Yes, but is it art?

A lot of people look at criticism as a sort of "buyer's guide". I like to think film LOVERS look at it as a way to see movies through another person's eyes, so as to gain a more complete, three dimensional understanding of the work, and, best case scenario, art in general.

If you've ever read a video game review, they're usually terrible. It's usually a paragraph about the graphics, a paragraph about the music, and a paragraph about how tight the controls are, and then separate scores for each aspect. They talk about video games as if they're just novelties you buy for Christmas, play once, and then never think about again for as long as you live. But gamers are so accustomed to that, that when someone starts a gaming blog and gives more in-depth insight into the game, they're accused of "wanking", or taking themselves too seriously. Honestly though, I read a review of Super Mario Brothers 3 that was so good it changed my outlook on life, not just video games. Even this blog, casual as it may be, has helped me to reconsider a number of things in life and art.

Thank you for posting this. As a fairly rare critic at a daily paper (and honestly I don't know how much longer the gig will go on), I grow tired of the extent to which criticism is devalued and belittled these days. A society that rejects thought, reflection, and dialogue about its art is a stupid one indeed, and one that is on the path to having no art worth reflecting upon. Not that we are there yet. It's just where I fear we are headed.

One of my big pet peeves is when I get letters or comments that say "critics are worthless — they hated (insert latest #1 blockbuster here)!" People often fail to realize that there is absolutely nothing wrong with disagreeing with a critic, so long as the piece gets you thinking about WHY you disagree with a critic.

I'm in a tiny minority because I love film criticism just fine but I still think it commands far to much respect and I have criticisms of the medium itself.

First,It doesn't let the readers make decisions for themselves about instead it does the decision making for them because when most of the time I see critics who tell people to see a film,not to see a film or that it is worth seeing and I find this insulting because that critic doesn't know me.So film criticism can always act like consumer reporting.

Second,I regard art as something creative,imaginative and visionary and film criticism doesn't offer that.I think it is monumentally unimaginative because all the critics are doing is writing how they feel and they're not making somthing innovative out of thin air.It all writing in the form of essays and reviews and it doesn't tell us a story or give us an experience and give us an emotional response.

Third,I've noticed that film critics come not from a literature or art field but from the journalist field.So I don't know if I can call them artists if they are really journalists at heart.

However, I have no problems with if a film critic is not an artist.I think whenever a critic tries to be an artist they fall flat on their face because no matter how passionate a critic may be, if they don't have an on my life in any profound way they are not really useful but I must admit that there are critics whose writing is enjoyable even though I take how they feel about a film with a grain of salt.There are only two film critics that I can really can call great and inorder to be great that critic's writing has to change my life like I said before.

I for the most part don't like film critics who try to make a superstar or a loser out of a filmaker nor am I fond of film critics who act like professors and present theories.I'm only interested in film criticism where a reviewer tells how they felt about a film.

I do think film criticism is useful and should be taken serious but I still prefer the art that's being made than the people that grade the art.I do think film criticism can be educational but then I think something can be educational without ever being an art form and I'm ok with that.I know I have just made people angry based on what I've just said in my post but on a blog don't I have the right to disagree with everyone else.

I think one problem I have in discussions of art is that there are two ways of thinking about it (well, more, obviously), and I think I subscribe to the less popular: That is to say, I think art should be classified by degree, rather than by condition.

I think, as you point out, Jim, that virtually anything can be art if it's used to express something. But the natural correllary of that is that the degree to which something is expressive determines the degree to which it is art. Obviously there's more to art than just expression--an instruction booklet for assembling a bookshelf is expressive, but it's unlikely that it's art--but all these other elements (creativity, beauty, what have you) are equally matters of degree. I can't think of a single diametric proposition which would determine the answer to the question "is it art?"

Which is why I think, in the end, the question is fairly meaningless. Rather than talking about if something *is* or *isn't* art, we should focus on, looking at it from the perspective of art, how successful it is. As you rightfully point out, it's not really the art in of itself that matters, anyway, it's the appreciation of the art. (If a film is projected in a theater and no one's around to watch it, is it still art?) In that regard, whether something meets some arbitrary definition of "art" makes very little difference, so long as there are people who are in some way moved by it.

Since I make clip montages I have to say it is an odd venture at times. You're taking someone else's work and interpreting it as your own. You're taking separate scenes and moments from separate movies and connecting them to others they were never meant to be connected to. But in doing so you get a feeling that they were always connected and were just waiting for you to come along and provide the proper context.

Even though I am trudging ahead with original narrative work I continue to work on clip montages because they are in many ways, for me, a perfect blend of creating, critiquing and appreciating all in one: Artist, Critic, Fan. A trinity of father (artist), son (critic) and spirit (fan). And I'm an atheist.

By the way, I recently did a post on Len Cariou on my page and before doing it I read an interview with him about Sweeney Todd in which he said, "I remember Stephen (Sondheim) coming to me after the first preview backstage, and he said, 'They understood it. They f**king understood it!' I said, 'Yeah, I think they did!' I mean, we were absolutely stunned, they actually did get it." I didn't use the quote but I think the exhuberance of the artist appreciating his audience is relevant here. The artist needs the critics, the critics need the artist and they both need an audience to communicate their ideas.

Jim,
I would have to agree with you about Buster Keaton. I rediscovered his work recently and am still in awe of his talent.
It is indeed a very interesting point you raise about how criticism can transform a work of art. How many of us have perceived a film differently when a critic points out a detail we may have missed? I remember disliking, and being disturbed by "Seven" the first time I saw it, until I read a very articulate and thoughtful article on what it was about. Sadly, I can't remember who wrote it or where I read it. It made me watch the film again, this time through the eyes of Morgan Freeman's character. I was surprised how much I had misinterpreted the film. This raises the point of how reading a review after you've seen a film can be more informative - a point that was raised in a previous blog, I believe.

