OK, looking at this thread and Jazz’s OP, let’s see if we can summarize some of this (we’ve been down this path before, haven’t we Jazz?):
1. There are no absolute criteria that can be applied to all films to determine quality.
2. Each person sees each film differently, depending on their own experieince and perceptions.
4. Opinions of value in a film-related discussion are ones that are informed by some depth of knowledge of film history and film aesthetics.
5. Film viewers can share certain values or criteria for what is significant to them in judging a film. However, the values or criteria may not intersect with another set of viewers.
6. No film judgment is absolute or final. Every value-judgment made relative to any film should remain in a state of flux, ready at all times for re-evaluation by any set of film viewers.
7. There is no agreed upon list of the ‘best’ films that would conform to all possible value-judgments.
8. Ultimately, we are stuck inside of our own individual world of value-judgment relative to any specific film. Some may disagree with us, some may agree, but there is no final ‘right’ answer.
9. Film viewing is ultimately a subjective, individual experience, as is all experience of any work of art.
10. What suits us may not suit another. Objective validity is an illusion. Shared validity among those with similar aesthetic values can result in a consensus among those sharing these values (an intersubjectivity, if you like).
That’s me muddying the waters. Discuss! (I was inspired by Matt’s great take on Husserl – Well done, Matt! You can blame Matt and Husserl for this).
@Robert
On the forum we have buddy-ing up to achieve inter-subjective validation, because of the belief that the greater the inter-subjectivity, the greater the validity; hence, the pulling into the discourse of outside sources from experts. Expert opinions are vetted by others dedicated to close observation – thus they are more valid.
FWIW, that’s not how I think of or apply intersubjectivity when I evaluate films. “Buddying-up” has a milquetoast vibe that I don’t agree with, either. Intersubjectivity isn’t so much about finding refuge and comfort with people who agree with you. For example, that most people agree that good technical filmmaking is a hallmark of greatness isn’t a matter of “buddying-up,” is it? We just agree (somehow) that this is a valid criteria for judging a film.
For example, describing the whale in Wrekmeister Harmonies as the Christ Figure doesn’t open the text up to an inexhaustive number of unperceived (and largely even unexpected) features, it closes the text down to a exclusive single meaning – which makes the interpretation, for many of us, invalid. Further, that closing down reduces the text to a weak misreading vs a potentially strong misreading sometime in the future.
I haven’t read Matt’s comments on Husserl, yet, and I know the comments above refer to Matt’s post, but I can’t resist responding to this. I think a interpretations of films tend to narrow the text down—at least if the film is abstract (and I think WH is pretty abstract)—but this doesn’t prevent different interpretations of the film. (And, Robert, instead of taking pot-shots at my interpretation in this thread, why don’t we “duke it out” in the WH thread? ;)
@Jirin
Who am I to invalidate other peoples’ legitimate arguments about Bicycle Thieves?
The key term is “legitimate arguments.” If one’s opinions are based on illegitimate arguments, than those opinions wouldn’t be valid, right?
When you said ‘pure subjectivity’ at first I took it to mean ‘The idea that there is no such thing as objective criteria for art’. Are you talking about that or the hypothetical extreme where all experience is completely unrelateable to any other human being? Are we having a concrete discussion or a wild abstract one? The former is more interesting.
I meant, more the former. (But either way, I think the discussion is going to be on the abstract side.)
Because you can judge objectively whether a film met agreed upon criteria.
We can judge whether a film met agreed upon criteria in a way that isn’t purely subjective.
You just can’t objectively define those criteria without relying on consensus, and if you do that, your objective conclusion will vary by crowd. (Which, by the way, is how it turns out in real life. The qualities that determine good art are dependent on the common ground of the people making the determination).
Personally, I think the variation isn’t big or significant—as long as we make clear that we’re determing how good a film is versus whether we enjoy it. If we make that distinction, I think we can identify criteria and principles—as well as the definitions for them—that fall into the same ballpark for almost everyone. Each individual might weight the criteria differently (including leaving out some criteria) and have a slightly different definition, but I don’t see this as a major problem.
