know what I like/I know it when I see it

[lauradi7dw]

I am sometimes inspired by what other people post. Bitterlawngnome replied to my remark that I didn't like "Prospero's Books" >>PB is maybe my favourite piece of art ever.<< I've been thinking a lot about it. I found a review online with a similar sentiment, someone else responding to a non-fan that it was a work of art. My initial thought was of Ellis Marsalis's comment in response to someone who didn't like jazz, who had said "I know what I like." EM: "You like what you know, and you don't know much." I like the kind of jazz that one typically associates with the Marsalis family, but I remind myself of this quotation often, when I make superficial judgments about any art form. Not that there is anything wrong with just having a gut reaction, but learning in depth is probably worth the time. The combination of "just looking" and Bitterlawngnome arose again from a post about the forthcoming Bring back the porn day https://bitterlawngnome.dreamwidth.org/1608475.html#comments I thought of Justice Potter Stewart's statement in Jacobellis v Ohio (1964), a case about the legality of certain forms of obscenity/pornography: "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that." (thanks, wikipedia. I had only remembered a little bit about this). I don't know that I have ever seen enough to know it when I see it. I tend to not watch or read sex scenes that might in any way be considered graphic. I wondered what my contribution should be (not that one needs to follow a prompt). I decided on this line from John Scalzi's recent novel "The Last Emperox," which struck me so much when I read it that I stopped reading, and then went back to write it down (actually type it). "...Kiva was aware that there was more to actual relationships than just banging each other senseless until sheets were soaked and fingers were wrinkled." It appears on the first page of chapter 10. Fingers were wrinkled. Whoa (what I said. Out loud).

Comments

[sovay]

Not that there is anything wrong with just having a gut reaction, but learning in depth is probably worth the time.

I think there's also an important difference between personally liking something and being able to recognize its value. The two are far too often conflated: I don't like this art or this art form, therefore this art or this art form sucks—or, conversely, I like this art or this art form, therefore everyone who doesn't is an idiot. It is absolutely possible to learn to like unfamiliar art. If it doesn't happen to you over the course of your life, your life is probably really limited. It is also possible to learn to appreciate said art and still feel it isn't your particular thing. I used to have a lot of arguments about film on this level with a friend who was completely unable to separate his personal tastes from pronouncements about how movies should objectively be. It still burns me up. I try not to be that person in my reviews.

[lauradi7dw]

Just want to state that neither Bitterlawngnome nor I am that person. does that sound mean? I don't intend it to be.

[sovay]

Just want to state that neither Bitterlawngnome nor I am that person.

I didn't assume either of you were. It's just the sort of thing I think about when people talk about the question of what to do with art you like and someone else doesn't or vice versa.

[bitterlawngnome]

50% of an art school curriculum, learning to give critique that isn’t just like/don’t, and learning to know the difference when it’s directed at you. Number one clue: if the sentence starts with “I” it’s pretty much always about the speaker, not the work.

[lauradi7dw]

Thinking of the admonition to use "I statements" in relationships.
First example I can think of - instead of saying "you're driving too fast," say "I am uncomfortable going this fast." The idea is not to make accusations. One could say that in your example, the person who starts with I is not making accusations (judgments) about the art.

[bitterlawngnome]

Sure, and IMO it's a fine way to give feedback, acknowledging that it's my opinion not some kind of universal truth ... "I think this photo needs 20% cropped off the left side", "I got the sense you like the subject", "I was sad after looking at it". It's telling me something about you, and in these cases giving me some information about how the piece works. Followup is easy ... what made you feel that way? etc

"I like that" and "I hate that" are likewise about the speaker, they are I-statements. But some people delivering them think they are delivering critique of the art, and some artists are prone to receive them that way ... "That's crappy art", "That's good art", "You're a crappy artist". That reaction has to be unlearned for a lot of us.

The other piece of it is identification of self with a piece of work ... someone disliking a piece of art is twisted into a judgement against its maker, or people who are fans. A connected but separate issue.

Someone needs to write A Critique of Pure Critique if it hasn't already been done :)