Yes, yes!! ----> In the comment about Kendrick Lamar’s “wackness”, I spoke about a phenomena I’ve observed that I like to call “chasing the argument”— “where one tries to root their dislike of something/someone in evidence but they’re working backwards from the disdain, resulting in confirmation bias that they then attempt to present as objective.”
“We owe it to the art forms we enjoy to have coherent criticisms of them.”
Couldn’t agree more. Most criticism today AND defense by fans is about the artist and how they move in the world, not their work. Strange, but likely informed by knowing so much more about artists than 40 years ago.
In my writing, I address the need for an informed set of markers that make up a uniquely black aesthetic in music. In my view, if someone is delivering an evaluation of black music, but can’t hear timefeel and kinetic energy, they are deaf to the whole point of the music and their criticism is invalid. It is akin to someone with color blindness judging color swatches. Absurd.
I hope you’ll check out my work as I’m interested in broadening discussion around this as much as possible, and substack seems the place.
I read the title, unlike the wonderfully nuanced essay itself, as synonymizing all criticism with internet rage baiting. In reality, critique should be a balance of both panning and praising. If a critic doesn’t have just as many pieces about work that is sublime, about the joy they find in masterpieces, then that’s all one needs to know about them.
Criticism, when done properly, is an art form and a discipline unto itself. It can open up discussion, with everyone walking away with a richer undertanding of the various perspectives afterwards. Said critics are motivated by their love of things, not their hate of them. The works of prominent professional critics Clem Greenberg, Pauline Kael, Peter Schjeldahl, John Yau, Vinson Cunningham, Amiri Baraka, et al. attest to this. Further, there are many artists whose criticism is far less valuable than their fiction, poetry, painting, or music (and vice versa) because it is truly a different skillset.
If you accept that the genuine and earnest critic is also an artist and that criticism is an art, then they risk exactly what any other artist risks.
As far as the original Kendrick piece, the author themselves labeled it a “hit peice” as it shot up the engagement charts. Very telling re: the motivation behind it.
Nonetheless, i appreciate and value this conversation and your essay as I have noticed a dearth of truly informed commentary on contemporary black music that isn’t steeped in market performance or parasociality. It’s why I do what I do.
I agree with criticism having the ability to be an art-form itself but only in the way that anything done well can be elevated into art. A well written essay can be art, a cooked meal can be art, this is all the philosophical blurring of the human spirit. The title is tongue-in-cheek because it is primarily focused on the writing of bad critics. “You risk nothing” is something that Keaton’s character levies at the critic but by way of being in the genre of rage-baiting criticism, such a writer must also believe the same thing about the art. That is—the writer of the Kendrick “hit-piece” must believe, in some capacity, that his subject has risked less than he has. Thus, “you risk nothing” is not only about the gap between criticism and art, but the reciprocated animosity between *bad* criticism and art—the thrust of my piece. But honestly, I’m a fiction writer, rapper and poet—i choose my titles with a concoction of vibes and thoughtfulness. The title is 3 words, referencing a film scene that is only tangentially relevant to my piece whilst also embodying the rage that i think is endowed in the subject. I don’t think of it much further than that because the essay itself says everything I need it to say. One might even say the title is satirical.
Interesting piece, interesting topic, but, to be petty, I don't like the title - I don't think it matches up with what you are trying to convey, or at least I feel it's begging the question.
Attempting to clarify my point, I would say the critic risks everything, perhaps more than the artist, as their work - their art, - by its very nature, never stands alone.
In this modern age, where, as you put it "hot-take driven culture where we function as fanatics in the coliseum" betrays the mindless mob, mission statement "Are you not entertained", of which I would concur with you, I think it hints at a perhaps deep question.
Is social media and the ubiquitous cheap-seats, comment sections of the internet arena making us meaner, more hateful or is it simply a full-length, mirror mosaic reflecting back who we really are?
Personally, as I muck-boot my way through this flotsam and jetsam, I don't mind the haters, the cancellers, the taker-downers, I just lament that all I see in it, more often than not, is loneliness and ennui. But I'm getting off point...
