The Philosophy of Criticism

[french frank]

Machines don't "hear", they have no idea whether what's going through the wires is Beethoven or Les Dawson.

No, of course the machines don't "hear". I was speculating over whether anyone heard the music in the same way as the sensitive modern equipment now relays it to people's ears through their loudspeakers.

[Serial_Apologist]

No, of course the machines don't "hear". I was speculating over whether anyone heard the music in the same way as the sensitive modern equipment now relays it to people's ears through their loudspeakers.

Phew - big subject, this! I have been asked in the past to review CDs I did not like, and refused, in the belief that my coloured opinions would or could be unfair to the artists concerned - especially jazz musicians, who are dealt a raw deal publicitywise. I've said to commissioning editors, "Give the job to so-and-so, it's more his cup of Rosie Lea". After all, as some ask, what is criticism for if the critic has no ability in the area of endeavour s/he is being asked to assess? At the same time while GBS's dictum to the effect, "If you can, do; if not, teach" is unfair, the critic needs to be modest enough to believe he or she has the ability or motivation, at least, to elucidate what the artist may not be able or want to put into words. And try and place it in some kind of context, according to one's understanding. To what extent is an abrupt change of direction in an artist's output inherent in his or her work up to that point or circumstantial? What changed their circumstances and how much and in what ways were other artists affected? When seeking reliable guides for one's learning one seeks out people whose judgement seems most relevant to the subject in hand. As with others on the forum initial feelings about a new work are my motivation for finding out more about a particular work. In this respect Jayne would be the best guide on for instance Bruckner: partly because I trust her enough to make me think my non-appreciation of Bruckner signifies some lack in me I probably need to correct; partly because I am completely at one with her when it comes to Bartok, one of my favourite composers. For other music it might be somebody else - no slur on jayne!

[kernelbogey]

Thinking about this and ideas of criticism asserting what is 'right' or 'wrong', it occurred to me that the critic will be judging and writing based on a set of values. For the professional critic judging new fiction or recordings in a publication, those values might be to do with value-for-money judgements for their readers, and evaluations against alternatives. The Leavisite literary critic has established a set of criteria (values) against which literature is to be judged. Values take the notion of purely personal preference forward to an intellectually established set of criteria against which judgements are made.

[Ein Heldenleben]

Thinking about this and ideas of criticism asserting what is 'right' or 'wrong', it occurred to me that the critic will be judging and writing based on a set of values. For the professional critic judging new fiction or recordings in a publication, those values might be to do with value-for-money judgements for their readers, and evaluations against alternatives. The Leavisite literary critic has established a set of criteria (values) against which literature is to be judged. Values take the notion of purely personal preference forward to an intellectually established set of criteria against which judgements are made.

In fact “Leavisite “ literary criticism is much more about exploring a work with very close attention to the text rather than ticking off against a pre-established list of criteria . There’s a celebrated essay by Leavis that was a response to an article that had tried to pin down Leavis’s underlying literary criteria written by philosopher / critic Rene Wellek . In this essay in FRL pretty much sets out how he does proceed. Towards the end of his career , I suspect when he was beginning to suffer intellectual impairment , he made much about a work being for “life” - a sub- Lawrentian notion so vague as to be almost indefinable . How is The Waste Land - Leavis was one of the first to take the work seriously- for life? Even in Lawrence’s work there are some extraordinarily dark undercurrents Leavis tended to gloss over.
However , despite his robust defence , all literary critical methods from belle-lettrism to post-structualism have a set of values underpinning them . The most obvious of which is shown by how very few literary critics spend their time looking at anything other than classic texts. Nadine Dorries can rest easy…..Despite all the schools and infighting it’s amazing how much consensus there is over the canon.

[kernelbogey]

In fact “Leavisite “ literary criticism is much more about exploring a work with very close attention to the text rather than ticking off against a pre-established list of criteria....

Yes - but wasn't there also a Leavisite canon? Some authors were in and some were definitely out.

[french frank]

In fact “Leavisite “ literary criticism is much more about exploring a work with very close attention to the text rather than ticking off against a pre-established list of criteria .

Which sounds exactly like my idea of what objective "criticism" is. Noticing details that wouldn't be noticed in a casual reading, drawing links between them such as 'the ending is prefigured on page 1 and taken up again on page …'

But music is different: there's more than the composition (the text). There's the performance (and all its related aspects) and in recordings there's the audio reproduction. How far is the 'close attention to the text' criterion a limit on the other aspects? Once one is talking about music, how far is there 'canonical' agreement as to what 'music' provides that literature doesn't (and, one could ask, vice versa but it's better to confine the area of discussion). And once one reaches the other aspects to consider, to what extent are they purely objective or do they, at base, depend on some form of personal preference?

[kernelbogey]

....And once one reaches the other aspects to consider, to what extent are they purely objective or do they, at base, depend on some form of personal preference?

I believe that a 'personal preference' for Bach keyboard works to be played on a harpsichord might be the expression of a value held by an individual that they considered to extend beyond their personal preferences - something like a 'truth'. Ditto an exclusive preference for HIPP performance. (And some individuals might promulgate that value as a 'you should equally value...'.)

