Pauline Kael isn't a legend because she was "objective," she's a legend because she engaged with art deeply and unapologetically brought her own perspective to bear.
-
-
Show this thread
-
In my experience, those critics who accrue the false sheen of "objectivity" tend to be white male critics writing primarily for other white men who they feel share their basic perspective, which is treated by some as "objective" because it has cultural dominance, that's all.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
But what about simply... *subjectively* evaluating in the way that this person otherwise describes? Because I feel that judging a work according to its goals and intentions is a pretty valid angle for criticism in general.
-
I am wary that it can be a trap for the arrogant... I recently reviewed a very funny lesbian comedy. In so doing I formed some interesting theories about directorial intent. But then I interviewed the director (yay!)...and was amused to find my theories were almost all wrong.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Oh, totally! Just like when the principal took over Keating's class in Dead Poets Society and has them read the first chapter of their Very Good poetry textbook that says basically: (1/2)
-
"A poem's quality can be determined by answering two questions: 1) What is the objective of the poem? And 2) How artfully is that objective rendered? The first question determines the poem's importance, the second, it's effectiveness."
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.