It is well received wisdom that if you are a critic, you have to be an intellect. Critiquing is seen as a hallmark of a person’s appreciation for purest form of quality. Appreciation, on the other hand, is considered a compromise with quality and less than being professional. Some critics strongly believe that they have to bear the cross of critiquing others to uphold the standard of the discourse or a discipline. To let go of the work of men, be it a music, movie or a research paper, unchallenged is seen as hara-kiri. Each work of letter has to be seen through the lens of centrality of philosophy,  put through the fire of arguments, and tested on the touchstone of efficiency of expression. In fact, India had a great tradition in argumentation as described in Tarka sastra. Excepting that it was constructive discussion conducted in a dispassionate way.  

One research study pointed out that referees who reject papers more often are seen as more accomplished than those who accept more. Publication is not only a world of blind refereeing but also of blind following. Similarly, in the world of art, it is considered to be prestigious to be critiqued by certain people, else it is considered it is not even worth being criticized. There was a time in Paris, if it is an art exhibition, it has to be at least criticised by certain critics to become famous. In the world of art if an artist is criticised, he has a chance of redeeming himself. If he is not even criticised he has to go back to his school. In cricket commentary also the panel would always include a cynic to keep the game interesting as it is too long to keep the listeners engaged. The critic may be made to look pathetic defending the indefensible but that is a price he has to pay. It pays to be a critic.  

The uninitiated may think that this is how the world of publications and public discourses happen. Not exactly. The world of critics and criticisms has to be viewed in conjunction with the world of networks and partisanship. The critics and evaluators can be highly selective with the same ease as with their cynicism, without any burden on the conscience. That is how many works of mediocrity, whether it is academic or art, pass through unquestioned because the critics have let it go in the larger interest of humanity. This is what the admirers of critics would like us to believe.  

A critic’s mind is a trained mind and is honed over years to behave in a particular way and he is ensconced in the safe company of mutual admiration club. They come in different styles and confirmatory behaviour reinforcing in turn the stereotypes.  It can be about dressing, preferences for black coffee or single malt, liking for classic music and art films with complete disdain for anything commercial or successful.  

I will just mention a few characteristics of the critics so that you cannot miss them next time you come across one. They can be not just from the world of film or art or music or sports, but more so from the world of disciplines like history, sociologists, economics, etc. Mercifully they are less in management and technology because there the show must go on.  

The Pretentious 

The Pretentious are the majority.  This is a desirable attribute in the world of critics. For example, you have to be seen holding a literary work in hand and showing sheer disdain for things like cricket which are for men for lesser mortals. Occasionally they will have handy quotes of literary greats like PG Wodehouse or Bernard Shaw on cricket to show disdain. That helps to show that one does know about it but does not consider it a sport unlike say a bridge or a chess which is considered to be a sport of intellect; or at least a crossword puzzle. 

C.S. Lewis in his book on ‘An Experiment in Criticism’ writes, “…in our schooldays some of us were making our first responses to good literature. Others, and these the majority, were reading, at school, the Captain, and, at home, short- lived novels from the circulating library. But it was apparent then that the majority did not ‘like ‘their fare in the way we ‘liked’ ours. … The differences leap to the eye” (P2). 

In this ‘us vs. they’ or in the world of scholarship vs. mediocracy, erudite intellectuals have the unenviable burden of upholding the virtues of standards and the responsibility of breeding future generations of critics and cynics. So, even if the whole world can’t see their way, there will be these ardent followers to sustain and amplify their wisdom. 

They are also status seekers. In the same book Lewis writes (2013), one set of elites are  status seekers who are, “… families and circles in which it was almost a social necessity to display an interest in hunting, or county cricket, or the Army List, so there are others where it requires great independence not to talk about, and therefore occasionally to read, the approved literature, especially the new and astonishing works, and those which have been  banned or have become in some way subjects of controversy. Readers of this sort, this ‘small vulgar’, act in one respect exactly like those of the ‘great vulgar’. They are entirely dominated by fashion” (P8). It is their prison where they live. It is actually them who need sympathy and they have only to blame their admirers for keeping them blindfolded.     

Phraseologist 

Another major variety is the phraseologists who try to clothe their arguments with abstraction bordering on profundity. Readers generally treat abstraction as scholarship, and the more unintelligible it is, the more scholarly it is. They also take profundity as a product of authority, and along with abstraction it gets an aura which leaves the reader with a false notion of self-esteem of having understood a literary master-piece. 