[french frank]

I believe that a 'personal preference' for Bach keyboard works to be played on a harpsichord might be the expression of a value held by an individual that they considered to extend beyond their personal preferences - something like a 'truth'. Ditto an exclusive preference for HIPP performance. (And some individuals might promulgate that value as a 'you should equally value...'.)

But isn't that 'truth' more of a 'belief'? If Bach is played on a harpsichord it is indisputably being played on an instrument which sounds closer to what Bach and his listeners would have heard. But isn't that where the truth ends (devil's advocate here)? Why is it therefore to be preferred? And if the advanced audio technology allows superlative sound (which I query again how close that would be to what people in reality heard in less than perfect conditions and on varying instruments), why not the advanced technology of the concert grand? I accept that there is a value, belief or truth behind the choices, but does that make them better? In the end, isn't it just both sides saying "This is what I want to hear"?

HIPP is what it is and if you don't like it no one's forcing you to listen. It's not particularly interesting to hear the 'criticism' of individuals which amounts to no more than "It just sounds awful, plinky-plonk stuff', adding nothing that matters to the sum of human knowledge.

[Ein Heldenleben]

Yes - but wasn't there also a Leavisite canon? Some authors were in and some were definitely out.

Yes and the Leavis “canon “ was a good deal more narrow than most others . In the Great Tradition he “canonises “ just a few novelists . He slightly skates over Austen (his wife’s speciality ) and also then includes , IIRC , Eliot , James , Lawrence and Conrad .The Great Tradition in my view , ludicrously excluded Dickens (except bizarrely Hard Times - a pretty thin work ). Leavis later massively reversed ferret and lauded Dickens -“ for Life “ etc. I’m caricaturing things a bit - his Dickens The Novelist is an excellent book.
So the canon in Leavis’s case was a bit of a movable feast. It had the massive advantage from a 60’s Cambridge undergraduate point of view of reducing the reading list to twenty or so novels. But excluding Dickens , Joyce , Hardy , I mean really…
When I went to (not Cambridge ) Uni I was shot through with sub -Leavisite assumptions and I got pretty short shrift. It took me till my mid fifties to read more or less the entire body of 19th /20th Century English fiction that forms the wider novelistic canon - Austen , The Brontes, Gaskell , Thackeray , Hardy , Dickens and the chosen few. Now I’m not a canon fan . I actually like all the frivolous stuff (e.g. Waugh) that Leavis despised.

But the canon ( to use the Bloom ) phrase still persists - went through the Oxford (Balliol )reading list the other day and despite what you might read in the papers it’s all still there Anglo Saxon , Chaucer , Shakespeare , even Tennyson and Browning. I don’t disagree with that - well actually yes I do . I would pretty much forget all 19th Century poetry from Wordworth’s decline until Hardy (except Arnold and Gerard Manley Hopkins) . And that really is a prejudiced value judgment..

[Bryn]

I believe that a 'personal preference' for Bach keyboard works to be played on a harpsichord might be the expression of a value held by an individual that they considered to extend beyond their personal preferences - something like a 'truth'. Ditto an exclusive preference for HIPP performance. (And some individuals might promulgate that value as a 'you should equally value...'.)

Harpsichord? So what's wrong with Bach's favoured clavichord?

[Ein Heldenleben]

Which sounds exactly like my idea of what objective "criticism" is. Noticing details that wouldn't be noticed in a casual reading, drawing links between them such as 'the ending is prefigured on page 1 and taken up again on page …'

But music is different: there's more than the composition (the text). There's the performance (and all its related aspects) and in recordings there's the audio reproduction. How far is the 'close attention to the text' criterion a limit on the other aspects? Once one is talking about music, how far is there 'canonical' agreement as to what 'music' provides that literature doesn't (and, one could ask, vice versa but it's better to confine the area of discussion). And once one reaches the other aspects to consider, to what extent are they purely objective or do they, at base, depend on some form of personal preference?

A very good point re performance - but there is no such thing as “objective “criticism - there’s barely objective science . There is objective logic though (I think) . All human thought is shot through with assumptions, value judgments , prejudices , irrationality but also a degree of objectivity hopefully. What you are delineating isn’t practical criticism or the close reading you get in Eng Lit - it’s description. In practical criticism you’d try and show how these devices convey an effect . You then might comment on whether the work is hackneyed , sentimental , cliched , repetitive, original, complex , ambiguous , vivid , dead on the page , lifeless , confusing , obscurantist : any number of adjectives - all value judgements. You might go further and explain what you mean by these terms.
One of the problems I have with literary criticism of Shakespeare (even Leavis’s ) is that some of it concentrates too much on the text and not enough on the fact that they are plays and meant to be performed. The purest form of “criticism”: is the performance - whether stage production or the musical recital. It’s only then that the decisions over meaning or concessions to ambiguity become evident.
I think literary criticism (and indeed musical analysis ) can help the performer . Olivier’s masterly Othello (which unfortunately only survives in a slightly hammy film) owed something to his reading of Leavis’s famous essay on Othello’s “self -dramatising “ character flaw. Where I think it goes wrong is the whole “dramatic poem “ approach to Shakespeare. It’s all very well but at some point a group of people have to get on a stage and convey the meaning of all to a lot of people who won’t have had the privilege of studying it for years at University.