_most people agree that good technical filmmaking is a hallmark of greatness _
Do they? Are most people even familiar enough with the craft of filmmaking to speak on such things knowledgeably? I don’t hear those conversations myself, instead it is often based on convention and how closely or not a film might adhere to normal expectations, and that has little to do with greatness. Throughout the history of film, and all arts, changes or challenges to the norms are perceived initially as incompetence. It’s only later, when those techniques are adopted by others and taken into the “norm” that they are fully embraced as “good technical filmmaking”.
Even if this were not the case, I’d love to hear some definition of good technical filmmaking that isn’t so broad as to be entirely unhelpful, that actually serves to differentiate between films given that a certain technical skill is pretty standard throughout studio filmmaking and that money can buy more of it, which I will assume isn’t a hallmark of goodness, and/or which isn’t so circular as to be meaningless, which is to say that claiming a film has “good technical filmmaking” because it is a great film and therefore the technical aspects suit its purposes gets you nowhere as it is using the end opinion to prove the criteria which are being used to support the judgment.
Regarding “legitimate” opinions; the assumption seems to be made that one’s opinion needs validation by another at all in order for that person to think something is art. Whether you agree or disagree with someone over a given art object, their feeling for the object is what will define the experience for them. If you are going to claim the ability to invalidate arguments and thus the experience of an artwork for another, then that can also be applied to “you” and I know of few, if any people, who would accept that regardless of how allegedly knowledgeable the person making that call would be.
@Greg
I think if we make clear that we’re talking about whether a film is a good work of art or not—versus whether one personally enjoys a film or not—I think many people would agree that technical excellence is a hallmark of greatness. They might not be able to speak knowledgeably about technical aspects of filmmaking, but they would agree that technical excellence is a reasonable justification for a film’s greatness. People may disagree about what constitutes technical excellence, but I don’t think they would disagree that it is a valid criterion for artistic greatness.
As for “legitimate opinions,” I think we’re on different wavelengths once again. Here’s where I’m coming from. Earlier I believe you mentioned someone who believes that LOTR was the greatest film of all time. Now, suppose that person based that judgment on the fact that they loved playing Dungeons and Dragons as a kid and the film conjured up all these good memories. Is that a legitimate basis for the film being a great work of art? Personally, I don’t think so. Or, suppose the viewer hated LOTR because he hated elves and any story relating to elves. Is that a valid argument against the quality of the film?
Now, to be clear, it’s perfectly acceptable that a person love or hate a film for the reasons described above. In that sense, these reasons are legitimate and valid if we’re just talking about whether a person enjoyed the film or not. But in terms of judging the artistic merit of the film, that’s something different. There are certain criteria and principles that are valid and others that are not, imo.
This also applies to interpretations of a film as well. Not all interpretations are equally valid—some are more compelling and legitimate than others—depending on how well the film can support those interpretations. Matt’s example of Bambi being about the Kennedy assassination is an example of a invalid interpretation. (Well, I haven’t heard a case for that argument, but I’m going to assume it’s invalid.)
I think if we make clear that we’re talking about whether a film is a good work of art or not—versus whether one personally enjoys a film or not—I think many people would agree that technical excellence is a hallmark of greatness.
Actually, oft times it might be closer to the opposite, historically speaking. What is seen as great later often is seen as incoherent, incompetent, or otherwise flawed upon its first release. Many times those feelings will continue to linger for decades after the work has gained some acceptance by a small group or parts of “the critical community”. I would also reemphasize that judging technical competence in such cases is often, if not always, after the fact where the decision has been already made that the film is great so the technical merit is judged based on an already existent judgment of merit and therefore isn’t of use as a criteria before the fact, especially since the exact same techniques can be used in other films even by the many of the same craftsmen and not be judged as “proving” the merit of the work. Techinique can’t be separated from the end result, in other words, so it can’t be used as a criteria to prove the worth of that end result since the “answer” is known before the question is asked.
Your opinion of what is valid or invalid is fine and dandy for you and any who might agree with you, but it has little to do with whether a film is experienced as a work of art to anyone outside of your group. And speaking generally, much of the time the claims made to support or deny the worth of one film are not held as a constant by the people claiming them, so one can again question their usefulness as standards at all when they too seem to be applied more to justify an already held belief than to determine one.