You proffer, and again I agree, that "a profound lack of inventory on self (one’s own argument/values/point of view) or a lack of knowledge on the subject (the film/musician/writer/artist/social context) is running riot now - going where, I know not.
But as George Carlin said best "scratch any cynic and you will find a disappointed idealist", to which I would submit an Alfred plea, but personally, I am betting - "risk[ing] nothing" - that the modern St. Patrick to drive the snakes out of Webland, will in fact be The Critic.
And so, I submit, with all due respect, an unsolicited re-title for your piece:
appreciate your suggestion, its a great one. i'd almost consider changing it if it wasn't for the fact that i do not agree that anyone who writes about art fundamentally risks more than the artist themselves. ranting about a thing is inherently less risky than making the thing, to a degree in which the critic's risk may as well be summed as nothing and in that sense, i agree with keaton's character in birdman, or rather, i empathise with his position.
success is a complicating word in your adapted title because we could be talking about ebertesque success--bizarre at times but principled or we could be talking about commercial success, which in a contemporary environment is defined by successful engagement. the question of whether the internet is making us meaner or whether its just revelatory is somewhat irrelevant to me personally, especially because meanness is a quantifiable social currency of the internet age. it's philosophical origin isn't as interesting to me as the recognition of how it is governing the practise of critique. i share your lamentation, not because of the loneliness or ennui but because each undue or dishonest take-down of a piece of art mars and callouses it with scrutiny that the art cannot do anything about. the opposite is also true. recently, ign posted a low rating for the invincible tv series finale. the fandom lost their shit but after reading the review, i understood where the writer was coming from. it was a fair criticism, even though i did not wholly agree. ultimately, i believe that the job of a criticism is multi-faceted--entertainment, insight, but also a whetstone to encourage the artist to sharpen. very little of that is offered today.
Yes, yes!! ----> In the comment about Kendrick Lamar’s “wackness”, I spoke about a phenomena I’ve observed that I like to call “chasing the argument”— “where one tries to root their dislike of something/someone in evidence but they’re working backwards from the disdain, resulting in confirmation bias that they then attempt to present as objective.”
“We owe it to the art forms we enjoy to have coherent criticisms of them.”
Couldn’t agree more. Most criticism today AND defense by fans is about the artist and how they move in the world, not their work. Strange, but likely informed by knowing so much more about artists than 40 years ago.
In my writing, I address the need for an informed set of markers that make up a uniquely black aesthetic in music. In my view, if someone is delivering an evaluation of black music, but can’t hear timefeel and kinetic energy, they are deaf to the whole point of the music and their criticism is invalid. It is akin to someone with color blindness judging color swatches. Absurd.
I hope you’ll check out my work as I’m interested in broadening discussion around this as much as possible, and substack seems the place.
my saved tab mounts every day but hopefully i'll get the chance to read at some point! thanks 🙏🏾
I read the title, unlike the wonderfully nuanced essay itself, as synonymizing all criticism with internet rage baiting. In reality, critique should be a balance of both panning and praising. If a critic doesn’t have just as many pieces about work that is sublime, about the joy they find in masterpieces, then that’s all one needs to know about them.
Criticism, when done properly, is an art form and a discipline unto itself. It can open up discussion, with everyone walking away with a richer undertanding of the various perspectives afterwards. Said critics are motivated by their love of things, not their hate of them. The works of prominent professional critics Clem Greenberg, Pauline Kael, Peter Schjeldahl, John Yau, Vinson Cunningham, Amiri Baraka, et al. attest to this. Further, there are many artists whose criticism is far less valuable than their fiction, poetry, painting, or music (and vice versa) because it is truly a different skillset.
If you accept that the genuine and earnest critic is also an artist and that criticism is an art, then they risk exactly what any other artist risks.
As far as the original Kendrick piece, the author themselves labeled it a “hit peice” as it shot up the engagement charts. Very telling re: the motivation behind it.
Nonetheless, i appreciate and value this conversation and your essay as I have noticed a dearth of truly informed commentary on contemporary black music that isn’t steeped in market performance or parasociality. It’s why I do what I do.
