The Artist and The Critic: Part II

“To my home girls here with the big butts,

Shaking it like we at a strip club,

Remember only God can judge us,

Forget the haters cause somebody loves ya”

-Miley Cyrus

I started the first part of this essay with a quote from Aristotle and now I’ve begun the second part with a Miley Cyrus lyric to illustrate something they share (other than a poetic way with words, of course) and that is that they both received criticism.

In Part I we discussed Professional Criticism, that is, people that do it for a living or receive monetary compensation in some form for their critiques, their relationship to artists, and how they influence the way art is received by culture.

In Part II we’re going to cover Non-Professional Criticism by the general public, the “wannabe” critics, haters/internet trolls, and overly-sensitive/moral outragers and their relationship to art, artists, and censorship.

Much like the first part, this can be used as a primer for any aspiring artists out there if you’re wondering what to expect. I’ll be sharing some of my own experiences with non-professional criticism I’ve received with my debut, short story collection Black Flowers.

Non-Professional Criticism

A month or so after my book was released it had received a positive professional review from the online review site Reedsy Discovery and it was selling fairly well, but I had only received a handful of customer reviews on Amazon and I felt that I needed more to boost the book’s reputation (as well as its ranking in the mysterious Amazon algorithm) so I posted a free copy on another website for honest reviews by the general public. That’s when I had my first real encounters with negative criticism and I won’t lie, it hurt a little bit. The first two readers I got did not finish it and left comments stating why, the first was vague and the other quite detailed. I was starting to feel a bit down until my first full review came in and it was quite charming, the reviewer admitted that she liked the book so much that she actually purchased it in paperback after reading the digital review copy for free (for me that was the highest of all compliments). The next review I received, though rating it three out of five stars, seemed to be the most nit-picky and negative of all. This reviewer I would consider to be a case of the “wannabe” critic, which I will explain further in a bit.

As this was taking place I also took impromptu polls from friends and coworkers who had read my book to ask them their favorite and least favorite stories and received completely contradictory advice from one person to the next. One person’s favorite story would be the next person’s least favorite story and so on until I realized that these conclusions were mostly coming down to genre preferences rather than anything inherently wrong with any of the stories. Thankfully though it seemed that the general consensus was that I was a skilled writer, some people just don’t care for open-ended stories or particular genres very much and that’s fine.

My book is still receiving reviews as we speak, but my current take on the general public is partially what I already knew and that is that most readers prefer to read only one or two genres and rarely venture outside of those. The majority of people seem to prefer action-heavy, plot-centered stories with unambiguous endings. These are the same traits you will find in most commercial fiction that tops the best seller lists each week. There are readers that prefer a more flowery, “literary” writing style that centers more around character development and the complexities of identity, but I would say these folks are in the minority though a higher number of these books will go on to become lasting classics than their commercial brethren.

Black Flowers contains commercial, mainstream stories alongside more “literary” stories, which can be a mixed bag for those that prefer one or the other, but since I like both it’s exactly the book I wished to create and I couldn’t be more proud of it. With that being said let it be known that if you are going to try something different or be experimental a lot of the general public may be confused, not “get it,” or simply just not like it because it’s not what they expected or what they’re used to. If you’re lucky public perception may change with time, as for myself I think it’s still a little too early to tell because a good portion of the reading public has yet to read my book but that’s just the way of life for the indie artist.

Now I’d like to discuss the “wannabe” critic, the “wannabe” critic has mistaken their pretentiousness and negativity for true criticism. Unlike actual critics that can often appreciate skillfully told stories even when they exist outside of a genre they personally prefer, these “wannabes” consider something bad if they simply don’t care for that genre. Instead of having a list of pros and cons like many actual critics and attempting to provide constructive criticism for the artist, the “wannabe” takes pleasure in mercilessly tearing apart other people’s works while hiding behind the veneer of “elevated language” that they stole from an actual critic’s review that they read online one time. Another common aspect of the “wannabe” critic is that they often operate in anonymity not realizing that actual critics, much like artists, build a following based on their reputation and are held accountable for the things they say. You can’t take pride in providing “brutally honest” reviews when you shield yourself from any criticism or no one is going to take you seriously.

This lack of accountability paired with their negativity creates a very thin line between them and the haters/internet trolls currently plaguing the internet who merely wish to antagonize and demean others due to their own low self-esteem.

Let’s talk for a second about the importance of accountability when it comes to artists and criticism, if you hide behind a fake name and fake picture and harshly criticize or insult the art of someone that put themselves out there, I’m not going to mince words here, you’re a coward. You fire shots from a safe distance then slither back into the shadows while others put their names and reputations on the chopping block for their work. If you have a harsh critique to give then stand by it, put your name and face on it, otherwise you’re proving you can dish it out but you can’t take it.

Though the internet has made it much easier, the cowardice of the anonymous critic is nothing new, as this quote from the 19th century preacher Charles Spurgeon illustrates:

“Never write what you dare not sign. An anonymous letter-writer is a sort of assassin, who wears a mask, and stabs in the dark. Such a man is a fiend with a pen. If discovered, the wretch will be steeped in the blackest infamy.”

