My general framework for critique of basically every form of art can be summarized with two questions:
“What were they trying to do?”
“How well did they do it?”
If you set out to make something that is just trying to be fun without challenging anything and you nailed it, 10/10.
If you’re trying to make something that really has something to say, but it fell short, I’m going to be a lot more critical.
I don’t think it’s any easier to achieve any particular version of this. It’s not any easier to make good art that’s just supposed to be fun than it is to make good art that takes itself seriously. The bar is always the same. I guess it could even be shortened to one question:
“How well did this artwork achieve what it set out to do?”
I think a poorly executed movie with something big to say can be better than a well executed movie with nothing to say. That’s why The Last Jedi is better than the Force Awakens
Some art is good precisely because of a fundamental clash between intention and result. Tommy Wiseau’s “The Room” earnestly tries to be a drama, fails spectacularly, and thus becomes an excellent comedy and a fascinating exploration of Wiseau’s psyche. A tragic and undeserved 0/10 by your framework.
Wiseau’s later work tries and fails to replicate his debut’s cult success with intention. It’s all much worse than The Room, but 5/10 in your framework.
An example would help… But my first apprehension is that critique is most valuable when based purely on one’s own interpretation, rather than having the artist tell you outright what they intended.
Like having an author outright tell you the theme of a story, rather than exploring a theme with such clarity that it either comes across or leads to new thoughts in the reader. Something is lost if the creator spikes that football out in the open.
My general framework for critique of basically every form of art can be summarized with two questions:
“What were they trying to do?”
“How well did they do it?”
If you set out to make something that is just trying to be fun without challenging anything and you nailed it, 10/10.
If you’re trying to make something that really has something to say, but it fell short, I’m going to be a lot more critical.
I don’t think it’s any easier to achieve any particular version of this. It’s not any easier to make good art that’s just supposed to be fun than it is to make good art that takes itself seriously. The bar is always the same. I guess it could even be shortened to one question:
“How well did this artwork achieve what it set out to do?”
I think a poorly executed movie with something big to say can be better than a well executed movie with nothing to say. That’s why The Last Jedi is better than the Force Awakens
Some art is good precisely because of a fundamental clash between intention and result. Tommy Wiseau’s “The Room” earnestly tries to be a drama, fails spectacularly, and thus becomes an excellent comedy and a fascinating exploration of Wiseau’s psyche. A tragic and undeserved 0/10 by your framework.
Wiseau’s later work tries and fails to replicate his debut’s cult success with intention. It’s all much worse than The Room, but 5/10 in your framework.
“Art is the study of choice” is a phrase that has had me locked in ever since I heard it
🤔 but there are a lot of great works of art that had no intention of it.
An example would help… But my first apprehension is that critique is most valuable when based purely on one’s own interpretation, rather than having the artist tell you outright what they intended.
Like having an author outright tell you the theme of a story, rather than exploring a theme with such clarity that it either comes across or leads to new thoughts in the reader. Something is lost if the creator spikes that football out in the open.