Guess Who's Back?

Introducing...The Scopic Regime!

Thoughts on Bats and Supes

Craig Neilson-Adams asked why the Batman versus Superman film has fared so badly in review - using the Rotten Tomatoes site as evidence. In contrast to comments by no-critics, he notes, the film has been consistently panned by 'professional' critics.

He suggests that this may be the result of a small sample group of critics - although a small group provides a reason to dismiss findings rather than accounting for its figures - or the 'burden of preconception' -  many of those who have been involved in film writing receive so much preview material that an unattainable expectation of quality emerges. He also considered, in a Facebook status, the problems of comparison between The Avengers franchise, which created a standard and style for films about superheroes.

I reject two of these ideas: the small sample is inevitable, since the parameters are 'professional critic' deliberately limit the number of eligible comments in order to privilege certain characteristics of form; the burden of preconception weighs on everybody. The comparison question, which I addressed in a response to his earlier thoughts does strike me as the post-persuasive, because the criticism-as-comparison has a long history of causing bias.

However, the statistics remain. Leaving aside the possibility that critics have better analytic skills for the moment, this disparity between popular and critical reception feels important.

For that matter, Neilson-Adams' article feels important, questioning the authority, and even the value, of 'professional criticism.

Fortunately, professional critics do not have to be 'right' to be 'useful'. As long as criticism is a guide to discussion, and not some kind of absolute judgement on art, it does not have to represent a 'right' answer (in this case, let's call 'right' a shared assessment with the populist opinion). It becomes a challenge, a specific position in a lattice of opinions: a provocation to dialectic.  

It's worth considering what shapes a critic's perspective though.

Epilogue to the Genius Trilogy

That's enough, Genius.

The Critical Surfer

I am Donald Trump.

Those are HIS words, not mine

Diderot and the Lapdancer: Chapter One.

In good weather, it was his habit to arrive at the club around five o'clock in the evening. I’d see him there, sitting with his back facing the bar, always alone, wrapt in thought. He was discussing with himself – and anyone who caught his attention – politics, love, art, philosophy.

I’m indulging my mind, he says, in whatever it fancies, letting it follow the first thought, daft or wise that it comes across...

Like the regulars, who follow the dancer with a carefree look, a welcoming face and a lively eye, then leaving her for another? His thoughts are his whores, obviously. Although the term preferred now is sex workers (a reminder that his revolutionary mind did not quite extend to the liberation of women...)

And do those  thought ever follow to actually having a dance while you are here? 

I was accosted by one of the most extraordinary characters that this country possesses – and God knows we are not short of them! She’s a mixture of the noble and the base, intelligence and madness. 

It’s very charming of you to describe me so, Mr...?

Diderot. I am the irresistible Diderot.

I’ve seen you here often, Diderot. But don’t you ever have a dance?

I don’t care for oddities like you. Once a year is enough for me. 

Ah, Mister Philosopher! What are you doing among this group of scoundrels, then? Are you wasting time pushing the wood around?

I enjoy watching the dancers work the room, when I have nothing better to do.

An observational philosopher, are we? Not a bold anthropologist who mixes with the culture he would understand? 

As long as things are in our understanding only, they are just opinions: it’s only by observing external objects, and linking them to our understanding, that we can know whether they be true or false.

You say that, yet you know that there is a multitude of phenomena that happen beyond the limitations of your understanding... for example, what happens behind the black curtain, Mr Diderot?

It is easier and quicker to consult my own mind than investigate it in the world. 

I think perhaps you’ll be astonished if you had a dance?

Then my work as a philosopher would be to dissipate that astonishment.

Then let me remind you that you are in the club, and here a certain set of rules abide. ‘Take the dress of the country you are going to...’ 

And in reply, let me remind you that your dance is merely the end of a process whereby the most solemn desires, a noble and innocent pleasure, has been converted into a source of depravity and evil. To be clear, in a better society, where no laws bound the natural passions, where women are not trapped in matrimony, where social status can be no barrier to shared delights, this corrupted merchantile exchange, this commodification of the very body itself, would be an unnecessary transaction.

The philosopher speaks again of ideals, some utopia of authentic experience. I can see the conflict in your eyes, the gestures, the way you writhe upon the seat: the natural man, with natural curiosity and honest passions, longs to know what is behind the curtain. Yet the other man, the artificial moral man, strives to chain this natural inquisitiveness with rules and codes. You want...

We both want... you want my money... you are made ill by the  tyranny of man, who has made you into property.

In want, a man has no remorse. In sickness, a woman has no shame... now, do you want to discover how shameless I can be?

And so he agrees, knowing that pleasure and pain are the only foundations for action, and that those educated men who lock themselves away from life for the benefit of study are not driven by their desire for women but thinking, only thinking (and that was never his desire).

