I have long since doubted the power of my words - that any residual impact they may have fully lies within the meaning charged them by my readers, the fondness they have for this persona 'Everett True'. The notion of myself being the creator seems foolhardy at best. And what has my entire life as a critic been if not some sort of stance against the notion of critic as 'authority', from my first tentative steps at NME where I was unable to even construct sentences properly and my notion of a well-reasoned argument was the number of exclamation marks applied.
When I was in my late teens and attending gigs, I would grade them all accordingly (doubtless, in some sort of throwback to my strong mathematical inclinations) - but not in a straightforward, NME/Pitchfork/Q/Mojo way, rather as a form of numerical shorthand. One mark for 'performance' and one mark for 'enjoyment', thus unconsciously ackowledging the relationship between author and reader, the inter-dependency of both in the 'value' of art. Yet you could equally argue that I was setting myself up for a fall by separating the two values, 'objectivity' and 'subjectivity', that they cannot be separated anyhow.
A critic is not required to be (in fact, is required not to be) objective. What's needed is *informed* subjectivity.
ReplyDeleteThis is why the Sight & Sound critics' poll is ultimately more valid than the Empire readers' poll. You know that most of the critics who say that Citizen Kane is the best film ever have also seen The Dark Knight; and that most of the fans who vote for The Dark Knight haven't seen Kane. But that doesn't mean that either is 'right'.
And who said we were fond of 'Everett True'?
Hey, wait up Tim! These were only rough notes. I was going to come back later to them after my meeting with my supervisor...ah, fuck it. All property is theft, as the great Al Larsen would say.
ReplyDeleteDo you really reckon most the critics who voted for Citizen Kane would have seen The Dark Knight? I'm not so sure...
ReplyDelete