Critic comes from a Greek word meaning “judge.”[1] It would appear to follow that the practice of criticism could straightforwardly be defined as the practice of judging. However, when faced with the question of the whys, whats, and hows of criticism, critics have arrived at a variety of answers. Some say criticism needs to focus on communion with the subject (“Slow Criticism: Art in the Age of Post-Judgement”); others say that a critic serves as the spectator’s representative (“A Critic’s Job of Work”), while others aim to return to the practice’s etymological origin, defining criticism as the practice of particular judgment. All of these authors feel the need to define what the practice is and what the (proper) critic does. So, what is clear is that not everyone is “doing” criticism correctly (and that there may be no one correct way). After digging a little deeper into a few of these critic’s “mission statements,” we can come to realize that criticism does not just deal in value judgements, but also in values themselves. Daniel Mendelsohn and Dwight Garner each offer a view of the critic that balances skill with philosophical intentions, ultimately defining the practice of critical thought as something that connects us to something larger than ourselves.

In “A Critic’s Manifesto” Daniel Mendelsohn describes the proper critic as part suave intellectual and part pedagogical author. Mendelsohn begins his “Manifesto” describing how he came to love criticism. Reading cultural criticism taught him about a variety of topics, but, most importantly, these works taught him how to think critically. His love for criticism developed into a particular view of the critic: “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.” Importantly, Mendelsohn makes clear that a critic must intervene in a viewer’s relationship with a work “stylishly.”[2] This connotes a sense of nuance and suave. In order to make judgements properly, the critic must maintain a level of taste, as Mendelsohn makes explicit in his pithy formula: “knowledge + taste =meaningful judgment.” In the second part of his definition of the critic, Mendelsohn claims that once a critic intervenes they must “edify.” Criticism is not mere judgment done “stylishly,” but rather a didactic practice that not only teaches its reader something about its subject, but also demonstrates the practice of thinking critically.

Dwight Garner’s “A Critic’s Case for Critics Who Are Actually Critical” puts forth the image of the bona fide critic as someone who balances intellectual dexterity with a commitment to grander ideals. Like Mendelsohn, Garner also mixes personal insight with broader cultural observations. Garner weaves his belief in shrewd and authentic judgment into a larger consideration of the state of criticism today. In a world that contains the Twitter “mutual-admiration society,” Garner calls for sharp judgement, not “petty, ill-tempered Simon Cowell-like put downs” nor shallow, machine-like recommendations.[3] According to Garner, “[Criticism] means making fine distinctions. It means talking about ideas, aesthetics and morality as if these things matter (and they do). It’s at base an act of love. Our critical faculties are what make us human.”[4] Garner parallels Mendelsohn’s “stylish” critical approach, while also connecting the practice of criticism to love and instinct. For Garner, criticism grows out of something fundamentally human.

By characterizing the critic, these writers expose what they value. While their mission statements do not share exact keywords, each declaration points to the importance of skill in order to exercise certain values. In “A Critic’s Manifesto,” Mendelsohn reveals his reverence for critical thinking. For Mendelsohn, “to educate and edify” is a serious endeavor. And, for Garner, the practice of criticism connects us to essential human faculties—to be a critic is to care enough about something to be honest about it. In order to practice criticism, one must be able to “mediate intelligently” and offer “fine distinctions.” Simultaneously, the critic must tap into the role of the educator, the commentator, and the judge. There is a weight to criticism that both of these mission statements reveal—criticism educates, edifies, and connects us to something fundamental about ourselves.

Image Source.

1. Daniel Mendelsohn, “A Critic’s Manifesto,” The New Yorker, August 28, 2012, http://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/a-critics-manifesto.

2. Daniel Mendelsohn, “A Critic’s Manifesto,” The New Yorker.

3. Dwight Garner, “A Critic’s Case for Critics Who Are Actually Critical,” The New York Times Magazine, August 15, 2012, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/19/magazine/a-critic-makes-the-case-for-critics.html?_r=0.

4. Dwight Garner, “A Critic’s Case for Critics Who Are Actually Critical,” The New York Times Magazine.