Fundamentals on the Philosophy of Criticism

In order to have a meaningful conversation about the merit of things, it is imperative to first establish what, exactly, it is that we mean when we say that something is either “good” or “bad”. In order to get to that point, however, we should first begin by establishing the precise meanings of a few key vocabulary words relating to the subtle art of judging the merit of things, or, in a word:

criticism

crit·i·cism [krit-uh-siz-uhm]

–noun

1. the act of passing judgment as to the merits of anything.

Whereby merit means:

merit

mer·it [mer-it]

–noun

1. Superior quality or worth; excellence: a proposal of some merit; an ill-advised plan without merit.

Of course, an individual who regularly produces criticism is a critic:

Critic

crit·ic [krit-ik]

–nounemily dickinson sweet and sour

1. a person who judges, evaluates, or criticizes: a poor critic of men.

2. a person who judges, evaluates, or analyzes literary or artistic works, dramatic or musical performances, or the like, esp. for a newspaper or magazine.

And the criticism(s) that he/she produces are called critiques (or reviews):

critique

cri·tique [kri-teek]

–noun

1. an article or essay criticizing a literary or other work; detailed evaluation; review.

In order for these definitions to have any practical applications, however, there must be a foundation for their use. Or, in other words, a useful critic must first establish his/her interpretation of the medium that they are critiquing. “Good” and “bad” are relative terms. If, for instance, I had managed to live my life up to this point only ever consuming candy bars, I wouldn't be very capable of accurately providing a fulfilling description of a thing's sweetness. Similarly, if I had only ever seen one film in my life, then that one film would be the best film that I had ever seen – regardless of whether that film was Citizen Kane or Gigli. I would be in no position to consider its merits – its relative “goodness” or “badness”.

Thus, as our lives progress, we build our own individual foundations for considering a thing's merits – I judge every new film that I have seen based on my own personal understanding of what makes a film “good” or “bad”, which is based largely on the sum total of other films that I have seen to that point. The same goes for books and videogames, and even for more practical reviews like consumer reviews for automobiles and even basic home appliances.

A “good car” is a “good car” because it does things that a car should do – gets you comfortably and safely and efficiently from point A to point B – better than some other car which performs these things worse. A “bad car” is a car that performs in the given capacities worse than the majority of the field that it is being compared against. Similarly, a “mediocre car” is one that performs worse than about half of the cars in production, but better than the other half.

It is my belief that we judge the merits of all things on a similar paradigmatic basis. Whether conscious or not, we are all, in some sense or other, constantly comparing our current and future experiences of a given medium to those of our past.

There is, however, an important difference in reviewing certain of these different mediums. Some things – appliances, and cars, for instance – have very tangible criteria for their relative merits. The concept of good and bad are still relational, but there are objective measurements like gas mileage and acceleration rates that contribute to a reviewer's understanding of their merit. As things get further away from the practical and closer to the artistic as, say, movies and videogames – the two things that I plan on focusing upon most closely – then the criteria for criticism moves from the practical and objective to the aesthetic and subjective.

I believe that since the foundational criteria for critiquing things such as movies and videogames are largely aesthetic and subjective that there is inherent bias in a critics opinions on these subjects. Personally, however, I do not think that this is an inherently bad thing. If it was possible to have a pure objective understanding of all films, for instance, then there would be no need for multiple film critics. There could be one film critic who could objectively and indisputably grade every film. This, of course, is not possible, which is part of what makes the discussion of these mediums interesting.

Reasonable people can disagree about why they love or hate a certain work – because that is largely the point of what makes these works meaningful in the first place. As human beings, we are all vastly different creatures and we can be reached and appealed to on emotional and intellectual levels very differently from one another. Thus, a critic who claims to have the final word on the merits of something is a phony, and even exists contrary to the point of artistic criticism itself.

It is my personal opinion that artistic criticism has two functions:

First, the function of a published critic is to help guide the consumers of the criticism in the use of their discretionary funds – and more importantly, their discretionary time.

Second, a critic's role is to contribute to the medium in consideration by assessing the merits of a given work within the context of the medium – as the critic understands it – more largely.

With regard to the first of these claims, one of the main reasons that a critic can make money is because the average person wants some way to better understand the options that they have available to them. Producers and creators of films have an interest in selling consumers something that they might not necessarily have interest in. Thus, their word is unreliable. There are also hundred, if not thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of options available in a given medium produced each year, not to mention the already sizeable (if not practically limitless) ocean of options available. Thus, there needs to be a middle-man. Someone who can consume large amounts of product from a given industry and provide thorough commentary on it, so as to produce a guide to what may or may not be interesting to a consumer. This is also why it is important for a good critic to provide a foundation for their criticism.

Roger Ebert is one of my personal favorite critics because he is one of the critics that I find myself agreeing with the most often. I don't very well find a critic who shares opinions that are almost identically opposite to my own to use as a barometer for what I should consume next. That wouldn't very well suit my aims. Thus, to begin my criticism, I plan to provide a foundation for my works by giving a list of some of my favorite and list favorite works in a given medium. If you find yourself in agreement with those, then perhaps my future opinions will be of use to you. If you disagree, then you will probably continue to disagree. Either way, this is the closest that I feel a critic can come to genuine objectivity, and also the way that a critic can be made most useful to consumers.

As to the second of these points, that the second function of a critic is to act as something of a cultural guidepost, or a contemporary cultural historian – this is so that a medium might advance. Ideally, there could be a system of input whereby producers of works can see the opinions that their works generate – whether good, or bad – so that they might come to a better understanding of how to create better and more fulfilling works in the future. Similarly, by placing works in the context of their mediums, there comes to develop a more thorough understanding of a medium and what makes the works within it good, bad, or mediocre, per my understanding of criticism more generally.

And there you have it, the fundamentals of my philosophy of criticism.