Le Neveu de Rameau (3, 4) pg 190 (ID)

De L’Interpretation de la Nature (VII, VI, X) pg 62-3 (ID)

Supplement au Voyage de Bougainville pg 317, 315 (ID)

Refutation D’Helvetius pg 295 (ID)

Ternary Patterns for Insomnia @ Tramway

I don't actually believe that applying the Bateson/Goffman parameters for play is an effective way to review an event. For that matter, I don't believe that Bateson's observations of otters at the zoo were of play in the first place. I think he was watching an educational process (the otters teaching other otters to fight, or at least rehearsing it -and with a pedagogical process that human teachers could well learn from).

But I am trying to get to grips with Goffman's idea of the frame (which I think is the way in which context is recognised by a performance). So buckle up, it's round two!

A great deal of repetitiveness occurs.

Throughout Ternary Patterns for Insomnia, certain musical forms are repeated throughout the Goldberg Variations (an arrangement for string ensemble provides the soundtrack to the dances). And there are repetitions of movements, some props are re-used, including a big tube and some rope. 

However, I can't accept this as a frame for play, performance or pedagogy. It might have been different in Bateson's day, but life is pretty repetitious these days...


When more than one participant is to be involved, all must be freely willing to play...

Again, I struggle with this... it needs so much clarification. I'm dumping it, calling bullshit. This is no help at all.

Frequent role switching occurs during play, resulting in a mixing up of the dominance order found among the players...

I'm cheating by ignoring a detail, but this does free me up to comment on Ternary. At various points in the production - notably during the Aria, the musicians dance about, taking on a new - and pretty often clearly unfamiliar role. There is even a dance solo by a viola player.

In that instance, a dominance order is broken. It's a relatively subtle order, but the viola tends to hold a supporting  position in an ensemble (not only and always, mind). But then there is another break, of the musician usually being defined by their instrument.

Throughout the evening, there is plenty of cavorting by the musicians - perhaps the dancers could have had a crack on the violins at some point. The contrast between the physicality of the dancers and musicians is very evident.

The play seems to be independent of any external needs of the participants, often continuing longer than would the actual behaviour it is patterned after.

Yeah, this is thin stuff now. Time for bed.  
  

More on Arika, and the logic of Hegemony

I am still ambiguous about this particular reading of hegemony - that the powers-that-be are in control not only of the obvious stuff (like banks and governments), but the very ideas that are used to discuss politics. For example, in my discussion of 'community', I put forward the idea that 'community' is a manufactured idea, a commodification of the more simple fact of 'being together': this doesn't quite tale account of how groups have shared interests, which makes them more than just a bunch of random people. Like a church community probably has an interest in God and Jesus.

This analysis suggests that the debate about politics is limited to the terms as defined by the powers-that-be: it's possible that a good example of this is the way that the 'Big Three' British parties seem to share a belief in the necessity of 'austerity measures'. It's not acceptable to reject austerity within their discussions, just a matter of how much and who gets targeted. 

Yet the description of hegemony is susceptible to being accused of conspiracy style thinking. It postulated a vision of the world in which the world itself is an illusion (rather than Gnostic heresies or some versions of Buddhism and Hinduism). 

What the Poethical reading seem to offer is an alternative to the accepted terms of debate - and a mocking parody of rationality itself. I mean, tarot cards are a form of bullshit (although I like the use of symbolism) and astrology is totes amaze bullshit. 

The Life of a Critic: Chapter 43: The Critical Theory Years

The Glasgow School III: A Manifesto for Critical Meaning

This manifesto begins on the assumption that meaning is developed through a dialectical process.

While no political implications are intended, the model of dialect is adapted from a simplified model of Hegel. However, it harks back to Plato's dialogues, with less emphasis on how cool and correct Socrates is.

It assumes that all partners in the process have an equal worth. 

Criticism

Criticism is the system whereby a work of art is subjected to analysis by an observer outside of the work's production. 

This observer can be a specialist - with knowledge of the genre - or an audience member with no prior experience. 

The value of their analysis is not determined by the outcome (that is, the review in the most common cases), but as a subjective opinion that encourages further discussion.

As things stand, criticism is presumed to be a branch of journalism or academia.

It has recognised outcomes - the monograph, the book, the review, the feature.

Criticism is going to change as a result of the dialogue with artists.

It's about time, too.

Rules of Engagement

There is a need for absolute honesty and generosity in this process. While honesty is no excuse for being unkind, generosity might be a good reason to end the dialogue.

All partners in the dialogue are recognised as human beings and artists. They are also expressions of a deeper personality and circumstance.

The intention of the dialogue ought to be remembered throughout the discussion.

In the spirit of the Jesuit's entreaty, all participants are challenged to search for the good in other participants opinions.

Intentions

There are no necessary outcomes to the process, except the process itself.

The primary intention is to expand the dialogue between critic and artist.

A secondary intention is to expand the hermeneutic spiral surrounding performance.

A minor intention is to redefine the status, role and process of criticism.

A minor intention is to develop dramaturgical thinking within the arts. 

Participants

The participants are makers of art and critics.

The critic is defined as an observer who is not connected in the making of the work under discussion.

A note on Critics

For the purposes of this process, 'the critic' is not a specialist. However, the critic must acknowledge any aspects of their subjectivity that may filter their interpretation of the work under consideration.