As far as film as an art form is concerned, there are time when I marvel that any large-scale movie can come together and feel like an artistic achievement. When you're working on a film that employs 900 people, there are so many variables and compromises that it's a wonder when you see two hours of what feels like a singular vision. I equate it to a painter handing out hundreds of brushes, and assigning each person with a tiny part of the canvas and one color.
There are times when film feels more like craftsmanship than art, especially when you work on a movie for a year. You can lose sight of whether it is good or not. It's when the artist shines through and inspires everyone to elevate the material, and delivers it with passion and puts that passion on film with honesty and integrity that makes a film greater than the sum of its parts.

After reading Mr. Ebert's most recent post and after reading this one, I just thought I'd let you know that I always read you, however have shied away from posting too many comments. It seems the knowledge, experience, and intelligence of your average reader/comment-er is far superior to that of my own. But this is a great post. Indeed moving. And not to mention quite funny. And I felt compelled to just write a quick, "thank you."

Jim's a pimp.

The real question is this: Why does film criticism have to equal actual movies? Whey does it have to be art? Why bother comparing? Isn't criticism a form of discussion? I believe it is.

I remember falling on Jonathan Rosenbaum's review of "Taxi Driver" in his book, "Essential Cinema". Scorsese's film had long been my favorite of all time, and Rosenbaum seemed to have a number of problems with it. I didn't agree with him, and still don't agree. But he did help me to think through, and see again, certain aspects of the movie. He helped me to see how Bernard Hermann's score shapes the film and it's mores. In turn, it was my true beginning of listening more closely to scores, and asking myself how it shapes my view of the film and how it's intended to shape it. That, in turn, has helped me to pay closer attention to the whole soundtrack of a movie.

Some critics are elitist. Some can be plain crazy, or boring. To me, none of that matters. I've found the critics that I like to talk with. I want to know what they think of any given movie. I want their insights into films, because they all know, and understand, cinema far more acutely than I do.

I also believe that, if filmmakers read critics, it would increase their knowledge of cinema, and in turn make them better filmmakers.

Does criticism have to be art to be good or meaningful? No.

I find it very strange that someone who is so opposed to film critics doing all the things that Sam has a problem with (namely providing insight and applying readings to a film as opposed to saying, simply, "I liked it!") should continually visit this site and read the blog postings, since Jim does all of these things and does them very well.

If you don't think that critics like Pauline Kael and Roger Ebert write in a form that is highly artistic, then you're crazy. Secondly, a lot of film critics do have a journalism background, true, but that doesn't mean they have never been trained in the arts, or have no frame of reference.

Your judgmental diatribe on the art of criticism is unfounded even when one considers the extreme possible scenarios of uneducated, un-scholarly writing that must surely be the foundation for your beliefs about the form.

Jim,

Sometimes, your writing gives me chills (in a good way).

A lot of film criticism is terrible (read any number of critics on Rotten Tomatoes, or if you don't have time, Christy Lemire) and so I can understand when many people scoff at the idea of reading a review before seeing a movie. Who, as Sam Erickson said, wants to be told what to see?

And yet, I've found there are certain critics I agree with more often than not and whose opinions I tend to trust more than others. Both Roger Ebert and James Berardinelli are able to look at a film and see if it succeeds beyond its acting, pacing, style, or content (which are what the majority of critics focus upon), and I would credit both of them with aiding me in seeing numerous movies I would not have seen otherwise. I'll often buy a movie without ever having seen it just because Ebert has given it a good review or put it on his Great Movies list. I don't always like the movies at first, but usually after seeing them again (or even multiple times) I can understand what makes them good.

All right, you caught me! I admit it: I don't have any talent of my own! Before I made "I'll Be Missing You," I thought to myself, "I ain't got no talent. But The Police have talent! Maybe if I steal a loop from one of their big hits, I can fool people into thinking that I have talent!" But I didn't fool you, Jim! You saw right through me. I ain't got talent! Only thing I can do is steal other people's music and call it my own! I don't deserve to make money this way. From now on, I'm gonna do it the right way. No more samples. It's gonna be original performances all the way! And from now on, I'm gonna actually sing. No more of this rap stuff! I'm gonna sing actual notes! It's gonna be rough, but I'm tired of living the lie. Thanks, Jim! I needed that!

Wow, the stars must be aligning.

Over in the comic book world, there was a little dustup that resulted from a review of a "how to" book -- specifically, that the critic didn't appreciate that the book's segment on "dealing with critics" taught methods to mollify and neutralize, with the underlying assumption that there is no such thing as valid criticism, only a mouth to be dealt with.

One of the book's writers, Scott Kurtz (writer/artist of the massively successful webcomic PVP Online), took umbrage to this, and the dust-up commenced. You can imagine how it went down, and indeed it's all right there in the comments: some of the more esteemed comics critics (Johanna, whose review started it, and Abhay, a Lester Bangs type) show up and make a pretty good cause for the validity of criticism, and Kurtz argued that artists are essentially islands who must learn everything themselves... and if they do take criticism into account, it's criticism from fellow artists. The thread got nasty when Kurtz could not even acknowledge that what critics did was a craft. Read the whole thing; it's informative.

What disappoints me is the need to see the artist/critic relationship as an adversarial one, as if only one can come out "on top" or one saps the life out of the other. Maybe it's a "narcissism of petty differences" thing, that urge to focus on small variants between very similar people and ignore all that those two groups DO have in common.

