You're an idiot
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2020
The underlined text shows why there is some value in criticism based on feelings, provided those feelings are shared by at least some other people.
The difficulty comes from the fact that a person's emotional response to a work of art is very complex. A person's entire life history and belief system will affect how they feel about something, with different people having very different reactions to the same work. In order to criticize something artistic in a rigorous and rational way, you can do different things. You may apply some explicit standard, in which case you have to defend the standard as being applicable, and even then people can simply reject it because hey, subjective. Or you can simply state how it makes you feel, and if other peoples' perspectives (informed by their own experiences and beliefs) are close enough to yours, then your articulation and justification of their gut emotional responses will give them some satisfaction. Of course this would only apply to people whose perspectives are similar to your own, and since it's not explicitly moored to anything objective, you have the danger of conformism and groupthink.
The only other alternative I can think of is to fully and rigorously construct a unified philosophical framework, universally applicable to all people, with reference to which all artistic decisions can, in principle, be judged. This is the approach taken by Ayn Rand in The Romantic Manifesto. Once again people can simply reject your philosophy, but while a particular standard can be summarily rejected as "arbitrary", a philosophical system that has some basis in the premises people already accept cannot be rejected as easily. However, this method is not really feasible for most people.
Ahhh stop! I can't agree anymore than I already do!
The only thing I think I even have a different perspective on is that I don't count what's described in the very first sentence as 'criticism' even between likeminded folks, but that starts to get into semantics more than the actual point. In regards to the universal system, I personally don't care if there was to be an all encompassing objective standard to hold up against every work of art, but what I do want to see is a person who sells themselves as an actual critic hold themselves to whatever standard they deem is important and fairly judge things based on it. I just can't see how saying, "I'm going to judge/critique this music," and then coming out with, "this is cringe and tryhard," with no reasoning given makes any sense at all. I wouldn't have ever even posted any response had it not been under that initial thin veneer.
The only thing I think I even have a different perspective on is that I don't count what's described in the very first sentence as 'criticism' even between likeminded folks, but that starts to get into semantics more than the actual point. In regards to the universal system, I personally don't care if there was to be an all encompassing objective standard to hold up against every work of art, but what I do want to see is a person who sells themselves as an actual critic hold themselves to whatever standard they deem is important and fairly judge things based on it. I just can't see how saying, "I'm going to judge/critique this music," and then coming out with, "this is cringe and tryhard," with no reasoning given makes any sense at all. I wouldn't have ever even posted any response had it not been under that initial thin veneer.