"A 'critic' is a man who creates nothing and thereby feels qualified to judge the work of creative men. There is logic in this; he is unbiased -- he hates all creative people equally." ~ Robert Heinlein, from his 'Notebooks of Lazarus Long
7 comments:
Terry
said...
A critic (one who judges the merits of literary or artistic work) can create a very entertaining and informative criticism of a work. Does that not make him a creator also? Is not such criticism analogous to the way the creator of the work worked with what nature has supplied, only the critic is working with the man-made?
I was amused a few weeks ago by some guy arguing for Yelp to be destroyed and replaced by traditional food critics. The Art of The Critic. He got told that he was being a snob and I especially appreciated his response that referenced one of my favourite movies, Ratatouille, and its food critic:
Anton Ego has a pure soul. He is someone who cares only and exclusively about art (in this case cookery). He knows what is good and suffers enormously from what is bad. This is close to what I mean by “critical sense”, that the critic knows, deeply knows, the difference between what is good and what is not and is emotionally affected by it.
Anton Ego’s opinion about food is learned and uncompromising. He cannot be bribed, threatened, or cajoled into changing that opinion, which he delivers with style. For that reason, he seems villainous, for only a villain could have this level of consistency and artistic purity, only a villain could have such uncompromising standards. But, Anton Ego is not a villain, nor is he a snob. He is, like all great critics, a troubled romantic; in love with the art, but disappointed in the artists.
I think that can be applied to a great many other things of which one is critical.
I partially agree. A critic can weed out something negative, so you can discard the negative and focus on something more positive. In this case the criticism is not creativity, but perhaps enables creativity. Or, as is often the case in my work, identifying a problem allows you to focus on resolving the problem. When you do that consistently, always on the lookout for negatives that could derail the goals of the project, you’ll generally achieve your goals. But even then, it’s not the criticism that is creative, it’s that it removes the barriers to creativity.
That’s criticism at its best. At its worst, it becomes an excuse to do nothing, because there’s always fault you can find. A good plan with some flaws is usually better than no plan at all. More often a quest for the perfect plan becomes an enemy of the good plan.
An art critic analyses, interprets and evaluates art. Why do you think these can only be negative? An analysis, interpretation and evaluation of art can be very positive indeed, and presented in a very creative manner. I suspect the quote uses the word 'critic' only in the sense of one who finds faults, and in that sense I agree. But to be an art critic is quite different, and it is a nonsense to say that an art critic hates creative people.
In your OP you acknowledged a critic was someone who expressed criticism. Criticism is a negative evaluation of something. If you're saying that a art critic can express both negative and positive evaluations of something then fine, but it's not what you referred to in your OP - and even then I'd say evaluation (even if it's positive) is not creativity. At best it's the first step towards creativity.
Again, what makes you think criticism must be negative? From Wikipedia: "Criticism is the construction of a judgement about the positive and negative qualities of someone or something." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism). Certainly, criticism is commonly associated with negative judgments, but a negative judgment is not its essential characteristic. Forming a reasoned judgement is the essence of a criticism, and presenting that judgement to others may be done in a creative way. I give you Vasari's Lives of the artists as exhibit A.
The dictionary definition of ‘criticism’, and how most people would understand the word.
In any case I’ve already acknowledged your point that an art critic can express favourably evaluations, so I have no idea why you continue to hammer that semantic. My point (now for the third time) is that an evaluation by itself is not creativity. At best it can be a precursor to creativity, regardless of whether it’s negative or positive. End of.
7 comments:
A critic (one who judges the merits of literary or artistic work) can create a very entertaining and informative criticism of a work. Does that not make him a creator also? Is not such criticism analogous to the way the creator of the work worked with what nature has supplied, only the critic is working with the man-made?
I was amused a few weeks ago by some guy arguing for Yelp to be destroyed and replaced by traditional food critics. The Art of The Critic. He got told that he was being a snob and I especially appreciated his response that referenced one of my favourite movies, Ratatouille, and its food critic:
Anton Ego has a pure soul. He is someone who cares only and exclusively about art (in this case cookery). He knows what is good and suffers enormously from what is bad. This is close to what I mean by “critical sense”, that the critic knows, deeply knows, the difference between what is good and what is not and is emotionally affected by it.
Anton Ego’s opinion about food is learned and uncompromising. He cannot be bribed, threatened, or cajoled into changing that opinion, which he delivers with style. For that reason, he seems villainous, for only a villain could have this level of consistency and artistic purity, only a villain could have such uncompromising standards. But, Anton Ego is not a villain, nor is he a snob. He is, like all great critics, a troubled romantic; in love with the art, but disappointed in the artists.
I think that can be applied to a great many other things of which one is critical.
I partially agree. A critic can weed out something negative, so you can discard the negative and focus on something more positive. In this case the criticism is not creativity, but perhaps enables creativity. Or, as is often the case in my work, identifying a problem allows you to focus on resolving the problem. When you do that consistently, always on the lookout for negatives that could derail the goals of the project, you’ll generally achieve your goals. But even then, it’s not the criticism that is creative, it’s that it removes the barriers to creativity.
That’s criticism at its best. At its worst, it becomes an excuse to do nothing, because there’s always fault you can find. A good plan with some flaws is usually better than no plan at all. More often a quest for the perfect plan becomes an enemy of the good plan.
An art critic analyses, interprets and evaluates art. Why do you think these can only be negative? An analysis, interpretation and evaluation of art can be very positive indeed, and presented in a very creative manner. I suspect the quote uses the word 'critic' only in the sense of one who finds faults, and in that sense I agree. But to be an art critic is quite different, and it is a nonsense to say that an art critic hates creative people.
In your OP you acknowledged a critic was someone who expressed criticism. Criticism is a negative evaluation of something. If you're saying that a art critic can express both negative and positive evaluations of something then fine, but it's not what you referred to in your OP - and even then I'd say evaluation (even if it's positive) is not creativity. At best it's the first step towards creativity.
Again, what makes you think criticism must be negative? From Wikipedia: "Criticism is the construction of a judgement about the positive and negative qualities of someone or something." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism). Certainly, criticism is commonly associated with negative judgments, but a negative judgment is not its essential characteristic. Forming a reasoned judgement is the essence of a criticism, and presenting that judgement to others may be done in a creative way. I give you Vasari's Lives of the artists as exhibit A.
The dictionary definition of ‘criticism’, and how most people would understand the word.
In any case I’ve already acknowledged your point that an art critic can express favourably evaluations, so I have no idea why you continue to hammer that semantic. My point (now for the third time) is that an evaluation by itself is not creativity. At best it can be a precursor to creativity, regardless of whether it’s negative or positive. End of.
Post a Comment