On the art of criticism
| Meta | |
|---|---|
| Title: | On the art of criticism |
| Creator: | Wilhelmina |
| Date(s): | 1979 |
| Medium: | |
| Fandom: | Star Trek: TOS |
| Topic: | |
| External Links: | |
| Click here for related articles on Fanlore. | |
On the art of criticism is a 1979 essay by Wilhelmina.
It was printed in the zine Sahsheer.
Some Topics Discussed
- fans are too emotionally involved (and too uneducated?) to be critics of fanworks
- fan critics are too close to their subjects
The Essay
Fan published, fan generated literature and art have grown in sophistication and in quality in the past ten years. The authors and artists have in many cases honed their skills and moved into more general artistic areas to greater recognition and into more demanding competition. The art of formal criticism, which usually follows the development of any substantial body of legitimate art is, however, sorely lacking in fandom. Why?
Let us examine the elements of formal criticism, the status of criticism in fandom and the demands of the future. In the analysis we may find our answers and our interests solidified.
Criticism is a formal study. The purpose of a critique is to assess a piece of art or literature within the context of the medium it is presented; to examine it in the light of current offerings; to place it in perspective.
But more. A good critique is a studied piece of literature from an educated viewpoint. It is a review of standards and a reasoned examination of one piece of literature against a background of proven literature. It hopefully reveals new insights and perfects a sensitivity of the subject. A critique should enlighten; it should reveal; it should, it must, challenge the reader to think.
The ideal critic is not a judge. He/she is a person educated in the arts. A discerning, objective person. He/she is a John Simon who can explain that this ballet on television loses its effect because the nature of television is different from that of the stage. He makes an assessment while invigorating the study of literary forms and context. Additionally a good critic follows the advice of Gilbert Seldes, "I can't disapprove of good westerns; I can't approve of bad ballet". The critic looks for the freshness in a style. A critic may criticize general trends but also look at individual efforts within that style. The critic analyzes specifics of technique and content; looks for originality within that particular form. He/she assesses. He/she gives us a context. He/she enlightens.
Literary criticism does not exist in fandom. Art criticism does not exist in fandom. Pseudo-reviews abound. We are inundated with "I liked" and "it's a bad story" and "the writer is ignorant". For the most part these reviews are written as personal declarations. Their weight therefore rests on the veracity of the reviewer. Many of these pieces are self-serving trades, thinly disguised, by friends who perpetuate the modern equivalent of the hemophilia rampant among Queen Victoria's descendants. Some reviews exhibit the emotional strangulation of the Borgia family in Renaissance Italy. Few have merit.
Fandom is barraged by vocal ego massage and personal diatribe. As a result writers have little reason to hone their skills, editors can continue to ignorantly function as rewriters, artists may ignore the discipline of musculature and the reader meanders in bewilderment.
We in fandom desperately need the critic. If we are to grow as writers, as artists, as readers, as pxiblishers, we must have the measured input of critics. We must search for those individuals who know the medium of fan zines, who are facile at ignoring personalities involved, who can assess fan literature as literature, who can place humor against the structure of historical chuckle, who can determine if a writer deals in cliches or in a vibrant philosophy of humanity.
The critic is desperately needed to reinforce the structure of art and literature; to create a reasoned background upon which the contributions of fandom can be viewed. To give us a perspective. To challenge us. Ultimately the critic can increase cognitive understanding of the fan publishing genre. But the critic cannot motivate. The critic cannot create an audience for his criticism. That demand must come from within fandom.
If we are content to remain a subculture within a subculture that is fine. But if we are to perfect our talents we must look beyond the acceptance of mediocrity. We must demand the discipline of creativity and respond to it with the enlightened criticism that is, in itself, an art form.