THE CRITIQUE/CRITICISM PARADOX

The assertion we're dealing with proposes that we sort cultural media based on a hypothetical set of rules:

1. Critique is an open-ended question.

2. Criticism is a judgmental statement.

The difference is in “VALUE JUDGEMENT”.

Spike Lee’s “Do the Right Thing” is a critique of a culture.

A review of the Movie “Do the Right Thing” written by Ebert is a criticism.

The question that I wonder when I stop to think about these rules is:

 “What the hell is the job of the Critic? Is Spike Lee a Critic or Is Robert Ebert a critic?”

 Does the ideal critic critique the work, offering the reader a variety of options for interpretation of the work? Is the critic the ideal detached and neutral viewer?

Or does the perfect critic interpret the work for us, investing themselves on our behalf, and then being honest about the experience’s disappointments and merits?

I have my personal preferences toward this. For the most part, I think of myself as a dyed in the wool intellectual, the post structural viewer, the uber-oculench. I enjoy my encounters with works that leave me feeling unresolved after pointing out a variety of options. It helps me sustain my illusion that I will not by one mistake or another be obligated to choose a side. That feeling is great for shadow-integration. I can be the oppressor and the oppressed. The thing I say in formal critique settings when I experience this indecision is that “I enjoy the work because it is complex”.

This statement comes awfully close to a value judgment. With a minor modification, “Enjoy” can be translated “think the work is good”. I have trained myself not to say the word ‘good’, but we all know what I mean.

After enjoying such a work, I went to get some more cultural media. When returning ‘Do the Right Thing”, I thought it might be nice to rent another Spike Lee movie, maybe two. The first thing I do is browse the available titles under his director credits, then after choosing one or two with intriguing synopses, I get onto the International Movie Data Base and look up the films, first browsing through the actors and art director’s credits and then eventually skimming the reviews. I always look through them until I find a critic who’s tastes pretty much align with mine and then read their review fully. This weighs about 40% of my decision to invest my time and energy in the work.

Similarly I rarely go to see a work that has received a mixed review. For the most part, I see things that receive glowing reviews or terrible reviews. I enjoy the ‘good’ ones (in the biblical sense) and find often find a strange generosity in the unpopular ones, talking more about them and recommending them to friends as “really great”.

With the right attitude, both extremes offer an equal potential for critical thought. The most vapid 80’s-teen-flick can be at the same time the most distilled and honest depiction of the way in which society places expectations on women’s bodies. Sit down with a little bit of weed or a glass of wine and watch Clueless. Really, actually watch it. As the title suggests, there are a lot of open-ended questions in the film. There are also a lot of value judgments made, some of which I agree with, others I am disappointed by.

I think aknowleding the ways that Critique-as-a-practice and Criticism-as-a-practice overlap would benefit us. The two are sustaining each other, promoting each other’s growth. Sometimes the same person uses both tools. Sometimes they occur in the same sentence. The Critique/Criticism hierarchy is too inflexible. It is not open-ended enough for me. Calling “Critique” better than “Criticism” is in and of itself a value judgment.