Book Review : A.O. Scott - Better Living Through Criticism (2016)
No one likes a critic. This idiom was originally meant for complainers, but it is nonetheless true in twenty-first century popular culture: everyone has an opinion on everything, but don’t dissent too much from the norm and don’t your dare making your feelings too complicated. Is there a purpose to art criticism in the age of crowdsourcing? Apparently, I’m not the only person in how society thinks about art.
New York Times film critic A.O. Scott wrote and entire book why criticism exists, why it survived and it should still matter going forward into the future.
Better Living Through Criticism: How to Think About Art, Pleasure, Beauty and Truth is an ontological investigation on the nature of art criticism. A.O. Scott deconstruct the history, challenges and perception of the practice in an attempt to prove that it has always existed and will always exist, because it is an inherent part of the creative process. Scott doesn’t seem to believe criticism changed much over centuries, but the world critics live in sure did.
Is criticism art?
You’ve read that right. One of A.O. Scott’s first points in Better Living Through Criticism is that criticism (kind of) is art and he makes a good argument for it. Scott claims that art itself is a form of criticism of reality, which engenders literal criticism, which engenders more art, etc. He astutely points out that many respected artists were also critics: George Orwell, Philip Larkin, Jean-Luc Godard and several other. This is true. But it’s been awhile, though.
The point A.O. Scott is making is that great, challenging art that redefines the boundary of our reality is made by people who think about art and understand his power. I don’t necessarily disagree with that, but it’s not the way the game it played anymore. Maybe the critical fire still burns within certain authors because it’s such a long and solitary endeavor. Blake Butler’s 300 000 000 is the last book I remember being clearly informed by media deconstruction.
But mostly art criticism today is not the same as the art criticism A.O. Scott talks about in Better Living Trough Criticism. If thinking about art was once a sign of status and sophistication because not that many people had access to it, it all changed with the emergence of more democratic arts like cinema and television. You don’t have to experience art through an expert’s writing anymore. You can lay out your own thoughts for people who are like you.
Which is… what I’m doing right now. Of course, I did go to school for it, but it doesn’t put my opinion above yours if you don’t already think it is.
I do agree with A.O. Scott that art is natural part of the creative process, but I wouldn’t qualify it as art myself. I’m more of Chuck Klosterman’s school of thinking that (in the twenty-first century) criticism of a form of intellectual entertainment. Scott visibly believes that is is art, though. Better Living Through Criticism is quite boundless and intuitive and this is kind of annoying if you’re looking for straight up intellectual exchange. This is not that.
Then what is criticism really?
A.O. Scott never really answers the question. At least not satisfyingly enough for me. He claims that art criticism is tautological. That it is what the person who refers to him or herself as a critic decides to write or talk about at the very moment. Again, this is technically not false. But it’s an unfalsifiable claim meant to keep creative flexibility without threatening one’s sense of identity. It’s an eloquent blanket statement that can fit any non-scientific purposes.
The question becomes then: does A.O. Scott actually knows what the fuck he’s talking about? Although some critics claim that he doesn’t, I believe it would be presumptuous to think that. Better Living Through Criticism has to be understood in the context of a crisis. The practice is facing a level of democratization never seen before through the likes of Amazon, Goodreads, Letterboxd and whatnot, so it’s important to understand what it is transforming from.
I understand this is barely a book review. This is more of an intellectual conversation between two trade professionals (I do get paid for doing this sometimes) in the way David Foster Wallace intended it. But this books lends itself to such exercise. I don’t believe anyone who isn’t proactively thinking about criticism will give enough of a shit to even open it. Better Living Through Criticism is a trade book in its own way because it thinks about the craft reflexively.
In other words, A.O. Scott is not looking to lend your his critical lens to analyze cultural production. He is looking to reflect on the value of his own lens.
*
It might seem like I hated Better Living Through Criticism, but I quite enjoyed it. I believe the only healthy reaction from a critic about another critic’s examination of the craft is more critical thought. Anything that allows you to develop your own thoughts on a given topic is positive in my view. I did not found a better living from Better Living Through Criticism, but I already had my opinions about art, pleasure, beauty and truth. I do understand this better now.
Should you read this book? My best answer is that it probably depends on what your opinion of A.O. Scott is and what place you believe criticism should occupy in our society. The best point he might’ve made in Better Living Through Criticism is that the treatment of the critic as a public character is indicative of anti-intellectualism No, you should never turn your brain off and yes, you should think about stuff not meant to be thought about.