From my experience here on the boards and elsewhere, i simply don’t buy the construct claimed for how opinions are arrived at and decided on as worthy since I don’t see the claims being applied nor any “rational” system of judgment being used. People generally like what they do and then seek to justify that feeling, and if the feeling is strong enough they will denigrate the opinions of those that disagree with then and support any opinions that seem to suit their argument. If the feeling is less certain, then we sometimes can find some discussion which illuminates the film or helps to form our thoughts about it. This is why we discuss movies, to argue over the things we definitely disagree on to solidify our positions and stake claims and to, hopefully, influence those who have not decided so definitively and to perhaps occasionally be influenced in that way ourselves, whether we admit it or not.
Oh, and I would also add that the best criticism, to some of us anyway, could be deemed “invalid” as it comes from sets of assumptions or readings of the film which go beyond what can be objectively supported by the text itself. Inference and connecting of what is “there” onscreen to the larger world is an essential part of the artistic experience for many of us, and that sort of effort can always be called “invalid” as it cannot be directly “proven” by any objective accounting of the sounds and images which make up the raw material of the film.
So now we are discussing the value of critical dialogue?
People generally like what they do and then seek to justify that feeling, and if the feeling is strong enough they will denigrate the opinions of those that disagree with them and support any opinions that seem to suit their argument.
Yes. This certainly seems to me to be the way most people operate, whether they like to admit it or not (and I include myself here, though I try hard not to go down the denigrating route).
Best justification for disliking a movie I’ve heard recently was when I was discussing The Green Mile with a guy I work with. His reason: Because it’s about a fucking immortal mouse called Mr. Bojangles!
Now that’s high quality film criticism :)
@Greg
People often do condemn a film, only later to consider it a great film. I also think they deem a film good and then use technical excellence as a justification for that. But are you saying that the quality of the filmmaking isn’t seen as a valid basis for judging the “goodness” or “badness” of a film? That’s my main point. We can disagree about what constitutes quality filmmaking and we can disagree about whether a film possesses this attribute or not, but I think most people would agree that this is one valid criterion for judging a film. Compare that to something like the presence or abscence of subtitles. I think almost everyone would agree that this is NOT a valid criterion to use—so judgments based on this criterion would be invalid as well. This may sound like a silly example, but people use criteria like this all the time—because this type of criteria often influnence whether an individual enjoys a film or not. But if we are interested in evaluating whether a film is good art or not, we have to put such criteria aside and use intersubjective criteria and process.
From my experience here on the boards and elsewhere, i simply don’t buy the construct claimed for how opinions are arrived at and decided on as worthy since I don’t see the claims being applied nor any “rational” system of judgment being used.
Wait—I’m not claiming that most people use an intersubjective approach to arrive at opinions about films. My guess is that people use mostly a subjective approach or they conflate both a more subjective approach with an intersubjective. It’s a jumbled mess of intersubjective and subjective factors—and what I’ve been trying to do is find a process that helps me untangle these factors.
Btw, imo, the factors that make a discussion about a film illuminating pull more towards the intersubjective side, rather than the subjective side. The comments that apply mostly to the individual generally aren’t that helpful or illuminating (unless the listener also feels the same way). If I say The Incredibles is a great film because of the way the superheroes coordinate their powers to defeat their enemies, that’s a highly subjective reason—and, in general, that’s not going to be so compelling. I have a better chance if I talk about the visuals, or the way the story integrates the theme into the plot, etc.—and these qualities are more intersubjective.
“1. There are no absolute criteria that can be applied to all films to determine quality.
2. Each person sees each film differently, depending on their own experieince and perceptions.
4. Opinions of value in a film-related discussion are ones that are informed by some depth of knowledge of film history and film aesthetics.
5. Film viewers can share certain values or criteria for what is significant to them in judging a film. However, the values or criteria may not intersect with another set of viewers.
6. No film judgment is absolute or final. Every value-judgment made relative to any film should remain in a state of flux, ready at all times for re-evaluation by any set of film viewers.
7. There is no agreed upon list of the ‘best’ films that would conform to all possible value-judgments.
8. Ultimately, we are stuck inside of our own individual world of value-judgment relative to any specific film. Some may disagree with us, some may agree, but there is no final ‘right’ answer.