Which I said in that thread:

I can say with some authority that writing good criticism isn’t merely "passing judgment," it’s more like a reflexive action created by lifetime obsession and a need to express yourself. If you’ve got the bug, you can’t NOT do it. That’s something I think most artists could relate to.

I have a metaphorical construct I call "the conversation," which is the interplay of artist, critic, and audience as they bounce off each other and grow by interaction and friction. (You get to the heart of this idea when you mention "piggybacking," Jim.) In an ideal conversation, a good critic keeps artists honest and audiences informed, a good artist allows growth in audiences and critics alike, and the audience keeps the whole thing from being a moot point. (I believe art isn't complete until it's witnessed by someone other than the creator; there's an innate exhibitionism to art that I'd argue is a critical component.)

But boy, what an unhappy family that conversation can be. I've seen people echoing Kurtz's attitude often, I've seen way too many self-important critics, and Sam Erickson pretty perfectly voices that distrust people have for critics. I can't tell you how many times I've heard people who pride themselves on being "just folks" actually USE the words "don't trust" when it comes to critics; I think it goes with that curiously American tendency to be suspicious of people who know a lot about something.

Can anyone pinpoint some moment or reason why folks whose artistic expression is dedicated to sussing out the "meaning" of art are so maligned?

Not that we don't kick around "pompous artists" and "the masses" plenty, too...

Dearest Puff: No worries. You'll make money no matter what. As for the singing: Really, you needn't. Leave that to Milli Vanilli.

nathan: "The real question is this: Why does film criticism have to equal actual movies?"

You're right: It doesn't. I'm just saying that, on rare occasions, it can be. Most movies, video games, comic books, music, etc., aren't "art" either -- and certainly don't even attempt to be. But art is possible within all these forms.

Matt,

I'm sincerly sorry if I offended you(or others) on my post because that certainly was not my intention.I just see film criticism as something different than everybody else does.

Yes,I agree that Ebert and Kael can be artists because of their style.As for those critics themselves, I love Ebert's work and thanks to him he helped me realize that films are to be taken seriously(In fact he helped me discover the brilliance that existed in "Apocalypse Now").As for Kael,I admire her because the passion and dexterity of her writing but I can't say that I love her work because I find her tone to be patronizing and I could name about a hundred movies that I think she completely missed the point.So overall,I found her to be provactive but not engrossing.

Also,I have no problem if a critic says that they liked it in their review as long as they give a fair and interesting reason as to why.I find the reasons as to why a critic felt the way they did to be more facinating than what they felt.You what I'm saying.

You accused me of seeing film criticism as un-scholarly and un-educated.I think that all film critics are educated and scholarly or else how would they have been able to become critics(However,I think there might be some critics on Rotten Tomatoes who aren't scholars and aren't well educated).I don't mind at all if theories about film are made as long as person who made that theory respects another person's right to disagree with it.I guess I feel the way I do because I'm anti-intellectual.

I think I was being snobbish by saying that inorder for a critic to be useful they have to change my life.I admit this isn't true there because there are good critics out who aren't earth-shaking.Also there are critics out there where I don't take what they say seriously but there writing and opinions are such that I enjoy reading them these critics are Berardinelli,Scott, and LaForrest(I don't know if anybody is familiar with him).Yet I still personally believe that a great critic is one that changes me or opens my eyes.

In the end I absolutely agree that art does need criticism.While,I still don't see film criticism as art but I regard as the field of great arresting writing that should never die and will live on and can keep art alive.

[Note: The following took a great deal of time to write, and during that time, Sam has posted a follow-up that already addresses a few of the points that I make below. So my comment is supposed to refer to his first comment, and it might be read as a rebuttal to the views of the average moviegoer rather than specifically to those of Sam.]

Sam Erickson is woefully naive. While his appreciation of film criticism seems to be greater than the average person's, his perspective on criticism—and perhaps the medium of cinema, by extension—is evidently not much different than the typical moviegoer's.

1) He makes a valid observation about how critics position themselves in the eyes of consumers, but he misinterprets the situation. Just because a critic gives viewing advice does not mean that he/she is "doing the thinking" for viewers. Why critics give such advice is complex. I think that it primarily has to do with the expectations of their audience: Readers/viewers/listeners of critics generally see the function of critics as consumer guides. To admonish critics for the role that the public has designated them (and even Sam himself seems to see critics as guides, despite what he says in the beginning) is unbelievably disingenuous.

Another major reason why critics make recommendations is simply because they are passionate about the art. Most human beings want to share their enthusiasm (which may be of a positive or negative flavor) and their thoughts with others because that's part of human nature, as humans are social animals. The old saying, "Everyone's a critic" doesn't simply mean that everyone has an opinion, but also that everyone is usually eager to express that opinion. Thus, to be a critic, all one has to do is have an opinion and communicate it. We do that all the time in talking about almost anything.

Finally, Sam makes an incredible leap in interpreting the expressive function of criticism. How does an expressed opinion automatically translate into a coercive agent? No matter what a critic says, you don't have to accept it. Critics almost never assert that their individual opinions are the only correct, acceptable ones. What critics say expresses their own views on a particular work, not prescriptions for what the audience should think. I have never known a critic who has ever stated or implied that his/her readers/viewers/listeners shouldn't have their own opinions.

Sam clearly has deep problems with critics, and I find his claim that he loves reading criticism to be rather unbelievable.

2) Sam clearly doesn't understand art, creativity, or self-expression beyond a crude and superficial level. First of all, just because "all the critics are doing is writing how they feel" does not mean that criticism isn't art. Art is exactly the expression of how one feels. Expression and communication of ideas and feelings is at the core of all art. What distinguishes the "forms" of art are the mediums of expression. Within each medium, the possibilities of art (i.e. the aesthetic qualities) are realized by the distinctive, skillful, and creative ways in which the ideas and feelings are expressed. An artist's vision is defined by his/her medium, style, technique, and thematic interests. These are the ways in which an artist's creativity and imagination are realized.

