Is Objectivity a Myth? Part one: the meaning of myth

When I was a child, I had a book called Myths and Legends of

Greece. I somehow got the idea that a legend was a story based on historical fact, but that was probably exaggerated in the telling, while a myth was just a big load of bunkum.

I considered Herakles a legend, because it seemed plausible to me that some hunky bloke had stomped about Greece, knacking lion and cleaning up horse shit. But Pegasus was a myth because a horse with wings feels pretty unlikely.

There's something in this, in common usage. Calling Hulk Hogan a legendary figure in wrestling reads well, but calling him a mythical figure... like he doesn't really exist. But he does, and he's even got a sex tape which I'd rather give a miss.

What I didn't consider is how the mythical and the legendary are weaved together: parts of The Twelve Labours of Herakles feed on the bunkum: that business with his dad being Zeus? The snakes in his cradle? 

When I studied Religious Education as part of my teacher training, I came across a new definition of myth. Myth was 'a story with meaning'. For the first time, I claimed I had a methodology, and that was to use an idea until it breaks, then build a new idea with the left-overs and bits of the idea that broke it.

This version of myth makes no claims about the 'truth' of a story,

merely that it has meaning, and that meaning might be found in its use. A myth is a narrative, and so has structure, and it also structures experience.

Hulk Hogan is still a legend, but now there is a myth of Hulk Hogan. It's probably got a moral of some sort - maybe that it's not a good idea to say racist stuff if you are a celebrity.

The difference between my two definition of myth isn't necessarily commonly recognised, and the idea of myth as a bogus story is often how it is used by people who aren't trying to be smart-ass post-modernists. I prefer another word for that kind of story: bullshit. 

But when I say 'myth', don't be insulted. I am saying that it has meaning, but I am making no value judgement about whether it is 'true' or 'false'. Or whether it means anything to me. 

This'll give you a headache, while I think about why I have this definition of myth, and why it matters...

Objectivity, Star Ways and a Critical Dump...

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.