Who is the Critic?
Addison Dewitt, the theatre critic in the film All About Eve (see my review), says:
‘To those of you who do not read, attend the theatre, listen to unsponsored radio programs or know anything of the world in which you live, it is perhaps necessary for me to introduce myself. My name is Addison Dewitt. My native habitat is the theatre. In it, I toil not, neither do I spin. I am critic and commentator. I am essential to the theater.’
I explained in my review what he means by this statement:
‘Why are critics important, generally, to the artistic industry? Firstly, critics are the buffers between the artist and the public eye. It is important that the critic not be dazzled like a common fan that is unable to criticize since he or she is simply bamboozled by the artist’s manipulation. It is the critic who ensures that the artistes retain a high standard in their craft and not fall below it. If an artist falls below that standard it is clear that they either have to pick themselves up or that they are undergoing a persistent decline and will never rise to the heights which saw them take the world by storm.’
These statements are still pretty accurate and I went further and stated in my review that the critic is able to create a formidable opposition to the artistes and their followers. This is similar to how politics operates in most social spheres. The critic, in the social sphere, therefore mirrors a basic condition of such a mode of political development. In a democracy, for instance, there will always be opposition to your views (social , political or economic) or artistic endeavours since there is an encouragement for individuals to express themselves freely. Democracy is a mindset that is only reflected in the corresponding constitutional polities. It is the democratic character that precedes the actual constitution and eventually the democracy that is formed through social consensus will influence the individuals of that particular social group.. I will come to this point later The artistes and theoreticians cannot, therefore, dismiss the critics no matter how desperately they try to dissuade their fans or followers from listening to the utterances of such lowly people who are only jealous of the artistes’ achievements. The artist or theoretician by informing his or her fans of this particular group in society, unwillingly acknowledges that the critic has his own following that reinforces the divide. Similar to the conduction of bipartisan politics, critic and artist or theoretician do coalesce their viewpoints in order to advance some new phenomenon. It is only the diehards on either side that will resist such a union. If the critic for instance proves to be correct in his decision not to coalesce with the artist regarding his new endeavour he will be exalted however should he fail to see the advancements being made by the artist he will be relegated to the realm of fading conservative values. Likewise if the artist fails to accept the criticism of the opposing member in the form of the critic, he or she will be exalted if they prove to be right with that particular artistic or theoretical endeavour or fall into the pits of ignominy if they chose not to heed the warnings.
The critic is therefore the individual who provides a particular perspective regarding the expression of another. This perspective may oppose the other individual or agree with the decisions made with regards to executing a particular plan. The critic corresponds to various forms of political milieu that reflect the perception of the populace within a particular social group. The critic is normally responsible for the change of the socio-political structure or in the preservation of social order to ensure the dictate of a particular ruling class. The critic can also be the artist who is pushing for a change in the status quo and so, depending on particular modes of perception, can be seen as an anomaly. This normally occurs regarding rights of succession. The inheritors must either improve on the foundation of their predecessors or maintain a dated mode of development that is no longer compatible with trends in society. The artists or theoreticians that are vying for particular honours among the populace will come to odds and this will involve a lot of criticism which will be vulgar and credible. This is all done in an effort to prove who is the dominant artist in that particular sphere.
The work of an artist requires interpretation. When the artist produces a particular piece of work it remains independent of him or her. Art in a vacuum is irrelevant and so the critic is responsible for interpreting this particular work of art by putting it in perspective for the passerby who would normally glance and be on his or her way. The passerby can be drawn to the work regardless of the critic’s input but some will never understand its social significance and will only be dazzled by the colour palette or the emotions the piece invokes. These emotions are fleeting however and what prevents the consumer from eventually tiring of this piece of work is its social significance. The composition of the work must meet required standards based on past developments and the work must exhibit a philosophy that is reflective of a particular mindset be it historical or contemporary. The critic therefore has his own criterion by which he judges a particular work. The critic is therefore not simply to ridicule a particular work (if he or she does then the work must be really bad or the critic is biased) but to place it within a particular context. If it is that this piece of art does not correspond to a particular context then the artist must be made aware so that he or she can improve. If it does meet the requirements of a particular context then the work should be praised. If it is that the work of art does not correspond to a particular familiar context but to one unfamiliar yet plausible within the context of cultural/social interactions then the critic is liable to misjudge the work and be unable to come to terms with the new mode of development.
