Better Living Through Criticism

Better Living Through Criticism Plot Summary

Introduction

Criticism, far from being a negative or destructive force, is essential to our engagement with art and with the world. In an age characterized by information overload and polarized discourse, the capacity for thoughtful, nuanced judgment has never been more vital. Criticism is not merely about expressing opinions or determining whether something is "good" or "bad," but rather about the process of thinking itself—a mode of attention that shapes how we experience art, literature, film, and other cultural forms. The critical faculty exists within each of us, but few take the time to examine how it functions or how it might be refined. Through a series of investigations into the history of criticism, the nature of aesthetic experience, and the changing conditions of cultural consumption, we discover that criticism is both deeply personal and inherently social. It operates at the boundary between subjective response and universal aspiration, between immediate sensation and intellectual reflection. By understanding criticism as an art form in its own right—one that requires rigor, imagination, and moral seriousness—we can transform our encounters with culture from passive consumption into active engagement, and perhaps even change our lives.

Chapter 1: The Critic as Both Artist and Cultural Mediator

Criticism occupies a paradoxical position in our cultural landscape. Often dismissed as parasitic or secondary to "real" creative work, criticism is actually a primary, generative force that gives meaning and context to the art it examines. The critic is not merely a failed artist, as popular wisdom might suggest, but rather an artist working in a different medium—that of judgment, analysis, and interpretation. This dual identity—the critic as both artist and mediator—has deep historical roots. Throughout the centuries, many significant cultural figures have moved fluidly between criticism and creation. Poets like Charles Baudelaire and John Ashbery wrote brilliantly about painting; composers like Hector Berlioz produced insightful music criticism; and directors of the French New Wave began as film critics before reinventing cinema itself. These examples demonstrate not a division between creation and criticism but their fundamental interconnection. The critic's work resembles artistic creation in its demand for originality, vision, and technical skill. A truly compelling piece of criticism transforms our understanding of its subject through imaginative leaps and rhetorical craftsmanship. The best critics develop distinctive voices and perspectives that shape cultural discourse as powerfully as the works they analyze. Criticism, in this view, is not secondary or parasitic but rather the essential companion to artistic creation, completing the circuit between maker and audience. At the same time, critics serve as cultural mediators, helping audiences navigate an increasingly complex landscape of artistic production. They establish connections between past and present, between different media and traditions, and between specialized knowledge and public discourse. This mediating function is particularly crucial in an age of excess, when we face a bewildering array of cultural options and insufficient time to engage with them all. Critics help us determine not just what to value but how to value it—what modes of attention particular works reward and what forms of pleasure they offer. Yet this essential cultural role often meets with resistance. Artists frequently view critics with suspicion, and audiences sometimes resent what they perceive as elitist gatekeeping. The anxiety provoked by criticism speaks to its power—its capacity to shape reputation, influence reception, and establish frameworks for understanding. By acknowledging criticism as both an art form and a necessary cultural function, we can better appreciate its creative dimensions while recognizing its essential role in maintaining a vibrant cultural ecosystem.

