| |
| documents
A collection of various documents, such as transcriptions
of conferences, readings, discussions.
|
| |
|
|
 |
documents
Criticism as Art:
An Exceedingly Harmful Idea
By Bence Nanay
There are two questions that we need to distinguish:
whether criticism can be art and whether criticism should be
art. Whether criticism can be art or not is a question that needs to
be answered on a case by case basis. Arguably, some essays of T. S. Eliot
can be considered art. But in my opinion, Pauline Kael's cannot be. Also,
it is not a particularly profound claim that criticism can be art. Lots
of things can be art. Epitaphs, for example. I doubt that when some critics
talk about criticism as art, this is the claim they have in mind.
My fear is that what they do have in mind
is that criticism should be art, which is, of course, an entirely
different question. I think that this is quite probably the most harmful
view one can have about the nature of criticism. It is harmful because
it makes criticism, and especially film criticism, seem easy.
Film criticism is not
easy at all. One needs
to know film history very well. One needs to be able to connect a specific
flaw in the narrative of a film to similar narratives without this flaw.
One needs to put films into context. If film criticism is conceived as
art, then one does not need to do any of this. All you need is a good
style and some originality.
This widely held belief may explain the surprising
low quality of film criticism these days. A great number of film critics
lack any kind of knowledge of the great classics or of film history in
general. The idea of criticism as art can serve as a convenient justification
for such critics to ignore this deficiency. The point is that ignoring
it is both unprofessional and irresponsible. Probably we should start
thinking about film criticism as a profession instead of an art form.
No doubt that would mean more work for the critic, but would probably
be more rewarding for the reader.
The film critic who had
the greatest influence on the history of cinema was not Pauline Kael. Far from it. Nor Susan
Sontag. It was André Bazin, of course. Without Bazin, Italian
neorealism would not have been what it was and directors like Bresson,
Fellini and Cocteau would have made very different films. And Bazin certainly
did not think of his essays as art. Pauline Kael could have learnt some
modesty from him.
Bence Nanay
© Fipresci 2004
Bence Nanay is the editor of Metropolis Film Quarterly,
University of California, Berkeley.
top |
|
|