Based on the above, the finest criticism surely qualifies as art. When one reads the most literate critics, one cannot help but be struck by their distinctive voices. In the medium of the written word, the term "voice" substitutes "vision," because the two are really the same thing. Every good writer has a particular style of prose, particular rhetorical techniques, and particular thematic interests. For instance, in very broad terms, Ebert's style is conversational, his technique is reflective/contemplative, and he is interested in finding the ways that movies relate to his life and life in general; his voice has also been characterized as "humanistic." A stereotypical feminist critic might evoke a didactic style, an analytical technique, and emphasize feminist themes. What's more, even when two writers can be described in the same way, in broad terms, they may still have very different voices. It would be like how artists working within a single artistic movement (e.g. Baroque, Romanticism, French New Wave) still manage to distinguish themselves.

Finally, all good writing involves creativity. If Sam can't understand this, then he must not be a writer, or he must be incapable of appreciating writing. Serious writing is never a "mere" act. Critics don't just write off the top of their heads (although in a few cases, they deliberately do). Anyone who has ever taken a writing or rhetoric course (which should be every educated person) would attest to the skill, work, and—yes—imagination required to communicate effectively. There's much to be said about the writer's mantra, to "choose one's words carefully."

As to the claim that criticism doesn't make anything innovative out of thin air, neither does most art. As Jim said, art doesn't exist within a vacuum. Art is almost always informed and influenced by other art and contemporary attitudes and ideas. It doesn't come from nowhere. And art certainly doesn't have to tell a story. And criticism can most certainly offer both a story and an experience that inspires an emotional response: Deeply personal essays are examples of this. Read Ebert's review of The Dreamers to see a piece of film criticism that offers a story and an experience.

What seems apparent to me is that Sam has never read good criticism, which surprises me considering how much great criticism Jim semi-regularly publishes. Sam's complaints about film criticism make sense for most print/broadcast/online movie reviews, but not for the whole critical establishment.

3) The critics' backgrounds don't matter; the work should speak for itself. Seriously, this passes for intellectual justification? It's more like intellectual laziness. Just about everyone (except for Ray Carney) can agree that Hitchcock was one of the greatest directors ever, but do you know what his background was? He studied engineering in college, worked as a draftsman and advertising designer after graduating, and started in film doing everything but directing. By Sam's logic, Hitchcock can't be regarded as an artist at heart either. The superstars of the French New Wave started as renowned film critics before becoming renowned directors, as did Paul Schrader and Peter Bogdanovich; are they not to be considered true artists either?

And why can't journalism be art as well? Truman Capote's seminal "nonfiction novel" In Cold Blood is widely regarded as one of the greatest journalistic and literary achievements of the last century. And I need only mention the documentary renaissance of recent years.

4) The paragraph that begins, "However, I have no problems..." is utterly incomprehensible. First of all, Sam clearly doesn't consider criticism to be art in the first place, so how can he make a statement about when critics try to be artists? What does he mean? Next, he says that the only true art is that which has a profound effect on his life—so evidently, that means that all the great paintings and sculptures and literature and theatre and music that fail to change his life thus fail to qualify as true art and is also "not really useful." Man, does this guy have standards! But he ends the paragraph with an absolute masterstroke of absurdity by claiming that there are two critics whose writing has changed his life. So does that mean that criticism qualifies as art in his eyes after all?

5) In the next paragraph, he bashes critics who champion or dismiss certain filmmakers, but in the last sentence of his post, he demands respect for his own opinion. The arrogance shown here is remarkable. He also professes a distaste for erudite critics, which is profoundly revealing of his perspective on cinema and film criticism. This is only reinforced by the next sentence, in which he expresses his preference for a certain kind of criticism. Sam, please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that you consider movies to be consumer goods more than art.

Let's consider the facts:
- Sam does not appreciate intelligent, engaged discussion about movies (or else he would appreciate the writing of the "professorial" critics that he instead denigrates).
- He's only interested in how someone "feels" about a movie, not what that person thinks about it. In other words, for him, the value of criticism can be reduced to whether or not a critic likes a particular movie.
- He doesn't take seriously the opinions of anybody who doesn't "feel" about a movie the same way that he does. This reveals that, in actuality, he considers film criticism primarily useful as a consumer guide, which contradicts his earlier opinion that critics should not act like consumer guides.

Therefore, I contend that because Sam is unable to recognize or appreciate all that film criticism has to offer, he is unable to recognize or appreciate all that cinema has to offer. Because for him the only valuable discussion on movies is how they make people feel, movies are valuable to him only insofar as how they make him feel. So whenever he watches a movie, he will get a feeling about it, and then he will set it aside and move onto the next one. This makes cinema indistinguishable from disposable entertainment (which is all about eliciting ephemeral thrills), which is a mere consumer good.

6) Sam misunderstands criticism as "grading art," which is an easy mistake to make. But it again shows how limited his experience is with criticism. No, criticism is about more than evaluation; it's about thought, feeling, meditation, and inspiration. The critic can be as inspired as the artist, except that source of inspiration is the art itself. Criticism is not at all like a teacher who grades schoolwork. It's more like a dialogue between minds who communicate by proxy of their respective mediums—the critic's words and the artist's artwork. And like any dialogue, there are arguments, misunderstandings, intimate connections, opinions, and judgments.

7) Yes, Sam has a right to disagree, and his opinion is as valid as any other. But his last sentence suggests that we should leave him and his views alone. He demands respect, as if the right to have an opinion makes him above reproach. But no opinion has to be respected, and in reality, some opinions are dumber than others.