Chapter 2: The Subjective Universal: Aesthetic Experience as Personal and Shared

The fundamental paradox at the heart of aesthetic experience is that it feels simultaneously intensely personal and inherently universal. When we encounter a work of art that moves us deeply—whether a poem, a painting, a film, or a piece of music—we experience something that seems uniquely our own while simultaneously sensing that others ought to share our response. This tension between the subjective nature of taste and its aspiration to universality forms the core problem of criticism. Immanuel Kant recognized this paradox in his Critique of Judgment, where he introduced the concept of "subjective universality." According to Kant, when we judge something beautiful, we do not merely report a private preference but make a claim that demands agreement from others. Unlike judgments about what is merely pleasurable, which we acknowledge may vary from person to person, judgments of beauty carry an implicit assertion that everyone should concur. This is why disagreements about aesthetic matters feel different from disagreements about, say, favorite foods or preferred temperatures. Yet modern sensibilities resist the notion that aesthetic judgments can or should be universal. We celebrate diversity of taste and perspective, and we recognize that cultural differences, personal histories, and social positions inevitably shape our responses to art. The democratic ethos of contemporary culture seems fundamentally at odds with any claim to universal validity in matters of taste. When Edmund Burke confidently asserted in the eighteenth century that any beautiful object shown to a hundred people would immediately receive universal acclaim, he expressed a certainty that now appears not just naive but potentially oppressive. This skepticism about universal standards, however, creates its own problems. If aesthetic judgments are merely personal preferences or cultural constructs, then criticism becomes either irrelevant or reduced to a form of consumer guidance or identity politics. The critic can only report on personal reactions or analyze the social conditions that produce certain kinds of art and response, but cannot make meaningful claims about quality, significance, or value that extend beyond particular communities. The challenge for contemporary criticism is to navigate between these extremes—to acknowledge the deeply personal nature of aesthetic experience while preserving the possibility of meaningful dialogue across differences. This requires recognizing that subjective responses, though they cannot be proven right or wrong, can nonetheless be deepened, refined, and shared through careful articulation and exchange. The critic's task is not to legislate universal standards of taste but to create points of connection between individual experiences and broader human concerns. These connections become particularly evident in powerful aesthetic encounters. When Marina Abramović sat motionless at the Museum of Modern Art while visitors wept before her, or when Rainer Maria Rilke confronted an archaic Greek torso and heard the command "You must change your life," they experienced something that was both intensely personal and capable of resonating across boundaries of time, culture, and individual disposition. Criticism helps us understand such moments not by reducing them to universal formulas but by showing how particular experiences can open onto shared human questions and concerns.

Chapter 3: Beyond Form and Content: Navigating Critical Contradictions

One of the most persistent and ultimately unproductive distinctions in criticism is the division between form and content—between how a work is constructed and what it supposedly means or contains. This division underlies many critical approaches, from formalism (which privileges aesthetic structure over meaning) to various ideological methods (which treat formal elements as vehicles for social or political content). Yet this binary repeatedly proves inadequate to the complexity of aesthetic experience. The formalist perspective encourages us to focus on the specific qualities that make each art form unique: the musical properties of poetry, the compositional elements of painting, the editing patterns of film. Formalism insists that art's value lies in its distinctiveness as an aesthetic experience rather than in any message it might convey. At its most extreme, this view suggests that interpretation—the extraction of meaning from form—constitutes a kind of violation, replacing the immediate power of aesthetic experience with intellectual abstractions. Yet pure formalism quickly reveals its limitations. Even the most seemingly abstract or self-referential works of art exist within historical and social contexts that inevitably shape both their creation and our reception of them. Form itself carries cultural, political, and philosophical implications. The clean lines of modernist architecture, for instance, embody specific ideas about efficiency, transparency, and progress that cannot be separated from their aesthetic impact. Similarly, the fragmented structures of experimental fiction reflect particular understandings of consciousness and experience. Approaches that privilege content over form face reciprocal problems. They risk treating aesthetic objects as mere containers for ideas or ideologies, losing sight of the specific ways that artistic forms produce meaning and pleasure. A politically progressive film with conventional aesthetics may ultimately be less challenging or transformative than a formally innovative work with ambiguous politics. The meaning of art emerges not just from what it represents but from how that representation unfolds in time and space, engaging our senses and cognition in complex ways. The false choice between form and content reflects a deeper tension within criticism between seemingly opposed values: between attention to specificity and recognition of broader patterns, between immediate sensory engagement and intellectual reflection, between the autonomy of art and its embeddedness in history and society. Rather than resolving these tensions through theoretical formulas, effective criticism navigates them through careful attention to particular cases, showing how form and content interact in specific works to produce complex effects. This approach requires what Keats called "negative capability"—the capacity to remain in "uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason." It means resisting the temptation to reduce aesthetic experiences to stable meanings or judgments, while still exercising the critical faculty that helps us distinguish, evaluate, and interpret. The critic's task is not to resolve contradictions but to inhabit them productively, creating a discourse that acknowledges both the immediacy of aesthetic experience and the complexity of its cultural, historical, and philosophical dimensions.