9. Film viewing is ultimately a subjective, individual experience, as is all experience of any work of art.
10. What suits us may not suit another. Objective validity is an illusion. Shared validity among those with similar aesthetic values can result in a consensus among those sharing these values (an intersubjectivity, if you like).”
Nice . . . and I have a feeling we’re going to have wished we had stopped right there. ;)
“My guess is that people use mostly a subjective approach or they conflate both a more subjective approach with an intersubjective. It’s a jumbled mess of intersubjective and subjective factors—and what I’ve been trying to do is find a process that helps me untangle these factors.”
Generally speaking, “intersubjectivity” (as the name implies) would be inclusive of “subjectivity” (yours and everyone else’s), so strictly speaking it would not be possible to separate them from one another (except perhaps in the loosest, Bordwellian sense—“stuff that we agree on” vs. “stuff that we don’t agree on”) . . . if that helps any (???).
@Matt
so strictly speaking it would not be possible to separate them from one another (except perhaps in the loosest, Bordwellian sense—“stuff that we agree on” vs. “stuff that we don’t agree on”) . . .
This is what makes me think of abandoning the use of the term “intersubjectivity,” because the core of what I’m doing is separating highly subjective criteria and principles from criteria and principles that lean heavily in the objective direction.
Sure, but where does your objective criteria come from?
Wouldn’t the choice of objective criteria be subjective?
Isn’t that how Greg disagreed with technical excellence?
@Robert
Wouldn’t the choice of objective criteria be subjective?
Yes and no.
Here’s how the criteria is “objective:” we have a limited number of valid criteria. In another words, we can’t choose the criteria willy-nilly. The range of criteria we have to choose from is relatively objective.
Here’s how the criteria is “subjective:”
1. We may define each criterion is a slightly different way—while staying wihin the same ballpark.
2. We may prioritize and weight the criteria differently. For example, when I judge films, I don’t put a lot of weight on how influential a work of art is. Other people put more weight on this criterion.
Sure, but where does your objective criteria come from?
This is a difficult question to answer, but I’m going to give it a shot. Some thoughts:
>The criteria come from the ideas about art, which in turn come from our culture and society we live in. These ideas have been shaped, formed and evolved over time via contributions from thinkers, artists, etc. The historical narrative of art is another name for this.
If I dug deeper and got more specific, I would mention our understanding of art—what it is, what it “tries to do,” it’s nature, etc.—at least this is the way I’ve attempted to develop process for evaluating art.
“This is what makes me think of abandoning the use of the term “intersubjectivity,” because the core of what I’m doing is separating highly subjective criteria and principles from criteria and principles that lean heavily in the objective direction.”
So . .. you’re looking for criteria that are, um, for lack of a better term, objective-y?
@Matt
So . .. you’re looking for criteria that are, um, for lack of a better term, objective-y?
Yeah, basically—or, criteria and principles that are not so personal and specific to the individual (even that description isn’t very good). I’m not only looking for criteria, but principles as well. This is to create some way to evaluate a film that isn’t just a film that I will personally like or dislike. I don’t want to be trapped by my own prejudices, preferences, etc.
@Matt
I read through your Husserl post (once), and I wanted to comment (before I forget what I just read):
1. If it’s not clear now, my definition of pure subjectivity isn’t at all like (read: as deep) as Husserl’s; I’m not meaning pure subjectivity in that way (at least the way I understand him and you to mean).
2. Husserl’s concept of “homeworld” sounds like an explanation to the existence of intersubjective criteria and principles (e.g., valuing originality or technical excellence, etc.).
3. The Bloom quote gave me more problems than the Husserl section. (Misreadings indicate that a poem belongs in a canon?)
@Greg
Oh, and I would also add that the best criticism, to some of us anyway, could be deemed “invalid” as it comes from sets of assumptions or readings of the film which go beyond what can be objectively supported by the text itself.
It’s invalid in relation to judging whether the film is good or not, but not invalid in the sense that criticism has no worth; I believe criticism like this can and does have value—but I think it’s not appropriate for judging the quality of a film. Now if one isn’t interested in determining if a film is good or not, then what I’m talking about will have little value (and that’s OK, too).
