Every week, it seems like the internet draws a line in the sand for any given piece of popular culture, asks its denizens to pick a side of that line, and records their position for posterity. Then the sand is cleared so that the process might be repeated and recorded the following week.
This represents a fundamental shift in how audiences approach criticism. Criticism has always been more of an argument than a statement, an attempt by a critic to outline their own understanding of work. Much like art itself, criticism can be seen as an exercise in empathy, inviting the audience to perceive a work
of art through the eyes of another. Indeed, there is a lot to be said for modern strands of “socially conscious criticism” that aim to evaluate and assess art from the perspective of groups who had been excluded or marginalised.
Naturally, these strands of criticism are among those frequently attacked for being “biased” or not being “objective.” Indeed, Gamergate arose in part as a response to the more feminist criticisms of commentators like Anita Sarkeesian. This strand of thoughtful and introspective criticism often exists at odds with the more rigid and
orthodox strands of internet commentary.
Criticism does not exist to validate the audience’s perspective, nor to reinforce their opinion of a work. A piece of criticism is not “wrong” because it reaches a different conclusion than the audience expects it to. Criticism is not a mathematic algorithm or a numerical formula. Criticism is a process, a discussion. A good piece of criticism does not reinforce the audience’s position, but instead makes them think about the media they have consumed and perhaps even provides a sense of context through which it might be processed.
The true value in criticism lies in its ability to transcend the rigid binary and metric distinctions that the internet has codified and embraced. There is something to be said for the critical outlier, for the provocative writer with a bold interpretation of a text upon which consensus has already been reached. There is value in accepting challenges to perceived critical orthodoxy, in taking dissenting voices at face value and affording them the opportunity to defend their positions.
Art is as complicated and multifaceted as the world that it seeks to convey. The same is true of criticism and discussion of that art. It seems a shame to reduce that to a simple score or a pass/fail binary.
There is always room for a fresh take.
CinÉireann / December 2017 25