[french frank]

A very good point re performance - but there is no such thing as “objective “criticism

I think I had the same thought when I put the quotes round "criticism" rather than 'objective'. The word critic is Greek κριτικός - a judge. In other words someone is judging something, and what matters is the criteria (that word again, meaning standards or tests). Different criteria, different conclusions. Though at an initial level there must be facts, just like in a law court. Repetition can be verified, as can the regular use of symbolism relating to the theatre or music or agriculture. So the critic can draw together all such 'facts' and come to a judgment. Though I suspect most people might find that style somewhat limited and arid for their purposes.

[Ein Heldenleben]

I think I had the same thought when I put the quotes round "criticism" rather than 'objective'. The word critic is Greek κριτικός - a judge. In other words someone is judging something, and what matters is the criteria (that word again, meaning standards or tests). Different criteria, different conclusions. Though at an initial level there must be facts, just like in a law court. Repetition can be verified, as can the regular use of symbolism relating to the theatre or music or agriculture. So the critic can draw together all such 'facts' and come to a judgment. Though I suspect most people might find that style somewhat limited and arid for their purposes.

Repetition is an interesting technique. It can be affecting - the Scots Ballad Edward , Edward or it can be seriously irritating - Hiawatha for example ..It’s all about what you do with the technique. You can’t just box tick repetition , symbol. metaphor can you?
So it’s much more complicated than saying, as the Greeks would have done, a drama must obey the unities. It’s what you do with them that counts and if you ignore them what are you doing that’s better .That said it’s amazing how much telly drama pretty much broadly sticks to them . They knew something those Greeks….

[french frank]

Repetition is an interesting technique. It can be affecting - the Scots Ballad Edward , Edward or it can be seriously irritating - Hiawatha for example ..It’s all about what you do with the technique. You can’t just box tick repetition , symbol. metaphor can you?

No, and that's the point at which the criticism/judgment, properly speaking, kicks in. The critic departs from the mere consideration of someone else's text to what I make of that.

So it’s much more complicated than saying, as the Greeks would have done, a drama must obey the unities. It’s what you do with them that counts and if you ignore them what are you doing that’s better .That said it’s amazing how much telly drama pretty much broadly sticks to them . They knew something those Greeks….

There's also the question of who you're writing for. Academics might look for one thing (I've got to lecture on this next term), but for journalists (in the broad sense), their readers may just want to know whether they'll like it; is it worth a punt, be it a book, CD, theatrical performance. I've no idea how that consideration affects what they write.

[jayne lee wilson]

In fact “Leavisite “ literary criticism is much more about exploring a work with very close attention to the text rather than ticking off against a pre-established list of criteria . There’s a celebrated essay by Leavis that was a response to an article that had tried to pin down Leavis’s underlying literary criteria written by philosopher / critic Rene Wellek . In this essay in FRL pretty much sets out how he does proceed. Towards the end of his career , I suspect when he was beginning to suffer intellectual impairment , he made much about a work being for “life” - a sub- Lawrentian notion so vague as to be almost indefinable . How is The Waste Land - Leavis was one of the first to take the work seriously- for life? Even in Lawrence’s work there are some extraordinarily dark undercurrents Leavis tended to gloss over.
However , despite his robust defence , all literary critical methods from belle-lettrism to post-structualism have a set of values underpinning them . The most obvious of which is shown by how very few literary critics spend their time looking at anything other than classic texts. Nadine Dorries can rest easy…..Despite all the schools and infighting it’s amazing how much consensus there is over the canon.

Leading or following seminars in the 70s and 80s, most of the literature we studied was modernist or more recent. Including recent Poetry like Plath, Lowell, Hill, and those just coming through.
With drama, everything from Waiting for Godot to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead, Sartre's Huis Clos, and Absurdism....some academics and students mounted their own productions of these. ( Including Genet's The Maids (with two of our French Tutors as the leads) and even Macbeth!).

And yes - we did attend performances where possible, and brought this into the discussion of the text.

We also discussed how poetry itself is often an "assumption" with the writer as the actor.
In seminar, of course you focus on the text. That is what you have before you. But we didn't exclude performance possibilities. As Shakespeare is often great and original writing - prose and poetry - text was always a good place to start - just as any director would. Perhaps finish there too, rather like listeners preferring to hear Mozart or Wagner Operas as Music Dramas at home, without going to a production.

I never took Leavis very seriously, with his worship of Lawrence his sweeping dismissal of Ezra Pound. An acute mind with a very narrow view. My tradition grew from Eliot, Pound, Wyndham Lewis and Yeats through to Barthes, Derrida and Kristeva; structuralist and deconstructionist. Analytical tools I've found useful in many areas of Life.

The Waste Land is very complex. But finally I think it is Life-Affirming, in its final verses, with their beatific quotes from the Baghavad Vita. I often think "These fragments I have shored against my ruins" applies to so many brave, damaged lives. Great Poetry reaches far.