The criteria come from the ideas about art, which in turn come from our culture and society we live in.
I thought Paul Schrader’s canon criteria were interesting – but any criteria limits acceptance of future work.
Criteria are developed by looking backward – subjectivity need be merely open to suggestion.
“my definition of pure subjectivity isn’t at all like (read: as deep) as Husserl’s”
Yeah, I understand that . . . but you seem to have been tinkering with ideas of intersubjectivity for a while now, so I wanted to sketch out for you how you might use that to resolve the objective/subjective quandry that’s at the heart of the thread question.
“The Bloom quote gave me more problems than the Husserl section. (Misreadings indicate that a poem belongs in a canon?)”
Exactly what Bloom means by “misreading” requires some explanation, but what I wanted to put out there is that, contra to the the Bordwellian empiricist, neoformalistic model, where one focuses on “textual processes” and stuff that is assumed to elevate the work to quasi-objective status, Bloom is saying that, essentially, if a work can be reduced to a single (objective-y) interpretation, it’s not a very good work.
…but you seem to have been tinkering with ideas of intersubjectivity for a while now, so I wanted to sketch out for you how you might use that to resolve the objective/subjective quandry that’s at the heart of the thread question.
That’s right; and I appreciate you sharing that.
…contra to the the Bordwellian empiricist, neoformalistic model, where one focuses on “textual processes” and stuff that is assumed to elevate the work to quasi-objective status, Bloom is saying that, essentially, if a work can be reduced to a single (objective-y) interpretation, it’s not a very good work.
That makes sense, but I have several comments to make about that (maybe in another thread).
@Robert
…but any criteria limits acceptance of future work.
How so? This makes sense if you’re referring to definitions of the criteria—which may be too narrow. But I’m not sure there’s a way around this problem except trying to be flexible and open-minded about adjusting one’s definitions.
Well, the reason I put “invalid” in quotes is because I’m assuming, based on Matt’s exaggerated hypothetical, that the term is being used not in regards to the logical validity of the argument per se, as none was presented, but to the idea that the interpretation is based on something on in the film directly. The hypothetical example is easy to attack since it can be assumed to be impossible given the date of Bambi’s release and the Kennedy assassination, but in less extreme forms the act of interpretation still involves adding something to the movie which literally isn’t there but which can be felt in some manner through inference or analogy. So, the act of interpreting is often “invalid” in that sense as what is being discussed goes beyond the objective construct of the movie. One can say that adding something of our own to what is “there” in the work is what allows for the aesthetic response as even formalism requires some sort of leap from the object to the response to have art “mean” anything beyond the decorative. (Although in the case of a more purely formalist “reading” what is being added is more in the sense of an investment of knowledge of art history rather than a interpretation exactly, or so their assumptions seem to run anyway.)
Simply: the act of admitting that you might be wrong
…except trying to be flexible and open-minded about adjusting one’s definitions.
Definitions by definition are exclusionary. Other than the passage of time, I’m not sure how one would adjust their definitions. That is what happens now – new forms are reviled because they don’t fit an acceptable pattern.
I’ve really changed my tune since becoming a MUBIan:
Objective Analysis of Films
Man, how did I miss that one? Must have been in my lurkin’ days. Too bad, it looked fun with a bunch of the old timey big name users chiming in.
heh – that thread might hold the record for cancelled accounts.
