Objections to Objectivity

In past posts, I pondered the possibility of an objection position perceiving performance. I failed to mention that objectivity does exist - it is my opinion, happily - and everyone else is objective in so far as they agree with me. The remainder of this post suggests ways in which anyone who is not lucky enough to be me can engage critically with art.

Taking the subjectivity of the critic as a given does not reduce criticism is a mere series of opinions. Like in those essays I am supposed to be doing at University, a supported opinion is more valuable than an absolute truth. The function of a critique is not to reveal the true meaning or worth of a work, but to extend the conversation generated by the work in question.

In one sense, this abandons the traditional critical analysis of performance and interpretation: the brilliance of Hayman's Lear is less interesting than the angle taken by the director in staging King Lear. Perhaps Hayman did a grand job of presenting the geriatric fool-king, but it is a support to the thrust of Dominic Hill's reading of Shakespeare's text.

Apart from a general disbelief in objectivity, acknowledging the subjectivity of the critic opens up a way of standardising an approach to criticism. Contrary to the approach at school - opinion is the last thing most subjects develop - the critic begins with that moment of connection to an art work: its emotional impact. The critical process is making the connection between that emotion and the content.