So what say you, dear Sam?

By the way, Stephen, you are misunderstand what Jim's saying about what can count as art. He doesn't argue that expression alone makes art. Art is not about mere expression, it's about personal expression. Whenever someone deliberately injects a piece of work with a distinctly personal touch, the work becomes an example of artistic expression rather than mere product.

But I think that the value of any work comes primarily from what you or others get out of it, a view that seems to be similar to yours.

I usually avoid the argument about Is It Art.

I will agree that it's not art until the audience sees it. Like I'm not ready to consider Salinger a novelist until he publishes something new for all us Fat Ladies.

Beyond that, I keep a loose definition of art for myself, just because it's kind of irrelevant in the end. If someone tells you a steak isn't food, that doesn't mean you can't eat it. If someone tells you Rambo isn't art, that doesn't mean you can't gain some new understanding from it. I try to think of movies as just objects. Either the object is useful to me or it isn't. As a guy who makes some movies now and then, that idea helps me to try and make things other people would like to see, and not kind of lose myself in pretension, making impenetrable work that doesn't really mean anything or entertain anyone because "It's art" and art can be whatever I say it is. I don't even call myself an artist, I make things, and if I do it right, those things will, at least, entertain and amuse. The same with criticism, either I gain something from it, or I don't.

Fei

I let me say that when I wrote the comments in that piece I did it in a hurry and it caused me to say things that I really didn't mean and it made me jump from one different opinion to the other(wrote very fast in about ten minutes).I do think that you harbor disconceptions about me and you clearly don't know me any more than I know you.I'm not an average moviegoer because I rarely go to the movies.I'm more of a movie renter and as a movie renter I think I'm above average I rent out films both in color,black and white,Foreign or english speaking.I think the only way you could be able to understand what I'm saying is if we met in person or talked on the phone which is impossible.I think they are some things I should clarify to you.

First, I have read plenty good(and even great)film criticism and I've been addicted to it since I've been in high school.I have many books at home that I read that display good criticism which are Ebert's Movie Home Companion from 1988 and 1990,Also have Ebert's first two "Great Movies" books, Also his "I Hated,Hated,Hated This Movie"
and "Your Movie Sucks".Also I have Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide from 2009,2008,2007 and 2003.They were the critic responsible for get me facinated with film and film criticism.I also visit Rotten Tomatoes frequently too.Many of the critics I admire and love are academic and professional.

Second,I agree with you that I'm woefully naive because I'm not that old,I'm eighteen and I would tell you that I know more about film criticism than most of the people my age(at least where I live).I also agree with you that I need to read deeper into film criticism but I have read critics whom are considered to be the greatest ever like Sarris,Kehr,Rosenbaum and White.I'm much more fond and comfortable with critics in the realm of Ebert,Corliss,Travers,Maltin and Schickel.I yet to read critics such as Simon,Kauffmann,Crist,Rafferty,Siskel(I've seen what he's said on S&E but I haven't read his reviews in written form) and Denby.Also there are still hundreds of films that are considered masterpieces that I still have yet to see.

Third,When did I ever say in my post that I think movies are disposable entertainment? because if I thought that way I would not even be contributing comments to the scanners blog(some of the posts that I do gave comments about were talking about film art).I agree that film is an art form and I support film canons completely and I have my own personal ten greatest just like Sight and Sound polls do.

Fourth,I didn't mean to say that a person's background determines whether or not they are an artist.I agree a person can still be come from different backgrounds and have no backgrounds at all and still be an artist.However,I often do wonder why don't they have film criticism or criticism itself be a course in college that someone earn a degree in if everyone like you or me value it so much.Why does a film critic have to start out in the journalist field in the first place when they should make film criticism into a college course.

I will say that you might have point that critics or journalists can be artists because they can show personal and passionate feelings.I think artists themselves show passion and personal feelings in their work.So if it will make you happy I will take this into consideration and decide whether or not it make criticism and journalism art because it is a good point.

So what do you say dear,Fei

Fei--

I don't think "personal" is really the word for it. Anything which involves you making a choice is inevitably "personal", because it will reflect you as opposed to someone else. If you mean to say that the *message* is personal, then I'm forced to disagree again--you can absolutely artistically interpret someone else's message using the choices you make in doing so. Perhaps you could clarify further?

In any case, as I pointed out, not all expression is art (I should know, I write and edit textbooks for a living), and I never intended to imply Jim had said so. But any expressive medium or action as the potential to be art.

One of my favorite past times is to go to concerts and look for the members of the band in the audience in the crowd. Usually the musicians I gravitate towards are not of the sort that have air brushed photos of themselves on the front of their CDs so they are able to walk around anonymously within a crowd that is there to see them. I think it is both hilarious and an interesting social experiment to approach them and strike up a conversation with them, pretending not to know that they are in the band. After a couple of minutes I slip in the question, "Are you an artist?" The answer has always been "No." I am sure that they all have different reasons for giving me this answer, but it makes some sort of astatement.

I've met and known many writers, filmmakers, and musicians. None of them got too wrapped up in the concept of whether they were creating art. One of the few groups of people involved in creative endeavors that seem to constantly be worried about validating their own work is film critics. Much like anything else, I don't think that all criticism is art and few reviews reach a higher level of expression. For example, I find your comments on The Pineapple Express to be almost embarrassing, while your recent reposting of your observations on Fight Club were the sort of thing I would consider art.