Oh my! It took me more than two hours to read through this whole thread! Here are some of my thoughts. As far as the mention of directors like Kubrick go or adding David Lynch with him, I think that films like 2001 and Eraserhead were, according to them, meant for multiple interpretations. Kubrick would not explain what 2001 was about and he wanted the film to be something that the viewer experienced and came up to their own conclusions with. And films like Eraserhead are also fairly ambiguous and liable to multiple interpretations as well, (though Lynch says that somewhere in the Bible, you can find the explanation for the film, I don’t know where though and he doesn’t say either). And Nietzsche said in one of his books, (I can’t remember which one it was), that there is more than one truth, so I guess perhaps there is more than one way to interpret a film. On watching Ebert with Siskel or with his next reviewing partner, Richard Roeper, they were known for saying about the same film “we’re we in the same theater?” Which, for me, implies even with the critics that they don’t agree with each other when it comes to opinions about movies. Look at Siskel once reviewing a film I think that went by the title “Lambada.” He and Ebert couldn’t come to an agreement on that film, even though Siskel was convinced by Ebert to change his review to a thumbs down after a drawn out discussion. And look how, from what I have read recently on MUBI, how Andrew Sarris was a champion for Welles and Pauline Kael said the praise does not go for him making Citizen Kane into a great film. My personal opinion on that film was that you had a very talented young man who did have some experience such as the War of the Worlds radio broadcast, (showing how he could use sound well), his directing of Macbeth in Harlem when he was 19 and the fact that Kane was the third project that Welles finally settled upon after giving up on two previous efforts, one being an adaptation of Heart of Darkness. So, I don’t think he was exactly a neophyte, but he also had competent technicians working around him. I’ll just mention one who was the cinematographer named Greg Tolland who used the same deep focus photography he did on Kane in a previous film directed by John Ford called The Long Voyage Home. Kael said that Welles was not the genius behind Kane, (at least, that’s what I think she said, right?) What I’m saying is even the critics can’t agree, (though some more than others), on the same criteria. And yes, film is definitely an art and a craft and there are definitely films that are more art oriented, going with really avant garde type films by someone like Andy Warhol or to a different extent, directors like Antonioni or Teshigahara, some of their films which I love. But in order to make films, you have to have the money in order to make them and therefore, it is, to some degree, a business. I guess this is changing a bit with the internet and film festivals, but it has been that way for a while. I think there are definitely Hollywood type films that could be called works of art, (Vertigo, Psycho, maybe even Casablanca and more recently films like the Matrix, Blade Runner and Fight Club), and less commercial cinema that could cross into the mainstream, (think Cries and Whispers). I don’t know if I’m totally answering the question or not, but I just thought I’d share my thoughts.
@Greg
But I assume you would agree that there are limits to interpreting the film—meaning, one can read too much into the film or stretch aspects of the film too far—right? Or someone just might have a mistaken idea about a film. But when people say “everything is subjective,” I take them to mean that these things can’t happen. Actually, I suspect that if you really pressed them on this issue, many would agree with what I’m saying. So, my guess is that they hold a relativistic position because they don’t like the idea of “right” and “wrong” opinions.
@Mark
Simply: the act of admitting that you might be wrong
But in the way I’m defining “purely subjective,” I don’t think there is such a thing as a “wrong” opinion.
@Robert
Definitions by definition are exclusionary. Other than the passage of time, I’m not sure how one would adjust their definitions. That is what happens now – new forms are reviled because they don’t fit an acceptable pattern.
Words and terminology are flexible and pretty dynamic. Words don’t have one and only one meaning, right? Imo, if we understand this about words, then we should be able to make adjustments when necessary.
Or to come about this issue from another angle: we know that really ground-breaking art often isn’t accepted precisely because it doesn’t fit into the current definition of good art. If we keep this in mind, shouldn’t this prepare and enable us to be ready to adjust our definitions?
(Btw, I checked out the “Objective Analysis Thread.” Good stuff.)
@Hal
Just to be clear, rejecting a purely subjective approach doesn’t mean that one and only one interpretation of a film exists; to say that some opinions and judgments are not valid, doesn’t mean that only one opinion/judgment is valid. I don’t believe that.
And just because people have differing opinions, doesn’t mean that every opinion, judgment or interpretation is equally valid.
Jazz, whether you and I might agree over whether someone else’s interpretation of a film doesn’t fit our needs might be true, but isn’t really relevant to the experience of the person with whom we are disagreeing. If we somehow can decide that one person’s interpretation is meaningless, not just for us but wholly so, then it forces us to either accept that our own interpretations are equally subject to potential dismissal from others and therefore putting all interpretations back on a similar grounding of meaninglessness as each of us is necessarily limited in our potential response to a film, meaning we can only see what we see and there is always someone else who sees things differently and will be there to deny our perspective, or to assert that we somehow see things clearly where others do not therefore our opinion should hold a special status compared to that of others. Either way the important issue isn’t what some other person may or may not “see” in a film but our own awareness and perception. What others see is out of our control so worrying about it is pointless, other than perhaps in seeking to discuss the differing points of view in hopes of altering the perception of one party or the other.
