I recently finished the first section reading, the one by A. O. Scott. I was initially very excited for this reading; I knew and appreciated his film reviews and hoped that his book would incorporate some of the same material. As I read through it, I found the book excerpts to be much, much, more conceptual, abstract, and self reflective. Looking back, this makes sense; his writing is both a great insight into his personal process, and a deep investigation into criticism from someone who clearly knows what he’s talking about.
I found his writing style fun and playful at times. Circular and self-referential quotes like “There is no argument, but then again there is only argument” were both confusing and entertaining. Personally, I found the most interesting discussion to be about one’s taste. I spend so much of my time talking with others - my sister, my parents, my friends - about our taste in media that it was a bit abrupt to look more inward. Many things that Scott mentions I found familiar. For example: “And much as you might, in deference to the social norms of the age, couch your opinions in modest, subjective language, really, who are you kidding?” This is a phenomenon that I think happens often in English classes. Not knowing why they like something, a student will just pull a random component (I loved the imagery!) without really considering it. I filled my commonplace book with the quotes and lines and words that really connected with me. This, to me, was the best way to let the commonplace show my thinking - by reflecting the parts of the piece that I saw myself in. At many levels, I think taste is mostly subjective and impossible to change with truly rational arguments. Oftentimes, when we talk about a movie or play or book, the discussion is framed like a debate, with each person staking out a claim and fighting for why they’re right. But, because taste is such a personal experience, that is often a fruitless pursuit. It’s more interesting and fulfilling to know why your friend liked the movie more than you, and to understand his point of view, than it is to try to get both of you to agree. As compelling as the abstract discussion of the art of criticism can be, there was certainly a part of me that, while reading the book, felt an itch to really dive into the meat of a discussion. Rather than sit back and contemplate why we all like what we like and how we like it, and in what ways do we like it, I was interested in actually having those discussions of taste. By the end of the book, I wanted to watch a movie with my friend and argue about it, or read a book with the class and discuss the material in depth. I hope that this year, our class has a good division between more self-reflective questions, and good old fashioned opinions. In some ways, that is what I took away from the book. There are so, so many ways to examine criticism, but it’s all a bit flat without a. an opinion about art and b. someone to disagree with you. Scott writes “Is it just me, or is that a beautiful painting? It’s just you - unless it’s just me. That has to be the theoretical starting point.”
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorRobbie Kane Archives
December 2019
Categories |