The neediness, as I perceive it, for critics to have a validation of their work perhaps stems from the fact that they are not really compared to their peers. Writers, musicians, filmmakers, etc. have become accustomed to having their work compared to each other through reviews and competitions. Once you have lost a competition to something that is undeniably crap, you start to realize how futile it is to take such things seriously. You and other critics have the luxury of having any retorts to your work examine only your work, so it is easy for you to merely say "Its just a matter of opinion." If I were to criticize your approach and compare it to another review that held similar views, I think it would be a little harder to shrug off. Essentially, I think critics need to toughen up a bit. Who cares if people think you are making art?

Also, you better watch out. If I stumble into you I am going to ask you if you are an artist. Don't let me down.

Jim-

I totally see your point. I've always liked movies, and have seen many 'classics' but I've come to realize that there's nothing better than seeing one of the classics for the first time with Ebert's 'Great Movies' essay still fresh in my head. In this case, the 'critic' acts as a suppliment, and it makes it a much more enjoyable experience. The essay or criticism becomes a valuable companion piece to the original work of art.

Chris: I've been thinking of getting another tattoo (perhaps just above or below the UPC code on my leg) that says: "This is not art."

Note: The following took a great deal of time to write, and during that time, Sam has posted a follow-up that already addresses a few of the points that I make below. So my comment is supposed to refer to his first comment, and it might be read as a rebuttal to the views of the average moviegoer rather than specifically to those of Sam.]

Fei:If this is true than ignore what I said what said in my rebuttal to you because I didn't notice it until after I finished tying it.

If it will make everybody happy I will admit that film criticism is art(though I still think it is still being a tad bit overrated).I want to make peace with everybody on this post I don't want to have enemies.

Sam: "Why does a film critic have to start out in the journalist field in the first place when they should make film criticism into a college course."

Just for clarification, in answer to the first part of your question: They don't. In answer to the second part: They do.

Some critics start out in journalism, some don't. My major was English Lit. Today many universities offer courses in film criticism (study and practice), including UCLA and Columbia. Film studies and film theory are also offered.

Count me in as one of those people who doesn't think that film criticism is "art". Personally, I believe that "art" is something that tells some sort of story, or at the very least, creates some sort of emotion in the audience, such as excitment, fear, etc. Film criticism has never done that for me. While I don't think it's useless (and I do often post my own amateur reviews online), it doesn't qualify as art. It's a criticism of art. It takes skill and a certain amount of creativity, and I'm sure it can change some people's outlooks on life, but that doesn't make it "art".

On the contrary, I'd say any film, song, or piece of literature is art. Something like "The Hottie and the Nottie" may be a piece of crap, but that doesn't mean it's not "art".

I think a lot of the time you see filmmakers shunning critics is because a lot of work goes into making movies. To see a critic basically deride something so close to their hearts hurts. This doesn't make it "right" for them to lash out at critics, but I can understand why.

Wow, this is a harsh board. I love it.

Sam,

Don't worry about these people telling you that you are an idiot. Arguing about art is foolish by its very nature and is apparently not a subject people can broach with any sense of humility. And on that note...

Fei,

Maybe I am mistaken, but do you know what film criticism is? It seems that all of your points are related directly to reviews. Hopefully I can clear up some of your confusions.

I disagree with almost everything Jim has said about The Dark Knight, but it is the evaluation of the film that counts. Telling me shallow opinions about why he liked Pineapple Express is perfectly acceptable, but not art. Giving me sociopolitical evaluations and detailed attacks on the structure of TDK is much more in line with what I would consider art (but still not quite there). An opinion, aka a simple review, is not art. Ever heard of Alain Silver or Laura Mulvey? Perhaps I am thinking of criticism in too broad of terms, but those are the sort of individuals who turn criticism into art. Good criticism should look beyond whether a film is entertaining and examine its style, structure, and underlying messages with intelligent points and evidence from the body of work to back up any claims the critic might make. You attack Sam for saying that film is a consumer product (which it is), but what you don't seem to get is that even if films are not consumer products, a review certainly is. Most people reading film reviews are not very educated on film theory and I would be willing to bet that Jim, Roger Ebert, and everyone who writes thoughtful commentary on film deliberately dumb down their printed reviews for the mass market because words like "milieu" would go over their heads. Furthermore, how can you express something profound about a movie in a piece that is intended for those who have not even seen the film? If you do, you're probably giving to much information and are no longer functioning as a reviewer because you are betraying the reader's trust that you won't give away too much of the plot.

Does this mean that reviews are without value? No. I frequently refer back to Roger Ebert's reviews from years past to get a sense of the reception of a film during its initial release. Though I find his review of A Clockwork Orange fascinating, it is not art. Your attack on a 18 year-old boy above (yes, I am laughing) is well thought out, but it is not art. I don't understand how you think that just because an occasional review can become impassioned it suddenly qualifies as art. If this is case, why are murders not considered performance art?

It seems to me that Sam was talking simply about reviews, and you made arguments that were true of the broader spectrum of film criticism but were continuously referring to them as though every facet of criticism falls under "reviews". If you disagree with me, I think the best rebuttal would be to post a link to a review from Ebert's site that you consider art. I would be more than happy to explain to you why it is not art or, if it does meet my standards, eat my hat. If you happen to be 18, let me know and I'll just go kill myself now.

So how about when a novelist like James Agee writes film criticism? Or a painter like Manny Farber? Is criticism still not art? Or can their work be art because they are already "real" artists?

Unless you think the essay is a form of rhetoric that simply cannot be considered artistic, I don't think there's any valid argument for excluding film criticism from the realm of art.

Now how many film critics offer anything substantive and well-crafted enough to become artists? Well, not that many, I'll admit.

But I challenge anyone to read Agee and Farber or Nicole Brenez (among others) and tell me that's not art.

Of course film criticism is art. ART criticism is art. It's just very difficult to do.

