by A. O. Scott, The New York Times, January 13, 2010
Film critic A. O. Scott happens to be one of my favorite cultural writers from The New York Times. But I feel compelled to point out a couple of curious things about this article which appeared in today's Arts & Leisure section.
After working through all his snarkiness about the mainstream public's taste in things, I came to this very interesting graph:
Which raises the question, Who, then, do you see as your readers? A considerably smaller, elite group, no?
But, fair enough, and I do get Scott's ultimate argument about the overarching power of corporate purveyors of entertainment. But if that graph isn't a sign of someone who has assumed the mantle of intellectual elite, I don't know what would be.
"My profession." "Analyzing and evaluating works of art."
If you're got guts enough to call yourself a critic by profession and privileged enough to be deemed capable and worthy of "analyzing and evaluating works of art" for the goddamn New York Times, I'd say you're part of an elite!
Which brings me to the other fascinating thing about this article that rejects the label elite for cultural critics. The Times has chosen to illustrate it tellingly, with photographs of two other film critics--both of them, like Mr. Scott, white and male.
Just sayin'.
Speaking personally, but also out of a deep and longstanding engagement with the history and procedures of my profession, I have to say that the goal of criticism has never been to control or reflect the public taste--neither is possible--but rather the simpler (but also infinitely difficult) work of analyzing and evaluating works of art as honestly and independently as possible.Which, to begin with, really sounds like: Public, we're not even talking to you--or about you!
Which raises the question, Who, then, do you see as your readers? A considerably smaller, elite group, no?
But, fair enough, and I do get Scott's ultimate argument about the overarching power of corporate purveyors of entertainment. But if that graph isn't a sign of someone who has assumed the mantle of intellectual elite, I don't know what would be.
"My profession." "Analyzing and evaluating works of art."
If you're got guts enough to call yourself a critic by profession and privileged enough to be deemed capable and worthy of "analyzing and evaluating works of art" for the goddamn New York Times, I'd say you're part of an elite!
Which brings me to the other fascinating thing about this article that rejects the label elite for cultural critics. The Times has chosen to illustrate it tellingly, with photographs of two other film critics--both of them, like Mr. Scott, white and male.
Just sayin'.
1 comment:
Scott is displaying a disturbing decadence that seems to run through a lot of criticism these days: http://bit.ly/gqLhhR
I didn't read the whole article by Scott, though. Reflecting public taste, I thought I would simply react to a sound bite without getting the whole story.
Thanks for the post.
Post a Comment