One of my personal favorite responses to anonymous critics, online haters, and internet trolls is the music video for “The Sound” by The 1975. The video shows the band performing in a glass box as a crowd of people gather round hurling insults at them while humorously flashing quotes pulled from the internet. The video ends on a high note with the band calmly watching from outside the box their critics have now placed themselves in:

Since this has been a hot topic as of late, the last thing I’d like to discuss is the overly-sensitive, moral outragers and their relationship to art, artists, and censorship.

Before the film Joker was released it received a standing ovation at the Venice Film Festival, which made it seem like it would have a smooth, easy road ahead on its way to the box office. Then came the controversy…

During the film’s pre-release viewings for critics both Time and Vanity Fair published reviews calling the film “irresponsible” and worried that the film’s depiction of a mentally ill loner turning to violence would inspire real-life acts of violence. Later, the military stirred the pot even further by issuing warnings to law enforcement based off of online threats that resulted in an increased police presence at theatrical showings of the film. Ironically, all of the controversy only seemed to help the film rather than hurt it since, at the time of writing this, it is on the verge of making $1 billion dollars worldwide.

I bring up the Joker film controversy in order to show the latest example in a long history of moralists attempting to censor art that they disagree with or that makes them uncomfortable. This type of moral outrage over art is not exclusive to either side of the religious/political spectrum. For example, conservative Christians have a long history of boycotting/protesting musicians they disagree with, such as Marilyn Manson, Judas Priest, Slayer, or even the Beatles.

On a personal note, I’ve received criticism for sex in my book from both sides. Prudish Christians don’t like the explicit nature of some of the sex scenes while one “hyper-woke” reviewer apparently felt I wasn’t explicit enough when she commented that I used a “problematic” sexist trope by closing a scene when the female character was about to receive pleasure. This would be a perfect example of the old adage “damned if you do, damned if you don’t.” Something I’ve learned as an artist is that people are going to bring their own personal baggage to their interpretation of your work. They sometimes interpret something you do as a political or moral statement when it actually isn’t meant to be one. There are genuine cases when issues need to be discussed and people should be called out for things they do and/or say, but for some people these days it seems like getting offended is their new favorite hobby or like it’s some new type of social currency. In many cases I think it is just a cry for attention and the need to feel “better” than someone else.

“You’ve got to always realize that you’re being criticized by the fashion of the day and when the fashion changes everyone forgets about that.” -film director, Brian de Palma

Ultimately, if you ever want to feel empowered as an artist when the critics, professional or otherwise, are trying to tear you down just tell them the same thing that football players say to those on the sidelines:

“I’m making plays on the field as you make comments from the bleachers.”

On Criticism: The Artist and The Critic

“There is only one way to avoid criticism: do nothing, say nothing, and be nothing.” -Aristotle

So I’m going to do my best to avoid ranting or being petty here but I do want to be upfront about my bias for the artist or creator. There are several professional critics whom I greatly admire and hold their opinions in high regard and while I find art criticism/art curation a valuable and worthwhile enterprise I simply don’t believe that being a critic requires as much courage, effort, or risk on their part as it does to be an artist/creator. That’s not to say that critics risk nothing because an authentic critic will go against the grain even if it means putting his or her reputation on the line, but honestly artists do that with every work they release to the public.

With that said I want this to be an encouragement and act as a sort of primer of what to expect for all of my aspiring artists out there, whether you do painting, sculpting, writing, filmmaking, musical performance, etc. It takes a lot of guts to put yourself out on display and bare your soul to the public knowing full well that it’s not going to connect with some people and others will even ridicule you for trying (even more so if you are hoping to make a living out of it). Though if everyone listened to those small-minded people, there would be no more art and what a sad, empty world that would be.

In this essay I intend to explore two different forms of criticism:

Professional Criticism - as in, those that cover and critique art for a living or, at least, receive some form of monetary compensation for it and their relationship to artists as well as how they influence the way art is received by culture.

Non-Professional Criticism - the general public, the “wannabe” critics, haters/internet trolls, and overly-sensitive/moral outragers and their relationship to art, artists, and censorship.

Professional Criticism

In Alejandro Iñárritu’s 2014 film Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance) Michael Keaton plays washed-up, Hollywood actor Riggan Thomson. A couple of decades prior Thomson was the star of the extremely successful, superhero film franchise Birdman (a very meta role for Keaton since his real-life career mirrored his character’s at the time). In the film’s storyline Thomson is now trying to revive his career by writing, directing, and starring in a Broadway play in hopes it will cement him as a “true artist.”

There are countless obstacles in Thomson’s path but the biggest one is the influential theater critic Tabitha Dickinson. At a chance meeting in a bar Thomson attempts to get in the critic’s good graces by buying her a drink when she informs him that she hates him and his kind (Hollywood actors) and she’s going to give his play a terrible review without having ever seen it.

The following exchange about the differences between the artist and the critic ensues:

(Warning: Graphic Language)

I love this scene because as childish as Thomson might behave in it I believe every artist has wanted to say something like this or felt this way toward those critics that harshly and thoughtlessly review works of art without respecting the time, effort, and money that has often gone into them. I also believe this scene brings up an important aspect of the world of art criticism and that is the subject of “gatekeeping.”