I agree with criticism having the ability to be an art-form itself but only in the way that anything done well can be elevated into art. A well written essay can be art, a cooked meal can be art, this is all the philosophical blurring of the human spirit. The title is tongue-in-cheek because it is primarily focused on the writing of bad critics. “You risk nothing” is something that Keaton’s character levies at the critic but by way of being in the genre of rage-baiting criticism, such a writer must also believe the same thing about the art. That is—the writer of the Kendrick “hit-piece” must believe, in some capacity, that his subject has risked less than he has. Thus, “you risk nothing” is not only about the gap between criticism and art, but the reciprocated animosity between *bad* criticism and art—the thrust of my piece. But honestly, I’m a fiction writer, rapper and poet—i choose my titles with a concoction of vibes and thoughtfulness. The title is 3 words, referencing a film scene that is only tangentially relevant to my piece whilst also embodying the rage that i think is endowed in the subject. I don’t think of it much further than that because the essay itself says everything I need it to say. One might even say the title is satirical.
“We owe it to the art forms we enjoy to have coherent criticisms of them.” Couldn’t agree more. Love this!!!👏🏾
thanks for reading, matunda!! 🫶🏾
Thanks for writing this!!
You’re so brilliant! I loved this
thank you for reading, alexis 🫶🏾
Interesting piece, interesting topic, but, to be petty, I don't like the title - I don't think it matches up with what you are trying to convey, or at least I feel it's begging the question.
Attempting to clarify my point, I would say the critic risks everything, perhaps more than the artist, as their work - their art, - by its very nature, never stands alone.
In this modern age, where, as you put it "hot-take driven culture where we function as fanatics in the coliseum" betrays the mindless mob, mission statement "Are you not entertained", of which I would concur with you, I think it hints at a perhaps deep question.
Is social media and the ubiquitous cheap-seats, comment sections of the internet arena making us meaner, more hateful or is it simply a full-length, mirror mosaic reflecting back who we really are?
Personally, as I muck-boot my way through this flotsam and jetsam, I don't mind the haters, the cancellers, the taker-downers, I just lament that all I see in it, more often than not, is loneliness and ennui. But I'm getting off point...
You proffer, and again I agree, that "a profound lack of inventory on self (one’s own argument/values/point of view) or a lack of knowledge on the subject (the film/musician/writer/artist/social context) is running riot now - going where, I know not.
But as George Carlin said best "scratch any cynic and you will find a disappointed idealist", to which I would submit an Alfred plea, but personally, I am betting - "risk[ing] nothing" - that the modern St. Patrick to drive the snakes out of Webland, will in fact be The Critic.
And so, I submit, with all due respect, an unsolicited re-title for your piece:
Everyone's a Critic
But Few Succeed
appreciate your suggestion, its a great one. i'd almost consider changing it if it wasn't for the fact that i do not agree that anyone who writes about art fundamentally risks more than the artist themselves. ranting about a thing is inherently less risky than making the thing, to a degree in which the critic's risk may as well be summed as nothing and in that sense, i agree with keaton's character in birdman, or rather, i empathise with his position.
success is a complicating word in your adapted title because we could be talking about ebertesque success--bizarre at times but principled or we could be talking about commercial success, which in a contemporary environment is defined by successful engagement. the question of whether the internet is making us meaner or whether its just revelatory is somewhat irrelevant to me personally, especially because meanness is a quantifiable social currency of the internet age. it's philosophical origin isn't as interesting to me as the recognition of how it is governing the practise of critique. i share your lamentation, not because of the loneliness or ennui but because each undue or dishonest take-down of a piece of art mars and callouses it with scrutiny that the art cannot do anything about. the opposite is also true. recently, ign posted a low rating for the invincible tv series finale. the fandom lost their shit but after reading the review, i understood where the writer was coming from. it was a fair criticism, even though i did not wholly agree. ultimately, i believe that the job of a criticism is multi-faceted--entertainment, insight, but also a whetstone to encourage the artist to sharpen. very little of that is offered today.