The Criterion for the Critique
Every critic must formulate a criterion by which he or she assesses a particular work of art or a element of society. The first and most important criterion is knowledge of the subject being criticized. With sufficient knowledge of the subject under review the critic would be more liable to justify his points of reasoning. A lack of knowledge on the subject will expose both critic and artist and condemn them to the halls of ignominy. Without a sufficient knowledge base the critic will appear emotional or biased in his assignment and so will resort to fallacious/impressionistic arguments to justify his or her claims. This lack of knowledge will then be transmitted to the average viewer or person of passing interest and will then ruin the sophisticated interpretation of the particular subject. In other words the work suffers from a vulgar interpretation. The knowledge base is not endemic to the composition of the art or theory itself for there are external elements that influenced a particular composition. These external elements may require a particular sort of knowledge be it historical, philosophical, economic, political, literary and scientific. If these elements are not woven into the narrative or discourse by the critic then it weakens his or her argument.
Secondly the critic must be able to present his arguments in a coherent manner. This includes a sound literary back ground and the ability to express oneself. The critic must avoid jumbling his or her arguments and so every point related to a particular theme must be distinctive. There are some critics that fail in their assessment simply because they jumble the thematic elements of a particular work and the reader will also be confused. My particular approach therefore for my current release sections is to state what is good about a film and what is bad about it. I try not to jumble the elements so that the reader is clear that the film might be bad but that there are good elements that would affect the final rating. In my great film series I make it clear that there are several thematic elements that must be discussed and so I include these thematic elements under headings. This is just to say that in a society that has its values reinforced by a entrenched institutional framework words can be the only remedy at times however violence is another form of critique. Violence results from an urge to challenge the established order and remove the institutional structures that have solidified its rule. Similar to a literary critique one must have a distinct plan in order to carry out your violent critique of society. The critique must be designed to have significant results. Some of these results include making the established order aware that you exist or that you intend to overthrow their regime. It is similar for the conquering party who either wants to expand its territory and institute its own style of government which it considers to be superior to the conquered party. This is a form of criticism.
Thirdly, the critic must be able to grasp the progression of a particular art form or a particular social issue which would justify any form of rating. This will allow the critic to assess to what extent the artist or theoretician is a conformist i.e. he or she does not advance the art form any further or is an auteur or pioneer who encourages the growth of the art form or subject. It is sometimes incumbent on the critic to make suggestions regarding the improvement of a particular art form or theory and this will then transform the critic into an artist or theoretician who is advancing a new paradigm whereby the status quo will shift. When Karl Marx and Frederich Engels authored The Communist Manifesto (1848) this could not have been done without a thorough understanding of the capitalist mode of economic development which would precede the communist state. Karl Marx demonstrated even further his knowledge of the capitalist system when he penned one of the most magnificent pieces of theoretical exposition ever produced in the form of ’Das Kapital’ which comprises 4 volumes.
Fourthly, the critic must allow for comparative analysis since no theory or work of art exists in a vacuum. The work of art or theory only exists either because it follows on from a former piece of work or because it bases its interpretation or mode of expression on a prior work of art or subject. Therefore for a theoretician or artist to put forward new insights they must critique former works on the same subject which will identify to the reader why this person is putting forward his or her claims. The critic must not be worried when seeking the support of others who share his or her own views for this will strengthen his argument. This is unless he is a pioneer shunned by everyone.
The critic must also be aware of the potential biases in his argument and must make clear why he or she makes certain assertions. This will remove notions of bias and will make the reader aware that the critic is also self- critical and has a certain understanding of a particular work of art or theory which would justify them making a critique.
