Criticism

Theoretical, not practical; I'm talking about art critics here, broadly defined.

Having just finished a decent draft of the introduction and conclusion of my dissertation dealing with George Henry Lewes as a critic of Charlotte Bronte, I mosied over to the New York Times website for a bit of brain-clearing. I encountered this article by A. O. Scott. He talks about the major disjunct between what critics think of a movie and what the public thinks of it, which he measures by box office returns. He wonders out loud -- or in print -- what critics are "for" if the public so flagrantly disregards their opinion.

I think he's missing out on a crucial point: there's a difference between thinking something is good and enjoying it. Perhaps he does not feel that distinction; maybe that's why he's a critic. But for me, at least, I can think a movie is good but not necessarily want to see it. Likewise, I can think a movie is bad, but extremely fun and entertaining. Some of it has to do with the nature of leisure, I think. You could say I'm a critic for a living, a litarary critic. (Well, I don't, strictly speaking, make a living on it yet, but next year I'll get a stipend, which is close!) There are books I think are good, books I think are criticially interesting, and books I read for fun. These overlap, but not necessarily. Moreover, because I criticize art as my job, when I go to a movie, I want to be entertained. That has various specific meanings for me. For one thing, I actually like movies that are somewhat formulaic. I like to be familiar with the story arc; this is why I like three-volume novels, screwball comedies, and many Hollywood blockbusters. But my paying money to see a movie doesn't necessarily mean I think a movie is good -- and doesn't necessarily mean I disagree with Scott. It just means I want to see the movie.