
Humph, He, Ha: In Degas’s opinion, ‘literature has only done harm to art’ - prismatic
https://www.lrb.co.uk/v40/n01/julian-barnes/humph-he-ha
======
CodeCube
Wow ... this is really timely for me, in the context of contemporary movie
reviews. I won't mention any specific ones so as to not taint the
conversation, but I've found myself disagreeing with movie critics more and
more these days. I will go see a movie and enjoy the hell out of it! only to
come home and read/watch reviews where people are just lambasting the movie.

It just baffles me, that I could enjoy something so much ... when it's so
"academically wrong". Makes me really question the value of said critical
analysis.

~~~
msla
There is, or should be, a difference between a critic and a reviewer. It's
possible for the same person to do both jobs, but they're not the _same_ job.

TL;DR: Roger Ebert was almost always a reviewer.

A critic applies a critical theory (that is, a theory of what art is, does, or
should be, and how it hangs together) to a piece to extract something from it,
be it "meaning" or "social consciousness" or some other aspect not apparent on
the surface. They're not concerned with whether a piece is good or bad, but
with what it's possible to extract from it, and how it fits into some context.

A reviewer is either a consumer protection advocate or a marketing shill.
Their whole job is the thumbs up/thumbs down shtick, and telling you whether
something is worth consuming.

Is it possible to be both at once? Yes, but the critical part and the
reviewing part must be separate in that whether something is interesting
critically is a very different question from whether it's enjoyable to
consume.

~~~
yesenadam
It seems you're presenting 'what a critic is' as if it's _the_ definition, not
presumably what it is - one of a large number of different/competing ideas of
what critics are/should be.

E.g. (spends 2 seconds googling) Wikipedia says "art criticism, which is
concerned with establishing a relative artistic value upon individual works
with respect to others of comparable style, or sanctioning an entire style or
movement from the standpoint of its history and of its major scholars." \- ok,
not authoritative, but at least establishing that a view/understanding
contrary to yours is widespread: criticism is _centrally_ concerned with
whether the piece is good or bad.

And the sentences on reviewers seems resentful, even angry.

But I'll give you a Thumbs Up :-)

