This wallpaper is dreadful, one of us will have to go
When I was young, and took myself Very Seriously As An Artist, I used to think that art could be objectively good or bad.
I don’t think so anymore. Instead, I think the evaluation of all art is far more subjective than is entirely comfortable.
I mean, obviously, I still think my taste is super excellent… I’ve just come to understand that many people don’t share my excellent taste, no matter how educated or informed it is. They think their contradictory taste is super excellent, and even have good reasons for thinking so. I concede they are correct. And I am also correct. We’re all correct! Because we are all judging based on different premises.
That’s not to say you can’t quantify art in various more or less objective ways. If you set out a list of criteria, you can assess art against it, and end up with assessments that are fairly consistent. This is how art tends to be included in the Academy, for instance, and be part of a formal curriculum.
It’s also supposedly how art critics have a job. They assess new art, like films, against an agreed upon set of criteria, and come to a conclusion about whether it’s good or bad art, worth seeing or not, based on how well the art meets those criteria.
But here’s the thing about judging art that way… the criteria are much less objective than we like to think they are. I’m a fan of plot and characterisation, so I tend to agree with the kinds of formal criteria that end up being used for fiction within universities. Of course, I’ve also had credible academics tell me that any science fiction that meets the criteria isn’t SF because it’s too good. Just stop and think about that for a minute.
To unpack that, there are two biases working in any formal system of judging art, not within every critic, but just as part of the systemic workings:
the biases in what is considered “good” in any given era (that is, who gets to make that choice, who has the power); and
the biases in the people applying the criteria to a piece of art (as in the SF isn’t SF example, but more importantly, when the art is made by a woman or person of colour or someone else who Shouldn’t Make Art… at least in the eyes of the particular critic making the judgement).
Those “objective” criteria we set so much stock by are usually, still, even now, based on the things old white dudes value as art. And despite my love of well-constructed plot and nuanced characterisation, I have come to understand that sometimes there’s more value in breaking the rules than sticking to them, when the rules reaffirm the inequalities that are such a burden for so many real people in the world.
Which is a long-winded way of saying: you can tell me that Venom is a bad film all day long, Anon Commenters. But so far you don’t bring any convincing arguments to show me:
why your criteria for “badness” are better than mine for “passableness” (I’m not even arguing for “goodness” for heaven’s sake), or even what your criteria for badness are, and
why I should agree with the critics’ taste over the tastes of a bunch of feminist-leaning women and queers (ie. fandom), not to mention, of course, my own super-excellent and well-educated taste.
Give me actual reasons, as opposed to “it’s objectively bad” and “tone issues” and maybe we can have a conversation. I’ll start by saying I concede there are pacing issues, and one major hole in Venom’s characterisation (we aren’t given enough of him falling in love with Eddie for his motivation in the climax to be entirely believable). I don’t think those things are enough on their own to make the movie “bad” because there are other things of value that balance them out, like a male lead who emotes all over the place.
In short: I’d appreciate it a lot if you stop parroting film school talking points, and actually think. You probably have good reasons for thinking the film is bad, and I would genuinely like to hear them, even though I’ll probably not agree with you. But repeating the same tired phrases over and over will not advance our understanding of each other or the film in any useful way, and it’s frankly a waste of my time when I could be reading Venom fanfic instead.
ETA: I do also see the irony in arguing about this in regards to a film that cost $100 million to make. That’s potentially a worthwhile conversation to have too. I’m not entirely sure how much capitalism should inflect the value of art as something we make part of our inner landscape, quite apart from the money we spend on it. It’s one of those thorny issues I have never reconciled.
gummygunk
areudirty
dailybridgerton
jacobvanloon
stormborns
izzy806
pixelskylines
germansingergirl