The Critic in a particular socio -political Milieu that will impact on the culture of the populace
There are several characters associated with a particular socio-political milieu. According to Plato, in The Republic, there are four types of characters that correspond to a particular form of political organization. These are: The timarchic character who resides within a timarchy, the oligarch which resides within the framework of an oligarchy, the democratic character which resides within a democracy and a tyrant which resides within a tyranny. These are all successive forms of governance i.e. each follows from the other. Within this political framework there are the economic characters such as the aristocrat, the peasant, the artisan, the bourgeois, the proletarian and the communist; these all correspond to a particular political framework that distributes the spoils accordingly.
The transition from one climate to another was only achieved as a result of sustained critiques of the former political structure that existed. The critic would therefore amass a following large enough to topple the previous regime. Criticism, as mentioned before, is not only done through words but by violence. When a new group emerges to challenge the established order then it must reinforce its words with violent protest. The timarchic character, according to Plato, is more of a physical character that prides himself on his athletic prowess but is unable to make rational decisions especially as he is not trained to exercise his reasoning abilities. In a timarchy or timocracy these societies are comprised of a military aristocracy. These type of societies normally emerge, based on historical facts, after a coup d’ etat where there is an overthrow of a tyrant or when there is political intrigue. There are times in history, however, where the generals, during wartime believe that they are better able to rule a populace. We see this with the rise of Napoleon in France and Hitler in Germany. Recently we saw this situation in Egypt with the fall of Mubarak and rule by the army which was forced to relinquish power following violent protests. If one should wish to rise in this particular form of government then you should distinguish yourself through some form of physical means such as skill in arms or entertainment. His is not reinforced by any sense of reason or sustained intellectual innovations which is why he is prone to be abusive.
The oligarch emerges following the timarchy because perhaps wartime has become peacetime and the sole concentration is placed on wealth creation. Plato said that the transition from the timarchic character to the oligarch comes with the realization that it is easy to fall from grace in a society that prides itself on use of arms without concentrating on building your wealth resources and so the character becomes obsessed with making money as do all the other members of society and so the once great physical prowess of the nation becomes flaccid and prone to extravagance associated with wealth. The oligarch has therefore successfully criticized the timarchy and succeeded it although it is not necessarily the better option.
The oligarchy with its penchant devices for wealth creation creates an underclass prone to disorder. In order for the oligarchy to thrive it must impoverish another section of society and it reaches a stage where the oligarchy is divided between the very rich and the very poor. The poor become a drone class and are scorned because of their station that is associated with begging, poor upbringing in the home and a lack of education. The reasons they are scorned are the reasons why it is necessary to reinforce the rule of the oligarchs. There is then the inevitable transition from the oligarchy to the democracy which comes about when the poorer members within the oligarchy come to the realization that everyone deserves an equal opportunity and stage a revolt which overthrows and exile the oligarchs. The oligarchs fail to acknowledge this turmoil because, according to Plato, ‘Mean while the money makers bent on their business don’t appear to notice them , but continue to inject their poisoned loans wherever they can find a victim and to demand high rates of interest on the sum lent, with the result that the drones and the beggars multiply.’ How much does this remind one of the present day and the 2008 recession? The victims of the ‘poisoned loans’ are normally spendthrifts who pride themselves on a extravagant lifestyle. The democracy is therefore a source of criticism against the oligarchy. The democracy allows for a wide range of freedom. One is able to disregard everything as long as it meets your own needs. This encourages the growth of a wide range of characters and in the present day we see the homosexual class, the transvestites, warped fashion ideals and vice ridden individuals prone to violence and promiscuity without much sanction. It is a great form of excess and it is so appealing because everyone is able to get a piece of the pie. This versatility is also an urge to stand out amongst the many characters parading the streets. There is also the inclusion of various foreigners/ immigrants in society. Also in a society predominantly white such as in Europe and America you will see various ethnic minorities working side by side with them despite these groups being once considered slaves of the whites masters. Here is what Plato says: ‘ Then in a democracy there is no compulsion either to exercise authority if you are capable of it, or to submit to authority if you don’t want to; you needn’t fight if there’s a war or you can wage a private war in peace time if you don’t like peace; and if there’ s any law that debars you from political and judicial office, you will nonetheless take either if they come your way. It’s a wonderfully pleasant way of carrying on in the short run isn’t it?’ This is why in a democracy persons will pursue necessary and unnecessary pleasures simply because they can whereas previously with the oligarchy they would restrict themselves to necessary pleasures such as profit gain as opposed to expense on luxuries. The democratic character spends without a care in the world. In the modern day other democracies are encouraged to promote their lifestyles to those unenlightened oligarchs which are normally found in poorer/smaller countries. The Joker in The Dark Knight (2008) is a classic reflection of the democratic character whereas Bane and Ra’s Al Ghul in The Dark Knight Rises (2012) and Batman Begins (2005) respectively are representative of tyranny. Batman is a mixture of both; at times he is a tyrant and a democratic character when he has to respond to one or the other so called villain.