They can make even truism look profound. Once an ex-RBI Governor who is limelight prone said this after multiple extensions of lockdown that, if the lockdown is extended further, the NPAs will increase. I reflected on it to understand if it has any deeper meaning which I missed, as I didn’t want to look like a novice. However much I reflected, I could get only the obvious meaning of it, i.e. if lockdown extends, that is factories don’t work,  the NPAs will increase. Anyway since it was widely picked up, I still believe it should be something of significance. 

Logic or rationale takes a backseat when bestowed with crowd of self-selected readers who are willing to lap up everything. It comes from years of enculturing the gullible readers with false notions of appreciations for profound abstraction. Literary festivals periodically play on this psyche. It is a very elitist club which you would rather be admiring than joining.  Comes the literary festival, the venue often a palace dons an aura of scholarship. If you happen to be a in a five star hotel that time, you can easily find out who has come for the literary fest and who has come on work. They stand out among the crowd, unmissable. One has to belong to it, otherwise you are a crass.   

Contrarian 

This personality takes a tangential perspective of everything about the world lest they are mistaken for the people at large. During my undergraduate days, many times people used to enquire about my area of interest. Generally an undergraduate is expected to say Micro Economics, Development Economics, etc. on which they would get some gyan. I used to say ‘History of Economic Thought’ just to trip the questioners. They would go away without further questions because that is a dead end. Critics of movies or music do this quite often. They will pick a laborious unpopular piece and praise it sky high and run down popular movies. It forces others to look for quality in these pieces painstakingly. In the earlier era, these pieces of art used to be categorised  as a genre called ‘Art Movies’; in the world of books and music, the same genre would be called ‘Classics’. In fact, many collectors like to keep it in show case for display of their status and intellectual appetite. Now in business these are called social ventures. One might say art is like the dresses worn by the models in the fashion shows. These look artistic but have neither utility nor relevance. This doesn’t hold true for the connoisseurs though. For them, abstraction is the very essence of art from which flows all the ordinary ones, the commercials.

Relevance 

The main threat that they face which is internal but existential is ‘Being Relevant’. This may be a simple perception and non-threatening risk, but a veritable threat. For example, it is like being missed in an election for a politician. Politicians can even lose an election but not being nominated is a path to oblivion. Similarly, for men of words, literature, art, and scholarship, they have to be continuously in the reckoning. Their books have to be in new arrivals and in exhibitions. They have to be constantly seen and being invited, and be present in the relevant circuits. This existential threat is quite real, even for the performers of arts, literature and academics. Their active life is so short that the moment they are out of reckoning, they turn into activists or atleast critics. The sense of vacuum that they experience the moment the crowd leaves them is seen to be believed. It is exactly the feeling of the old in a joint family, people all around but busy with themselves. 

The shrill of the present day critics has to be seen in this context. The increasingly shorter career and longer active life span has led to more critics than performers or achievers. So, there is more competition among critics than among actual players.  In the political arena years of one sided politics has led to critics of only one shade. They have had their peak days and are now languishing as they don’t have the ears of the establishment. Unfortunately, the current establishment is not giving any room for rehabilitation. Now it is public knowledge they don’t have the ears of decision makers.  People leave them once they realize they are not heard.  Political arena is not like the field of music where the admirers can keep playing old records nostalgically. In politics they are like fused bulbs. This adds to the existential question more. So, they respond by increasing the shrillness and range of the campaign. Reality is cruel and their circle keeps shrinking with time, making them reminisce those good old days when people had time and ears, and hence were tolerant

Ecosystem 

The ecosystem of the world of critics consists of the all-knowing critics and their all-understanding club of admirers. These are men of wisdom inhabiting the world as the conscience keepers of the Society carrying deep furrows on their face from the burden of holding a mirror to the society.  They are there to satiate the highly tuned mind which takes their words as gospels. It is something only a genuine critic of art and a connoisseur of art can bestow. The rest of the participating world are self-proclaimed adherents. There are many platforms to promote such agenda centric works; the media (both print and visual), the cultural festivals, literary festivals, international centers, constitutional clubs, etc. with ready stage and walk in audience. 

Readers may keep associating these traits with the writers they keep reading daily, more about them as we proceed.  Many names may be coming to mind as you read various descriptions. You are nearly right. More on them as we proceed… 

Picture Credits: https://inkjot.wordpress.com/2011/03/11/some-people-are-unapologetically-elitist/

Reference: 

Ref : Lewis, CS, An Experiment in Criticism, Cambridge University Press, Delhi, 2013. 

Tags :

• Commentaries65

• Share on Social Media

• Follow us on Social Media