Gatekeeping in the art world is when a person, thing, or institution keeps others from having access to something, that something often being exposure to a larger audience. Exhibition directors at museums, wealthy collectors, and, of course, well-known critics are all good examples of gatekeepers in the art world since they are often the deciding factors of who receives the acclaim and recognition and who gets shoved aside. Major book publishers, Hollywood film studios, and major record labels can also be considered gatekeepers as well, but a positive review from an established critic can greatly help a writer, filmmaker, or musician break into all of these industries.

This illustrates the power wielded by some professional critics and, just as portrayed in the film Birdman, that power can be abused causing much resentment toward these critics by many struggling artists, especially when artists often feel that those same harsh critics do not have the talent, patience, or work-ethic to create the very art that they disparage.

Artists’ often antagonistic relationship with critics will occasionally boil over into humorously barbed statements such as this one by writer Brendan Behan:

“Critics are like eunuchs in a harem; they know how it’s done, they’ve seen it done every day, but they’re unable to do it themselves.”

This is a widespread sentiment among many in the art community, but is it actually true? Are there instances where critics have turned into artists?

An example we can look to is film critic Chris Stuckmann. Stuckmann has been uploading film reviews on Youtube for a little over ten years and has gained quite a significant fan base, myself counted among them. Within the last few years he has begun making very small-scale independent film shorts and taking them to various film festivals.

The following are some of his comments on transitioning from a film critic to a filmmaker:

“…film criticism has never been my goal in life, filmmaking was always and still is my goal… The internet, and honestly I’m a part of this, takes so much focus on whether or not what you created is a masterpiece and it might not be. More than likely it isn’t, but you still got together and you made something and that’s just insanely inspiring.”

I really like seeing a critic learn what it feels like to be on the flip side of that coin and coming to the realization that everything you create won’t necessarily be utter perfection but understanding the significance in having the courage to put yourself out there and make something, which is so much more than most people (critics included) can say.

As I mentioned earlier, many critics also don’t understand or respect the fact that a lot of money, time, and labor has been spent on the artists’ part, and this is especially true for the smaller, independent artists that are funding their own projects. Stuckmann saved up his own money and spent $17,000 for his film short Auditorium 6. Now I don’t believe that working on a smaller scale or a micro-budget should make your project free from criticism but I do think that should be taken into account when it is being compared to the major productions with massive budgets.

For example, I’m sure most critics (professional or otherwise) that read my book Black Flowers will compare it to the works published by the major publishing companies with massive budgets and marketing teams never taking into account that I wrote, published, and marketed it funded by the money out of my own pocket. Altogether, I spent just over $4,000 hiring freelance professionals: two editors, an interior designer, and a cover designer; then created my own publishing business, Dark Currents Press, in order for my book to stand a chance in competing with the big dogs in the marketplace. And to be honest, I think I did a damn fine job and I would do it all over again because this is the culmination of a life-long dream for me.

Now that I’ve covered the art community’s relationship with the world of professional criticism and how much established critics can help or hinder an artist’s reach, I want to end this section on an uplifting note for all of my frustrated, struggling artists out there. The following are a few examples of when an artist or piece of art was not initially well-received critically, but the art/artist has withstood the test of time, been re-evaluated, and/or gained a cult following:

-The crime, horror, and science fiction/fantasy writers that got their start writing for the cheap pulp magazines of the 1920s-30s were once considered “low-brow” or “lesser” artists than their literary counterparts at the time. Now these writers, such as Raymond Chandler, H.P. Lovecraft, and Edgar Rice Burroughs, are published in the Penguin Classics series which is reserved for works considered to be enduring literary classics.

-The director John Carpenter’s horror/sci-fi film The Thing was initially a critical failure and box office bomb when it was released to theaters in 1982 with critic Roger Ebert referring to it as a “disappointing,” “barf-bag movie” with “superficial characterizations.” It is now considered an extremely influential horror classic with groundbreaking practical effects and scenes of unparalleled tension and suspense.

-The British indie-pop band The 1975’s self-titled, debut album was a commercial success but was panned by the majority of music critics. British music magazine NME named them the “Worst Band In The World” only to perform a complete 180 two years later with their second album I Like It When You Sleep, For You Are So Beautiful Yet So Unaware of It by awarding it their “Album of The Year.”

The artistic landscape is littered with thousands of other examples I could use, but I believe I’ve made my point. If you are an artist that has labored and struggled over your work only for it to be met with harsh criticism and rejection don’t throw in the towel and give up. The aforementioned artists were once there as well, but all of them were either re-evaluated with time, took a while to find their audience, or came back with an explosive piece of art that made those critics eat their own words.

“…When courage dies, creativity dies with it. …fear is a desolate boneyard where our dreams go to desiccate in the hot sun.” -Elizabeth Gilbert

Next week in Part II of this essay on criticism I’ll cover Non-Professional Criticism in the age of the internet, what to expect, and some of my own personal experiences with it. Catch ya later, folks!