Chapter 4: The Professional Paradox: Authority, Accessibility and Expert Status

The figure of the professional critic occupies an inherently contradictory position in cultural life. On one hand, the critic claims special authority based on expertise, training, and sustained engagement with particular art forms. On the other hand, criticism depends on a fundamental commonality of experience—the critic is simply a person encountering a work of art, just like any other audience member. This tension between expert status and common experience creates a professional paradox that every critic must negotiate. Critics have historically justified their authority in various ways. Some have emphasized specialized knowledge—a deep familiarity with artistic traditions, technical vocabularies, and relevant historical contexts. Others have stressed refined sensibility—a heightened receptivity to aesthetic qualities developed through extensive exposure and careful attention. Still others have claimed moral or spiritual insight, presenting criticism as a guide to living well through art. Each of these justifications carries its own problems and limitations, not least the risk of elitism and disconnection from ordinary experience. The democratization of cultural production and consumption in the digital age has intensified these contradictions. Traditional gatekeepers have lost much of their institutional power, while new platforms have emerged for non-professional critics and enthusiasts to share judgments and interpretations. Social media, customer review systems, and recommendation algorithms now perform many functions historically assigned to professional critics. Anyone can publicly evaluate books, films, music, or restaurants, often reaching larger audiences than established critics in traditional publications. This shift prompts fundamental questions about the nature and purpose of criticism. If everyone is a critic, what distinguishes professional criticism from everyday judgment? If authority no longer derives from institutional position, how is expertise to be recognized and valued? These questions become particularly acute as traditional publishing models struggle to sustain professional criticism economically. Critics find themselves caught between asserting their distinctive value and acknowledging the validity of more democratic modes of cultural response. The most productive response to this paradox may be to reconceive criticism less as a matter of authority and more as a form of attention. What distinguishes the critic is not superior judgment but rather a commitment to sustained, careful engagement with aesthetic objects and experiences. The critic articulates responses that might otherwise remain inchoate, connecting immediate impressions to broader contexts and considerations. This approach preserves the critic's distinctive role while rejecting claims to definitive judgment or privileged insight. Professional criticism at its best exemplifies both expertise and openness, specialized knowledge and common experience. It demonstrates how informed, thoughtful attention can deepen and enrich aesthetic encounters without claiming exclusive access to their meanings or values. In this way, criticism navigates between the competing imperatives of authority and accessibility, offering not final verdicts but rather models of engaged, articulate response that invite others to develop their own critical faculties.

