“For all criticism is based on that equation: KNOWLEDGE + TASTE = MEANINGFUL JUDGMENT. The key word here is meaningful. People who have strong reactions to a work—and most of us do—but don’t possess the wider erudition that can give an opinion heft, are not critics. (This is why a great deal of online reviewing by readers isn’t criticism proper.) Nor are those who have tremendous erudition but lack the taste or temperament that could give their judgment authority in the eyes of other people, people who are not experts. (This is why so many academic scholars are no good at reviewing for mainstream audiences.) …The role of the critic, I repeat, is to mediate intelligently and stylishly between a work and its audience; to educate and edify in an engaging and, preferably, entertaining way. (Critics, more than any other kind of writer, should have a sense of humor.)” – Daniel Mendelsohn

“What the critic has to give is the fruits of looking laggardly, an attention that appears in increasingly lesser quantities today, a long and sustained commitment to coaxing meaning from mute objects. Though we “pay” attention, our attention need not be regulated by the industrial logic of clock time. What the critic has to offer is her own subjectivity, her own careful, glacial experience of a work of art, especially ones that do not immediately break open to the spectator’s gaze…But for now, what I’m calling for is criticism as temporary communion rather than appraisal. A criticism that’s slow, descriptive, subjective, a criticism that values process and experience over judgement and whose language is as intricate as its looking. Our eyes still have to adjust. We have to slow down. We have to lose ourselves.” – Anya Ventura

 

Most people have experiences with cultural criticism through critiques on writings, films, music, dances and many other different forms of art. The questions are: Who are the critics and what are they criticizing for? What are they supposed to do for us? There are certainly a number of different opinions on what cultural criticism is and what a cultural critic does.

The quotes above from Daniel Mendelsohn and Anya Ventura represent two of the different opinions on cultural criticism and critics. They both agree in their view of the critic as a positive force for both an artwork and its audiences. On the contrary, while Mendelsohn sees the critic as someone who edifies and educates its audience and provides judgment, Ventura sees the critic as someone who helps other spectators to focus slow attention toward an artwork. Together, both views shed light on whether the critic’s priority is to provide a judgment on a work, or to evoke a slow, descriptive attention toward work.

Mendelsohn sees the critic’s role in educating and edifying audience by providing a meaningful judgment through one’s critique. As the quote shows, he believes that a critic is someone who possess both knowledge and taste, or sensibility, that either of the scholars or the general spectators have. Therefore, in Mendelsohn’s view, a critic is positioned completely differently from both an artwork and its audience; he is the mediator who stays in between them to provide judgment. In this relationship, the critic’s priority is to judge an artwork.

On the other hand, Anya Ventura sees the critic as someone who assists spectators in slowly and attentively experiencing a work, before rushing to its judgment. Furthermore, she believes criticism to be a “temporary communion” rather than “appraisal.” Although Ventura’s view states critics as people who “offer” their own subjectivity or experience of a work of art to other spectators, and are therefore somewhat superior to the general spectators in experiencing art, they are never teachers or judges of art. Criticism, to Ventura, is the redirection of attention toward work of art, and the experience of work itself, rather than a judgment on a work of art.

Throughout both articles, judgment, or appraisal, emerges as one of the key issues in defining criticism. Mendelsohn puts the highest priority in judgment while Ventura stresses the importance of process and experience over judgment. The idea of judgment further opens up the discussion of the power relationship between the critic and a work’s audience. The idea of judgment is crucial since if one is believed to be in the position of judging something, that person obtains the power to rule something; however, that judgment can also be flawed. As Bruno Latour writes in “Why Has Critique Run Out of Steam?”, some critics write critiques that are at the level of groundless conspiracy theory. Therefore, as in Mendelsohn’s case, if the critic’s main goal is to judge a work of art and to teach its audience, there should be a more discussion on who is qualified to teach and judge, since teaching and judging are more dangerous than simply offering one’s subjectivity to help others better experience a work of art. 

To sum up, Mendelsohn believes that the critic’s job is to provide a meaningful judgment capable through the critics’ expertise and taste in a work of art. Anya Ventura sees the cultural critic and the cultural criticism as something that puts process and experience of a work of art before the judgment of it. It is important, overall, to note that judging something and teaching someone should always be approached carefully, as wrong judgment and teachings would always be highly detrimental to the art of criticism.

1. Anya Ventura, “Slow Criticism: Art in the Age of Post-Judgement,” Temporary Art Review, 15 February 2016, http://temporaryartreview.com/slow-criticism-art-in-the-age-of-post-judgement/
2. Daniel Mendelsohn, “A Critic’s Manifesto,” New Yorker, 28 August 2012, http://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/a-critics-manifesto
3. Bruno Latour, “Why Has Critique Run Out of Steam? From Matters of Fact to Matters of Concern,” Critical Inquiry30 (2004), 225–48.