are fertilizing when they are frank and sincere.
This is perhaps the first and last time Joe Matt and Henry James have been brought together in the same discussion.
Labels: Ben Schwartz, Henry James, Joe Matt
The critic Lawrence Alloway (1926-1989), known for his writings on Pop Art, indicated that the role of criticism was an interest in “the interaction of the artist’s intention and the spectator’s interpretation.” He believed “the function of the audience is to determine the meaning of the work when it is out of the artist’s hands,” and that “flexibility of interpretation is preferable to dogmatic avowals of singular meaning and absolute standards.”
Often artists forget that they release their work into the world and the result is that it enters into a greater realm of communication independently of their desire for specific meaning, with ever-shifting contexts. Despite common belief, not all art “speaks for itself,” especially in a culture that is visually illiterate with little to no patience to consider the image on a deeper level, as if it were a text. The best critics act as conduits between artists and audiences, providing a fresh discourse– the possibility of greater self-knowledge for the artist, and the possibility of opening new levels of understanding for the audience. I think the word “criticism” itself is often misunderstood to mean “value judgment,” but the best criticism makes constructive arguments, not deconstructive pronouncements. It doesn’t “explain away” the experience, but enriches and sharpens our powers of observation, and increases our level of engagement.
The notion of only listening to the intent of the artist, or only following the path of what one likes or does not like, is closing off the tremendous amount of possibility in gaining access to a far richer world with different approaches to thought and feeling. Reading criticism, understanding how others receive knowledge through well-crafted criticism, can cultivate a more informed, more introspective audience. Everyone can benefit from this.
The only people moe defensive than artists taken apart by critics are critics who have been called out by artists. It’s a good time all around.
Perhaps if critics spent less time talking about other critics and more time talking about art, they would be more respected or appreciated.
Finally, I’d rather (100% of the time) hear one creator (cartoonist, writer, filmmaker, whatever) talk about another creator’s work than hear any critic (no matter how intelligent and articulate) talk about the same creator’s work. All those great old TCJ interviews only emphasize this, in my opinion. Similarly, who would you rather hear talk about a movie: Pauline Kael or Martin Scorsese?
I don’t understand your logic, Jeffrey. I would rather read/listen to the smartest, most insightful person writing/speaking about a work of art. Whether this person is a peer artist, an artist from another field or a “critic.”
And I contend that criticism may as well be considered an artform anyway. Falling under “writing” in general.
The “critic” is, simply, a person who has deficated himself or herself to the study and analysis of art. I consider them the experts, when they’re on their game. They can be talented or talentless just as the art itself can be.
I really don’t understand the mentality–I’ve heard it said so many times through these years by so many people. This defensive chauvanism that the only person qualified to discuss the artform is another active participant. Hell, those are the people I trust LEAST.
Artists are the WORST. So dishonest, many of us flub and fake for our friends, or are myopic due to our own aesthetic pursuits to the point of dismissing other sorts of artists (Chris Ware does this a LOT). I greatly prefer to talk about comics with people who love the artform but have no personal desire to create in it. They’re less bound by social interests, personal business grudges, and they’re especially less bound by their personal training.
Most artists (NOT “all”) are trained to work with certain methods. These methods become the “correct” ways for them. Too often (NOT “always”), those artists allow those methods to be a guideline for what should and shouldn’t be. Regardless of the fact that some of their art peers and colleagues may have differing aesthetic goals and intents.
The critic who is not bound by such training often (again NOT “always) seem freer to explore and allow for various works to exist on their own terms.
This is not to pile upon you, Jeffrey, I just have had it up to here (hand about level with my scalp) with the argument that non-artists should shut up and listen to our Grand Wisdom.
No way.
Why do I have to make a choice? Why can’t I read both?
@Jeffrey Meyer. Interestingly, Martin Scorsese himself probably doesn’t agree with you on this one. He’s spoken often of the importance of criticism to helping him understand film. And as series editor for the Modern Library series “The Movies” one of the first books Scorsese republished was “Agee on Film”, a foundational volume of movie criticism.
To say nothing of the fact that Paul Schrader, who wrote Scorcese’s “Taxi Driver,” “Raging Bull,” “Last Temptation of Christ” and “Bringing Out the Dead,” began as a film critic and was a student of student of Miss Kael. Film criticism, is no small part, helped to define the course of filmmaking as directors and writers were often intimately engaged with the practice (see: ‘Cahiers du Cinema’), as a means of staying engaged and informed and challenging one another.
I get the strange impression that the time is not being taken to fully read the defense of criticism, as Mr. Heer and myself have put forth. It’s not about making a choice between the artist and non-artist viewpoint, it’s not about anybody maliciously “taking it apart.” My aim was to provide a very constructive rationale for criticism as a positive activity for both artists and audiences. I think there is probably some skimming of words here, without deference to the finer points. It is also not about someone being smarter that someone else, but simply the overall enlarging of a base of knowledge that all can participate in. Isn’t the root of democracy informed debate? In a culture overwhelmed with the flood of image production, is it not a positive activity to engage in informed debate about how we relate to those images (or texts) and how they relate to us? I am very suspect of those who are intolerant of criticism, including artists themselves who want to guard their own work from criticism.
Ryan: ESPECIALLY artists looking to avoid analysis.
Great thread on this. This dispute–though it is, as Chris indicates, an essentially pointless and frustrating one—has fascinated me and seems to have resulted in some powerful testings of what we mean by “criticism.” I wrote about Rancière and others’ response here.