Chapter 5: Technology and Tradition: Criticism in the Digital Era

The digital transformation of media has profoundly altered the ecosystem in which criticism operates. Traditional print publications have declined as online platforms proliferate, changing not only where criticism appears but also its forms, functions, and economic foundations. These shifts have generated both apocalyptic pronouncements about the death of criticism and utopian visions of democratized cultural conversation. The reality is more complex, revealing both continuities with critical traditions and genuine innovations in critical practice. Digital technology has dramatically expanded access to critical discourse. Barriers to entry have fallen, allowing voices previously excluded from mainstream publications to find audiences. Specialized communities have formed around particular interests and aesthetics, developing critical vocabularies and standards suited to their concerns. The global reach of digital platforms enables cross-cultural exchange and exposure to diverse perspectives. These developments potentially enrich criticism by broadening its scope and challenging entrenched assumptions about what deserves serious attention. At the same time, digital media environments present significant challenges. The economics of online publishing often prioritize speed and volume over depth and care, while algorithmic distribution systems reward provocative or affirming content rather than nuanced analysis. The fragmentation of cultural discourse into niche communities can inhibit meaningful exchange across differences. Data-driven approaches to cultural judgment—aggregated ratings, recommendation algorithms, engagement metrics—risk displacing more qualitative forms of evaluation focused on aesthetic and intellectual qualities that resist quantification. Perhaps most fundamentally, digital media transform the temporality of criticism. Traditional criticism operated within a distinct timeframe—after a work's creation but before its wide reception, occupying a privileged middle space where it could shape understanding and evaluation. Digital criticism exists in a more compressed and chaotic temporal field, where judgment and reception occur simultaneously and continuously. Critics no longer have the luxury of contemplative distance, nor can they assume the role of initial interpreters for a waiting public. Despite these challenges, core critical functions remain essential in the digital era. The need for thoughtful selection from overwhelming abundance may be greater than ever, as is the need for contextual understanding in an environment where works circulate detached from their origins. The critic's role as a connector of traditions and innovations takes on renewed importance when algorithms tend to reinforce existing preferences rather than expanding horizons. And the critic's attention to quality and significance provides a necessary counterweight to purely quantitative measures of cultural value. The most promising critical practices in the digital age neither cling nostalgically to traditional forms nor uncritically embrace technological determinism. Instead, they adapt enduring critical values—attentiveness, contextualization, discrimination, passionate engagement—to new media environments, developing forms appropriate to digital platforms while maintaining connections to critical traditions. They recognize that technology changes not just how criticism is produced and distributed but also what it means to encounter and evaluate cultural objects in a networked world.

Chapter 6: How to Be Wrong: The Essential Fallibility of the Critical Voice

The central paradox of criticism is that it must assert judgments while acknowledging their inevitable limitations. Critics make claims about quality, meaning, and significance that implicitly or explicitly demand agreement, yet these claims remain fundamentally contestable. Every critical judgment, no matter how carefully considered or eloquently expressed, can be challenged, revised, or overturned—by new evidence, changing perspectives, or the simple passage of time. The best criticism recognizes this essential fallibility not as a weakness to be overcome but as a constitutive feature of the critical enterprise. The history of criticism is littered with spectacular misjudgments. Reviewers dismissed Moby-Dick upon its publication. Critics mocked the Impressionists when they first exhibited. Jazz and rock music were initially condemned as vulgar noise by cultural authorities. These errors suggest not just individual failures but structural limitations in how criticism operates. Critics are inevitably constrained by their historical moment, their cultural position, and their aesthetic assumptions. Even the most insightful and open-minded critic cannot fully transcend these limitations. Time appears to be the great falsifier of critical judgment. Works initially praised often fade into obscurity, while those rejected or ignored emerge as canonical masterpieces. Howard Hawks's Bringing Up Baby, now considered one of the greatest American comedies, received mediocre reviews upon its release in 1938. The New York Times critic complained that it was "breathless, senseless, and terribly, terribly fatiguing," full of predictable gags that anyone familiar with film comedy would find tiresome. This judgment, so confidently wrong in retrospect, reminds us how difficult it is to recognize innovation in the moment of its emergence. Yet this temporal dimension of criticism reveals not just its fallibility but also its ongoing necessity. Critics engage with works as they appear, without the benefit of historical distance or cultural consensus. They make provisional judgments that contribute to the complex process through which artistic value is negotiated and established. When a critic praises a new artist or challenges a revered classic, they participate in a conversation that extends beyond individual taste to encompass broader questions about cultural value and meaning. The best critics approach this conversation with what Roland Barthes called "a certain systematic exercise of caution." They balance conviction with humility, making strong claims while recognizing their contingency. They acknowledge competing perspectives and alternative frameworks for judgment. They revise their views in light of new evidence or persuasive counterarguments. Above all, they treat criticism as an ongoing inquiry rather than a series of definitive pronouncements. This approach reframes critical fallibility from a weakness into a strength. By embracing the provisional nature of judgment, criticism becomes more exploratory, more dialogic, and ultimately more honest. It models a form of intellectual engagement that balances conviction with openness, certainty with doubt. In an age often characterized by entrenched positions and algorithmic reinforcement of existing preferences, this capacity for thoughtful reconsideration may be criticism's most valuable contribution to cultural and civic life.