A critic must not get drunk in his own power of being able to inffluence the audience opinions. The effectiveness of criticism is in the strengthening of the reader's expectations, no matter what he decides about the movie after seeing it. Only a few film critics achieve this, and by having a very carefully defined balance... to suggest without imposing, to tell without overwhelming, to create a text that's enjoyable by its writing and its analysis at the same time. The ebst example of this is Roger Ebert, who's such a balanced critic that can make open-ended statements nad saying he's not quite sure about why he think something didn't work in a movie, and leaving some options for the reader to make him think afterwards (i.e. his recent article about "Elegy").

He's granting a better knowledge of the movie and the mechanisms and tropes that uses, thus giving better weapons for the reader to dissect a movie and find what is valuale among what is not. Because, at the end of the day, the critic's work is subjective... informed and (ideally) balanced, and keeping his thought-process always in chech... but subjective nonetheless. And therefore hi's communicating something... and he's using style and selectiveness of content to communicate something.

And to do all that just to achieve communication, and not proselitism, while being sincere about it... is art. It's difficult, it's creative, it's mind-expanding for the reader.

It's art. No question about it.

DylanG,
I would disagree with you about "any film" being art, as any crew member on a big-budget crapfest would tell you. Yes, many of the crew members, and even the director may have some artistic sensibility, but so many movies don't rise above the level of manufacturing. It's why they call it the "movie industry." Product must keep cranking out, and if it means greenlighting a robotic formulaic action flick, then so be it. Get it out there and rake in the bucks. It happens in all the arts - when money needs to be made, there will be producers who will find a way to keep it coming in. It also keeps thousands of people employed. Sounds cynical, but it's part of the craft.

This is why, as I said in an earlier post, it is amazing when a film has enough integrity to rise above the craft of filmmaking and become a piece of artistic expression. I suppose you could compare it to architecture, where some buildings are merely functional whereas others are magnificent expressions of a singular vision. They, like movies, all get built by carpenters, engineers, plumbers, painters, decorators and electricians. They follow blueprints, are subject to budgetary restrictions, weather and terrain problems, bankers, difficult egos, organized crime syndicates and unhappy clients who want major changes.

In the end, if you can say that "Battlefield Earth" can qualify as art as much as let's say "2001: A Space Odyssey", then that definition of art can be applied to anything, and I can't accept that.
So what is my definition of art? I would say honest self-expression. A writer, a painter, a musician, a dancer, a film director - if any of these are called artists, it's because they are telling us a truth from their perspective. A simple blanket statement, I know, but it's what I believe.

When movies are treated as a commodity to be purchased and consumed, movie critics simply become voices telling you whether you'll get your money's worth.
On the other hand, when movies are treated as art, criticism becomes a part of the conversation that is key to engaging with that art. By extension, critics become a part of the art.
I don't read critics to tell me whether a movie is any good or not, I read critics to learn how a movie makes other people feel or what it makes them think. That's why I normally don't read reviews until after I've seen the movie.

Chris Green

Thank you very much.You are right I shouldn't worry about it and I might continue to express my views.However,just because I'm eighteen doesn't mean people shouldn't be allowed to argue against what I say.I will say that some of the points that you said in your response to Fei were what I was trying to say but didn't know exactly how.So thanks again.

When Mencken says that art and criticism flow from the same source, or when Bloom says that "criticism is part of literature or nothing at all," we may regard these sentiments as self-serving. But when the criticism is of such a high order, such assertions seem merely accurate.

Christopher Long said above:

"So how about when a novelist like James Agee writes film criticism? Or a painter like Manny Farber? Is criticism still not art? Or can their work be art because they are already "real" artists?"

His comments made me think of Truffaut's criticism. Though he is one of my favorite directors, i think that his criticism is woefully lacking. I was an enormous fan of his interview book with Hitchcock, but when I read his criticism, I couldn't help but think that he misinterpreted almost everything he reviewed. I've often wondered if his unconventional views on cinema were what made his films so interesting.

On a different note, when I think of art, I think of something that can be interpreted in multiple different ways and can stimulate conversation. For example, in The Dark Knight there is a single shot where Bruce Wayne kisses his love interest in a long shot while keeping his hand firmly in his pocket. David Bordwell attacks this shot in particular when discussing the film, saying that Bruce Wayne is coming across as being very GQ, inferring how shallow the film is. This sort of statement is subjective and thoughtless. A good counter argument, which I think is a more appropriate way to critique a film, is that the shot or the kiss is intentionally shot in a very non-romantic long shot to highlight the sexual inadequacies of a character who does not know affection. This is paralleled by the kiss between Dent and Rachel, where the two of them are in a close-up and they are frantically touching each other. In two kisses, that were encompassed within two single shots, it gives all the information necessary to understand why she would choose one man over the other, eliminating a lengthy scene where Rachel explains her reasoning. This short analysis gives the reader something to discuss intellectually, whereas saying that Bruce looks very GQ, does not.

I'm not bashing Bordwell here, I think that he is a very knowledgeable man, but in books such a "Film Art", but I think that he spends so much time trying to keep things into such a tight format, that he gets a little sloppy on his blogs. This is acceptable, but don't try to pass it off to me as art. Same goes for reviewers. The restraints and intended audience for a review make it difficult to make anything intellectually worthwhile, leaving their most creative output to be found on blogs such as this. Suddenly freed by restraints, the points become muddled and the writing lacks an internal rhythm, which is found in almost all great pieces of art. Every blog entry does not have to be poetry, but if the art is not found in the reviews, the text books, or the blogs, then where is it? If critics want to have the title of art bestowed upon their work, they must put in effort and craft found in great art.