Not all lovers of a particular film watch the dvd with the audio commentary on. Did anyone actually finish that book, The Aesthetics Of Rock, besides the author? If you chanced upon Kramers Ergot 4 at Mirvish Books On Art (back when it was a new release) and were unaware of the artists work therein, of course it didn’t return to their display rack! It beholds you, you know with a quick glimpse this hefty sucker will drill in the deep waters of your mind and that constructing impressions with words can never equate. Impressions, hindsight, hype, connecting dots, comparing, dismissing…all part o the fun that is subjectivity.
INTERVIEWER
And how about the function of the critics?
WILLIAM FAULKNER
The artist doesn’t have time to listen to the critics. The ones
who want to be writers read the reviews, the ones who want to
write don’t have the time to read reviews. The critic too is trying
to say “Kilroy was here.” His function is not directed toward the
artist himself. The artist is a cut above the critic, for the artist is
writing something which will move the critic. The critic is writing
something which will move everybody but the artist.
AND/OR:
INTERVIEWER
Are there things in common in painting and criticism as you practice them?
MANNY FARBER
The brutal fact is that they’re exactly the same thing.
I’d say both Faulkner and Farber: artists are different. Some artists are instinctual and can only get distracted by reviews and criticism, whereas others feed off criticism and use it to inform their work (or in Farber’s case do criticism itself as part of their artistic practise). Let everyone do what suits them best.
Can I interrupt this excellent discussion for a brief moment to make a stupid joke about Joe Matt just not wanting to read anything he couldn’t jerk off to? Thanks.
Just listening to it I had a hard time keeping who was who straight, so I dunno if I’ve got a speaker confused somewhere, but
http://i381.photobucket.com/albums/oo253/A280/JoeMatt.jpg
Doesn’t really seem to match ” I can identify good work simply by looking at it”
And I apologize if I’ve confused Matt with someone else, but I think it’s odd ( not invalid) that any of the speakers would approach comics that way. I’d say that, pretty uniformly, the good alt-comics are deeper than they appear to be on a quick scan. Obviously there are many branches on that tree, but as an audience i’d say we’re pretty amazingly tolerant of low-key, slow burn, b+w talking head books. If that isn’t the case I don’t know why there isn’t a bigger push for color and spectacle in “indie” comics, although I guess I’ve seen a bigger push in that direction lately.
Still.
On an individual level, the criticism/ no criticism debate really just boils down to whether you, the reader, value “The” experience of the work or Your experience of the work.
People always scream “immature” at this, but as a creative person I’m totally fucking terrified by the idea that people might (and do) come to different conclusions than me about my work. I realize that to a certain degree it’s unavoidable, but I feel like it’s my job to accurately facilitate the feelings I’m trying to facilitate. I’d rather someone hated my work than hallucinate some strong positive off-message experience with it. Reading good thorough criticism gives me the anchors I need to express the stuff inside my head to the people outside of it with nuance and also helps me decode other peoples stuff when I can’t get over myself.
When I first started listening to jazz, after reading tons of stuff about Coltrane’s Love Supreme and how I was supposed to like it and I VERY aggressively did not at first (Halfway thru I thought it was the greatest avant-garde joke played on the jazz world…ahh sweet youth…) But hearing it in a Richmond bookstore a few months later while browsing the shelves revealed everything. And no criticism has made me love or understand it more in retrospect. It either moves you or it don’t, it’s really about as simple as that.
To be a historian is one thing, to put it in a context with it’s time and what worked upon it and what it affected is totally different than what someone “thinks” means.
Please, can someone, anyone, tell me what A-wop-bop-a-loo-lop-a-lop-bam-boom!, REALLY means to every different individual?? If something can truly be boiled down to mere words, then maybe it’s not worth all that time to begin with.
Bah. Some people jerk off to Camille Paglia; some people jerk off to Jenna Haze. And the world goes round.
a-wop-bop-a-loo-lop-a-lop-bam-boom! is the sex act beginning to end; the meaning to each individual is determined by the sound or sounds on which they place emphasis
@Tom Spurgeon: Superb Mr. Spurgeon, superb.
The kind of criticism which doesn’t interest me questions the intent of the artist.
This would recently be typified by criticism of the Dan Clowes “Wilson” book where some critics wonder why he created Wilson rather than whatever it is they think he should be doing.
I’ve seen much the same line used regarding the R. Crumb Genesis, and the recent Gilbert Hernandez “Russ Meyer style” explorations.
Coupled with this I often see comments which find fault with an artist because he works with the conventions allowed him by a genre, or storytelling style he has adopted for a particular work.
Imagine a review saying, “The story lacks verisimilitude. Not only do Barks’ ducks talk, they wear clothes as well, while other animals remain ordinary animals. In one poorly conceived scene, the ducks are seen riding horses, the fantasy world Barks has created isn’t consistent or logical.”
[…] Because I need an excuse to put off washing the dishes until tomorrow: “Why We Need Criticism” […]
@ tom spurgeon
yeah, of course the emphasis is different, but Rudy sounds like an adventurous sort. Your personal experience may vary from the night Richard had!
.
[…] the Comics Comics website, critic and scholar Heer rightly challenges Matt on the role criticism plays in responding […]
I’ve responded to your essay here:
http://arche-arc.blogspot.com/2010/07/jeet-canna-doit.html
Jeet,
Just to capsulize my problem with your essay, I don’t know if you’ve proved any inconsistency in Matt’s statement unless he actually said (and I haven’t looked at the podcast) that he expressly read the JOURNAL interviews to see Gil Kane discourse about the sublimity of Lou Fine, as opposed to just (say) wanting to find out what kind of pens Kane favored.
Patrick,
It’s true that many critics rely on the “why did he do this” argument. Obviously in most cases the answer is going to be either that the artist found the thing interesting or that he did it to keep putting food on the table.
A better orientation for the dissenting critic might be, “I see that Clowes tried to do something different here but here’s why I don’t think he was up to the challenge…”
And I for one liked Evan’s joke.