Chapter 7: Finding Value in a World of Judgment

How do we determine what matters in a culture of overwhelming abundance and constant evaluation? This question lies at the heart of critical practice, connecting aesthetic judgments to broader questions about meaning, attention, and human flourishing. While criticism inevitably involves discrimination—distinguishing the significant from the trivial, the excellent from the mediocre—its deepest purpose is not elimination but illumination. Critics help us see more clearly, feel more deeply, and think more carefully about the objects and experiences that shape our lives. The search for value inevitably confronts us with competing frameworks and criteria. Should we privilege innovation or tradition, complexity or accessibility, moral insight or formal beauty? Different critical approaches emphasize different values, reflecting diverse conceptions of art's purpose and meaning. Some critics focus on aesthetic autonomy, evaluating works primarily on their own terms. Others emphasize cultural context, examining how works reflect and respond to social and historical conditions. Still others prioritize personal response, treating subjective experience as the primary ground of judgment. These diverse approaches need not be seen as mutually exclusive. Each captures something important about how art functions in human life, and each has limitations when taken in isolation. The most compelling criticism moves fluidly between different evaluative frameworks, recognizing that works of art operate simultaneously on multiple levels—as formal constructions, as cultural expressions, as sources of pleasure and insight, as catalysts for thought and feeling. Value emerges not from the rigid application of predetermined criteria but from attentive engagement with specific works in all their complexity. This multidimensional approach to value becomes particularly important in a media environment characterized by algorithmic recommendation and frictionless consumption. Digital platforms encourage us to treat cultural objects as interchangeable units of entertainment, sorted according to genre markers and preference profiles. Critical discourse counters this tendency by attending to specificities that algorithms cannot capture—the distinctive qualities that make particular works meaningful beyond their capacity to satisfy predefined tastes or preferences. Critics also help us navigate between the competing imperatives of preservation and innovation. Every cultural tradition faces the challenge of balancing continuity with renewal, maintaining connections to the past while remaining open to new forms and voices. The critic serves as a mediator in this process, bringing historical awareness to contemporary works while finding fresh relevance in established classics. This mediating function is especially vital in periods of rapid cultural change, when both uncritical nostalgia and wholesale rejection of tradition threaten to impoverish cultural life. Perhaps most fundamentally, criticism reminds us that the capacity for judgment is an essential human faculty, central to how we orient ourselves in the world. To judge is to assert that distinctions matter—that some experiences are more valuable than others, that attention should be directed with care and purpose. In exercising this faculty, we do not merely consume culture but actively participate in it, transforming passive reception into engaged response. The critic models this engaged response, showing how attention, reflection, and articulation can deepen our relationship with art and with the world it helps us perceive and understand.

Summary

At its core, criticism is neither a destructive nor a parasitic activity but rather a fundamental expression of human engagement with art and with the world. The critical faculty—our capacity to discern, evaluate, and articulate judgments—emerges from the same wellspring as artistic creation itself. Both criticism and art arise from our need to make sense of experience, to discover patterns and meanings, and to communicate these discoveries to others. When practiced with integrity and imagination, criticism becomes not merely a reaction to art but a creative act in its own right, generating insights that transform how we see and feel. This understanding of criticism has profound implications for how we approach culture in an age of information overload and algorithmic curation. Rather than passively consuming whatever appears in our feeds or following recommendations generated from our previous choices, the critical impulse encourages us to question, to compare, to seek out the unexpected and challenging. It reminds us that aesthetic experiences are not merely pleasant diversions but opportunities for growth and revelation. By cultivating our critical faculties—learning to look more carefully, listen more attentively, and think more precisely about what we encounter—we enhance not only our appreciation of art but our engagement with life itself. The critic's true role is not to tell us what to think but to show us how thinking deepens pleasure and how pleasure can lead to wisdom.

About Author

Loading...

A.O. Scott

Read more