In closing, there is definitely criticism that is art. Like I said before, I love Jim's analysis of Fight Club, but everyone seems to be talking about movie reviews. Someone please point out a review that you consider art. Also, if you happen to be someone who thinks all reviews are art, please point out one by Sean Yule that you think is art.

Sam,
I wasn't offended, I just thought you were attributing a very narrow view of things to something that goes much much deeper.

I never intended it to come off that I was calling you an "idiot", as some have suggested, either.

For the record, I wasn't arguing about art, or what is, but rather the narrow view of what was being held accountable in your post: the status of criticism and the nature within which it was made impossible to achieve artistic status.

So, to those who think I was calling Sam an idiot, or that I was arguing about what is or is not art, I'm sorry, but you should probably read and put things into context. If it came off that way to Sam, I apologize, sincerely, as I am not nearly as gruff sounding in person, though I do admit a certain firm demeanor when ascerting myself, and as we all know, the internet is not the best at conveying meaning or intent. So, I was merely using Sam as an example, rather than meaning to attack him. My phrasing could have been better.

And Jim, thanks for just reiterating that academia is a large part of criticism.

Wasn't this idea of 'what is art?" a running theme of eXistenZ? I seem to remember Cronenberg talking about whether a video game could be art.

Chris Green--

"In closing, there is definitely criticism that is art. Like I said before, I love Jim's analysis of Fight Club, but everyone seems to be talking about movie reviews. Someone please point out a review that you consider art. Also, if you happen to be someone who thinks all reviews are art, please point out one by Sean Yule that you think is art."

I'm one of those who would call all reviews art. The thing is, I don't think "art" is a term that immediately confers a judgment of quality. I'd call every review ever written "art" because every review ever written was written by one person with the intent of expressing something to another, however dull or pathetic what they attempted to express was. "Art", as far as I'm concerned, is a descriptor of the kind of endeavor being undertaken, not a judgment of the success or failure of that endeavor.

I would say any piece of writing is, to one degree or another, art. That degree maybe be infinitesimal for, say, an inter-office memo, but it's still there.

pausner: Yes, it's a notion that runs through a lot of movies (and other forms). One of my favorites on the subject is Alan Rudolph's "The Moderns."

pausner: Yes, it's a notion that runs through a lot of movies (and other forms). One of my favorites on the subject is Alan Rudolph's "The Moderns."

Matt,

I wasn't commenting on you calling Sam an idiot. I thought your responses were polite. I was referring to Fei's comment that "some opinions are dumber than others". That is being a jerk in my opinion. If he thought Sam's opinions were without any value, he wouldn't have written a huge response to them.

Stephen,

It is hard to argue with your definition of art. With such a broad definition of art, wouldn't art just be another word for communication? If everyone is an artist, does the word even have a meaning? Personally, I think the world would be a better place if all people who typically think of themselves as artists started to consider their work in terms of craftsmanship rather than artistic merit. The problem with a finished piece of art is that in the eyes of the creator, it is constantly evolving, its meanings changing, and the sense of accomplishment upon completing it diminishing into a never ending evaluation of its flaws. I don't think that carpenters feel quite this way about their work. I can't help but think that much of the disquieting effects art has on its creator has something to do with the word "art" itself and its unattainable standards. If you love the art of another, it becomes almost perfect in your eyes, but your own work starts with a idea deep inside you that is diminished and compromised into the final product that will never come close to what it originally was inside of you. It is impossible to love your own work as much as one that you can look at from afar in admiration, so true "art" becomes unattainable in the minds of even the greatest of artists. If the artist could view his work as a well-crafted piece of furniture, that may not be perfect but a successfully finished piece of work, a lot less of them might not be miserable alcoholics or neurotics.

Chris Green--

Well, as I wrote above, I don't think "art" is *only* about communication, I think that aspect of expression is merely the basic prerequisite. Art, to me, is a matter of degree, and the degree to which something is a work of art is based on the degree to which it is a volitional creation intended to express some idea or emotion with a purposeful aesthetic. Virtually any human act *can* be expressive, and in virtually every expression we pay *some* attention to the impression we are giving with that communication, so I think virtually every human communication is, in some small way, art.

But that in no way means, as you say, that "everyone is an artist", any more than the fact that me standing up and walking across the room is at its base an athletic act means that I'm an athlete, or the fact that I straightened out my coffee table this morning makes me an interior designer.

And your closing statement about the dangers of people viewing themselves as artists in some ways speaks to my point. Why does the word "art" have such a bizarre cultural significance to some people? The origins of the word itself are exactly what you're talking about--craftsmanship. Evoking the word "athlete" again, we don't take that word and distort it by only applying it to athletes who meet some standard of quality or success. We apply it to anyone who regularly participates in highly athletic activities.

Oddly enough, there are certain types of art that seem to be immune from our high bar for the word "art". Visual arts seem to be "art" in people's eyes regardless of quality. Poetry as well, to a degree. Anything where the aesthetic is front-and-center we just roll over and call art, regardless of it being good or bad. Why shouldn't the same rules apply to film or writing?

Alrighty. I just wanted to make sure Sam didn't feel like I was attacking him. As long as it didn't come off that way to others, then I assume I'm fine...

Jim, interesting analysis. But, going back to your post about Fight Club, I think that your "This is not art" rubber stamp might look good stamped across the whole thing.

Meinart - I'd still consider Battlefield Earth art just as much as I'd consider 2001. The difference would be that for me, Battlefield Earth would be a bad example of art.

I don't think it matters if they're formulaic or just otherwise crummy. That doesn't make them not art, at least for me. For all we know, 2001 could've been greenlit just as a cash-grab. I think films should be judged on their own merits, not on what producers/studio execs intended them to be.

I don't think anything is art (and these days, lots of people will pass of anything as art), but I'd say any film is a form of art.