In Defense Of The Critic

The following excerpt, quoted from Marya Mannes' But Will It Sell? (1964) deals with the proper role of the critic in pop culture.

Click here to read the excerpt

I came across Mannes' writing while reading a weblog by Jay Smooth of hiphopmusic.com fame. Jay takes many points with Mannes. Among them...

1. In the trinity of Artist Audience and Critic, the critic's viewpoint will always be of least value. Passages like this: "Conversely, only a public ill-served by its critics could have accepted as art and as literature so much in these last years that has been neither" I find absurdly arrogant. This notion that the job of a critic is to be the Shepherd, and guide all us lost lambs to the safety of proper standards, is a delusion of grandeur.

The only relationship that matters is between artist and audience. If the critic and the audience are not seeking the same things from the artist, it's not the audience that is misguided, it is the critic whose criteria are outmoded. Critics like to imagine they are out on the field calling plays or assessing penalties, but the truth is they are merely commentators on the sidelines, and nothing they say has any effect on the outcome of the game. In short, there's nothing sadder than critics who think they matter.

2. Timelessness is not necessarily a relevant criterion.

3. "Can a standard of craftsmanship apply to art of all ages, or does each have its own, and different, definitions?" - It is the latter.

4. "The result of this convenient avoidance is a plenitude of actors who can’t project their voices, poets who can’t communicate emotion, and writers who have no vocabulary — not to speak of painters who can’t draw" - When critics say things like this it usually indicates a shallow understanding of what the audience seeks and what the artist is trying to achieve. Their stubborn loyalty to inapplicable standards blinds them to the levels on which this art is meant to function. It's like if you went to see Riverdance and said "well these guys didn't move their hands at all, so they obviously don't know how to dance."

5. Not to say I am hating on this essay. I think I can roll with "purpose and craftsmanship" as pretty good, broadly applicable standards, so long as our definition of craftsmanship is shaped by our understanding of the purpose. I think the most sensible method for a critic is to figure out what was the artist trying to achieve, and did they succeed at it. Usually, instead of this, critics are guided by their own tastes, and judge the artist based on what they think he/she should be trying to achieve. This places you in the illogical position of condemning artists for failing to do things that they had no intention of doing in the first place. I think a good critic knows the difference between "he is doing something badly" and "he is doing something I don't like.

While I do admit that nothing bores me more than music criticism -- and Mannes is obviously an uptight critic with nothing better to complain about -- I must nonetheless disagree with Jay on just about every point he made.

I think the main problem with Jay's critique is that a good critic walks the fine line between acknowledging the relationship between fans and artists, while still placing the artist in some sort of critical, historical context.

Should we not judge the art of Rome and Egypt out of context? After all, we weren't there to understand the context? Should we not be critical of popular artists? What about artists who are not popular, or have no significant audience? Is the only significant relationship that between the artist and his contemporary audience?

Isn't it equally hypocritical to criticize critics, when these very same critics might also be considered artists in their own right? After all, critics must have their own unique audience, and they must write in a way that satisfies their desires. In fact, I once saw a roundtable discussion, during which the editor of the New York Times Book Review said he wanted the Review to be -- above all else -- readable, even if the reader had no intention of actually reading the books reviewed.

Ultimately, I guess I do place a little blame on critics who are quite often out of touch. I think a lot of it is generational. But I can tell you that the worst criticism of all is done by what would best be described as "fans" or simply amateur critics on hip hop websites. Thank god for the formal profession of criticism (critics such as Oliver Wang or Lynne d Johnson), for otherwise we'd have only semi-literate fans to sort things out for us. I would say it is the fans themselves who are generally the most close-minded. The most redeeming quality of a critic is the ability to support/criticize artists in spite of -- not because of -- the artist's popularity or social standing.

Criticism has a much higher purpose than simply deciding for people whether something has merit or not. A critic gives the subject context. A critic gives you perspective. And, ultimately, it is the job of critics to decide how artists will be remembered and what their place in history will be. Because historians rely so heavily on the writing of critics, critics are de facto historians. Therefore, if you care at all about art history -- including music -- then you can't deny the importance of the critic.