As we all know, we got into a pretty in-depth debate last class about what is good art and what isn't, and what qualifies someone to make such a judgement. It seemed there was a general consensus that at least some degree of experience with the subject matter is necessary. This theory brought to my attention something I was once taught. I took a screenwriting class my senior year, and my professor constantly told us that, "the person most qualified to write a film is someone who's never seen one." He applied this to criticism as well. Anywho, I was just curious what people thought of this angle. Can someone without a hint of experience expertly criticize something? Or does their lack of influence by the cultural and social norms make them the best candidate to judge and create? Just wanted to throw that out there, stir the pot and what not.
Excellent question, Natalie! I would be careful about drawing easy parallels between production (creation) and criticism -- one could easily argue (as Kant does in today's reading) that there is a big difference between the act of creating a work, by an artist, and the act of interpreting/understanding the work, by an audience member. The answer to this question probably depends on what you think the real function of art is in society -- which is something that's definitely also open to debate.
ReplyDeleteI won't tell you my opinion, because I'd like to see a good debate here as well ...