These limits of perception each of us faces not only can prevent us from seeing things in ways others may, but they shape what we see in a more direct way as well. When watching a movie an auteurist is more likely to see a director’s “signature” and shape their understanding of the film through a specific viewing history, a devoted Lacanian might see the film in terms which fit that area of expertise, someone caught up with Masonic imagery is going to be primed to see that in the movies they watch. Our interests and knowledge shape what we see and what we do not. Once we move beyond talking about what is objectively “there” onscreen we move into interpretive or other perceptual realms where the viewer is “creating” a pattern or set of “meanings” which are not defensible as being present onscreen directly, but exist through analogy, supposition, or other forms of inference. This isn’t to say there can’t be some level of consensus over which interpretations may be “better” or more useful to more people, but even this is bound by our sets of interests regarding art and interpretation, which is why there can be such a disparity between the most popular films and the most critically admired. None of this is to say that we, individually, can or should accept that all arguments or interpretations are of equal merit, such a thing is as improbable as us being able to see all potentialities in the first place, so it isn’t relativism that people are arguing for, where all opinions are equal in their minds, instead it is that art can’t be defined in concrete terms so there is always going to be perceptual differences involved in attending to it and trying to elide that is to miss something of the nature of art.
Now some writers will try and get around this issue by suggesting authorial intent or by making use of biographical detail or by trying to speak only to the objective elements of a work, but even in these circumstances the problem remains that their arguments must be “felt” by those reading them for the work to be experienced as art, and that making those arguments still leaves a gulf between perception and importance. That is to say that claiming the artist intended X or that these certain objective qualities lead one to feel X are not in themselves a useful way to gaining access to a work of art one doesn’t feel anything for or dislikes unless the arguments provoke a perceptual change in the reader allowing them to “see” what they couldn’t before. (There is also the use which may come from better understanding another person’s position and how that may have some bearing on the cultural standing of a work, but that is looking at “art” in a more abstract collective cultural sense rather than in a way which the work might actually develop a personal importance or “meaning”.)
This too goes to the criteria issue. While one can certainly develop or adopt any criteria one chooses to appreciate art, the more concrete the terms the more useless it will be when confronted with something new. One can adopt a credo like Truffaut where he demanded that a film express either the joy or agony of filmmaking where the vagueness of the criteria allows for an openness to all sorts potentialities, but the application then becomes virtually identical to any personal response in that Truffaut will only be able to use the criteria after the fact of experience. It is a criteria built on response, not one which can shape it very effectively other than as a statement of what he isn’t interested in. A more concrete set of criteria which tries to speak to the form or content of the films necessarily is tied to the past rather than the future and will be inherently limited because of that. So criteria are either going to be so personal as to be, for all practical usage, identical with simply relying on one’s own experience or they will be so concrete as to inhibit one’s perception of works which fall outside of the terms. Given the evolving or adaptive nature of art, this is a rather large limit to accept. In both cases, there is also the additional and inescapable limit of the perception of the person adopting the criteria. What one can’t see can’t be measured after all.
This is why I place the importance on refinement. It is by continual refinement of one’s perceptive abilities that one can come to “balance” the interest in “great” art and the personal experience of art. I say this in part because art like any discipline gains meaning and application by study and in part because the interest in “great” art is in itself something of a determinant in how one is going to or wants to view art, so nurturing this attitude requires investing oneself more wholly into the world of art as the ability to appreciate art is tied completely to the individual perception and experience of the art. You can’t get there by using a guide book alone, you need to actually make the journey.
Matt Parks
“you can judge objectively whether a film met agreed upon criteria.”
Well, yes . . . sort of .
As Greg sort of made reference to a number of pages back, even if you agree on criteria, in the case of art, objectively verifiable criteria tend to be too vague or too incidental to be very useful in describing and/or evaluating art. So while we might all agree, for example, with “great cinematography” as a criterion for great films, we’d all be talking about a someone different thing when we were talking about “great cinematography,” so even there one has to take subjectivity into account. The more specific and detailed the criteria become, the more disagreement they will evoke.