The democracy is inevitably succeeded by the tyranny which emerges as a response to this excess. The tyranny normally involves tight regulations and the concentration of power in a sole individual known as a tyrant. We see this with the Cuban Revolution (1959) with the rise of Fidel Castro and the rise of Mao Tse Tung in China. These individuals crushed the excesses associated with democracy. The democracy is the best place for those who wish to be free. Too much freedom is not necessarily a good thing and we see this in the urban centres and this is what I’m focusing on in my Modes of Urban Alienation series. In a democracy there is a lot of bickering with accusations and recriminations where each side accuses the other of seeking to revert to a oligarchy or to usurp control. In the midst of this bickering, according to Plato, the people will put forward a champion to usurp control and he will use his private army or whatever means to subvert the weak rulers normally associated with a democracy. He then becomes sole ruler regardless of his social background. The tyrant then seeks to crush all opposition and so all excess becomes concentrated in him. He is a hypocrite and so only he can engage in excess. The tyrant obviously provides an alternative or source of criticism for the democratic character. The tyrant will obviously be overthrown unless he enforces a measure of discipline amongst the populace and he himself does not give in to excess. If he does give in to excess and concentrates all power unto himself and his family then this dynasty will be overthrown. And then the process starts all over again. This is why Gaddafi was an easy target.
The cycle is repeated endlessly until all these characters become an admixture and only represent a stage of a nation’s development as opposed to being exclusively one or the other. These four characters will thrive in any nation after the cycle repeatedly goes into motion. The timarchic character is a feature of sports or entertainment, the military and the police; the oligarch is seen in the aristocrat, the bourgeois, the usurer, the stock broker etc; the democratic character is manifest in the freedom of the press and the arts and in political parties that encourage equal rights; the tyrant manifests itself in the person that criticizes the excess of individuals or groups in society and may be able to push forward regulations that stem these sort of excesses. You also see the tyrant in the form of many dictatorships. You see this in the form of the representatives of the law such as police officers, members of the army and government prosecutors and religious authorities and the mafia styled cartels. You have countries that masquerade as democracies which are not. People respond in a particular manner to the political climate of the time based on criticism of its ideologies. Countries go to war based on these principles alone sometimes.
In the case of Marx he was advocating communism because the bourgeois class reach a stage where they behave like oligarchs and tyrants while seeking to subvert the proletariat. This will normally result in some form of revolt or revolutionary activity. In this day and age you have oligarchs masquerading as democrats and tyrants when it suits their need. This is why the proletariat will always put forward their champion. The difference between the communist and the tyrant is the inclusive nature of the former whereas the latter concentrates power solely in himself. The communist seeks to include everyone but there is the possibility that he can become a tyrant as we saw with Joseph Stalin in the U.S. S. R. Plato neglected(or could not) to mention this character of the communist who is concerned with some modified form of democracy and tyranny.
The various political characters correspond with the arts and the various critics that judge the basis of their work.
Conclusion
This is why criticism is necessary in society because no form of expression associated with a particular social milieu is perfect. There are always gaps that will be addressed by a certain set of characters known as critics.
No comments:
Post a Comment