Daily life of Anime and ELA

Criticism, in its base root, comes from the word critique: a detailed analysis of something. It is a written work, of which deep thought and care is used to convey a meaning or a message—particularly, it engages concepts, ideas and other works of art as observed by people. As Matthew Arnold writes, in his essay, The Function of Criticism, I am deeply interested in his definition of criticism: “A disinterested endeavor to learn and propagate the best that is known in the world.” (50) This definition of criticism is something that I believe drives people to continually strive to make art and pursue their passions. The proverb of “iron sharpens iron” does indeed hold up to this function of criticism; the best way to make art is to be able to discern what makes good art and the process in which to create it. As such, an archive is needed to house those ideas. For the critic, he or she must be able to create a portfolio and a criteria of which to value and judge art, cuisine, the passions, and even interests and hobbies. What forms should it take then? In what way can a critic begin to process and parse through life and strive to find the best in the world?

To begin understanding how critics can begin to formulate good taste and propagate the best in the forms, an understanding of who the critic is and to whom the critic is writing to must be clarified. In short, the critic is meant to be an outside advisor for the artist or the expert. The critic should be knowledgeable about the very subject that they are critiquing. Does that mean a critic can’t be an amateur? Not necessarily so! A critic is someone who is informed—someone who cares about the very thing they are critiquing. Why would someone who hates Asian cuisine write or critique about Asian food? Simply put, a critic is a person who cares. Generally so, since he or she is informed about a subject, to be a critic is to desire to seek the best. According to John Ransom, in his seminal essay, Criticism Inc., he notes peculiar competencies that the critic himself or herself should have. “He [or she] should know good art when he [or she] sees it; but [their] understanding is intuitive rather than dialectical… It is true that literary artists, with their command of language, are better critics of their own art than are other artists, probably the best critics of poetry we can now have are the poets.” (327) The critic writes to inform the artist or expert so that they can continually strive to seek the best that humanity can provide; the critic also informs the masses, so they too can become informed. It is my belief that so long as a person can become informed and seek to desire the best in whatever they are impassioned for, anybody can indeed become a critic. And the critic uses multiple forms to convey their message.

Profiles, reviews alongside essays, and lists serve as examples that propagate this modal process of parsing for the best of any given thing. Profiles are used to give background information about something. To evaluate art or music, a context should be adhered to by the critic. Reviews seek to take something in isolation and carefully observe it for what it is. Take a movie, for example: A critic reviews the movie on multiple levels—whether that is through the film making, the editing, the narrative and plot design, and deeply analyzes it for what it is. Is this movie inspiring? Does it pay homage to its predecessors? Is it just titillating for titillating’s sake? The critic uses reviews to have a deeper introspection into whatever he or she is reviewing. Listing is a very peculiar way of organizing thoughts about a particular subject, whether it be in art, cuisine or anything really. The purpose of the list is to make classifications and intentionally places criteria to base its clarifications on. This is a good practice for critics to uphold. There are other practices that critics should maintain if they are to be good critics.

Critics should have a mastery of language. They should know how to write well and present their information with grace, adeptness, and with intent. A good artist knows how to create good art, and so too must a critic be a good critic. Criticism then, is a form of art itself, for the critic must present him/herself to the audience so as to inform them and propagate the best. How can a critic be a sound source and person for the people if he or she cannot eloquently convey their thoughts on the subject? A good critic knows how and when to use domain-specific language that connects with the audience. The best critics have their own voices and styles of writing. They are able to succinctly express their tone and it be clear to the audience their intent.

Another school of thought to good criticism is to not only praise the good about something but to also be negative about it. Negativity, in today’s society, is often not utilized by the masses. People don’t want to be negative because they are afraid of hurting the artist’s feelings. To be a good critic is to not attack the artist but the art itself. Dwight Garner writes in the New York Times article, “A Critic’s Case for Critics Who Are Actually Critical” about this in particular reference to book reviewing.

The sad truth about the book world is that it doesn’t need more yes-saying novelists and certainly no more yes-saying critics. We are drowning in them. What we need more of, now that newspaper book sections are shrinking and vanishing like glaciers, are excellent and authoritative and punishing critics — perceptive enough to single out the voices that matter for legitimate praise, abusive enough to remind us that not everyone gets, or deserves, a gold star.

Critics should be negative, for it is by being negative that we can make discernments about art. The negative route emboldens the notion of seeking to find the best in the world. It isn’t pretty; it’s painful; but it’s necessary. Negativity looks for the ways in which the work can be improved, and if the artist looks past the negativity, the artist can make better choices in the future and craft something better.

Theoretical Resources:

John Crowe Ransom, “Criticism, INC” (1941)

Dwight Garner, “A Critic’s Case for Critics Who Are Actually Critical” (2012)

Matthew Arnold, “The Function of Criticism at the Present Time” (1864)