"Critic as Artist"?

[Strong Flat White]

Dear forum,

I recently stumbled upon this notion, the "critic as artist," as I was exploring, uh, the possibilities. Don't laugh, it's new to me. Wetting myself thusly in the stacks, however, I proceeded to Google the phrase and traced it back as an Oscar Wilde dialogue (the first reference I found to it was in an edited volume w/ mouthwatering - and probably highly offensive - "preliminary ruminations" by HL Mencken).

Mencken and Wilde, Wilde and Mencken. Such a pair. I think I'd enjoy having a beer with their ghosts. What I'm curious about is how deep does this oxygen-rich vein of sublime soul-igniting, intestinal-flora-tickling mischeif actually run? Is it widely accepted, condemned, or controversial? Does it offend the "pedagogues and poets"?

Does it put off adcom committees? The reason I ask this last bit is because I'm trying to get a sense of how deeply entrenched is the Lit/Creative Writing divide. I mean, if [good] criticism is in essence creative nonfiction, then the two are inseparable. Or not. I have overheard many a comment to suggest otherwise, and not just in a formal sense, but in a nearly hostile sense. Now, let me please say that I understand the necessity of formal distinction, as well as the extremely different work that goes on between the two types of departments. So, that's not what I'm asking. I don't mean to ask a pedantic question or to have a pedantic conversation, rather I am hoping that this is a valid theoretical query stemming (admittedly, perhaps deviantly... or not, that's my question!) from the Critical/Analytical side of the aisle: How many critics out there view themselves as artists? How many object? Who doesn't care? And why not?

I sure would like to tread lightly - if this is a conversation that already happened, I do apologize in advance!

[wordslinger]

questions about disciplinary distinctions

petals on a wet black bough

[Riotbeard]

I feel like giving my views on this question. I was a English/history major undergrad (and am reasonably well versed in lit. crit.), and I think it's a relevant question to history, although it takes slightly different shapes. I think good criticism and critical writing, in particular, is an art. In the case of history, it takes on the question of narrative vs. scientific/factual history (which I don't think really exists). I think the critic interacts with the text/historical record to further narrative developement/interpretation, and I think the best historians and critics (foucault being able tow both disciplines) and through his criticism creates a new narrative/reality. While we can't all be Foucaults, I think it is an ideal to strive toward for all scholars in the humanities. That being said when discussing a specific text, it must be textually grounded. As critics and historians, we are bound by interpretation, and interpretive acts are our creativity as critics/interpretors of culture.

[Bumblebee9]

From the creative writing side -- the divide between critic and artist is pretty huge in most cases. Ever since the field of English began divesting itself of everything that doesn't have to do with literary criticism (creative writing, composition, journalism, technical writing, etc.), the number of academics who pursue criticism and becoming an artist has dwindled. The name of the game was always "narrow your focus." If you pursued multiple foci you risked not being taken seriously. The general consensus at my school is that creative writing is a craft and literary criticism is a tool. (I disagree with this for many reasons, not least of all because being an "artist" is disparaged since it is viewed as easier/less work and ultimately less useful). Some departments are moving beyond this largely 20th century view (in light of postmodernism) and note it on their websites.

[glasses]

questions about disciplinary distinctions

petals on a wet black bough

Win.

[ecritdansleau]

If you're interested in questions about the critic as artist, I think you'd would love reading this article:

Slate.com | New Literary Art Form Discovered: In Praise of the Praise of Poetry

It discusses some of the rhetorical aspects of criticism/reviewing of contemporary poetry, and how critical writing ends up being its own art.

[Strong Flat White]

If you're interested in questions about the critic as artist, I think you'd would love reading this article:

Slate.com | New Literary Art Form Discovered: In Praise of the Praise of Poetry

It discusses some of the rhetorical aspects of criticism/reviewing of contemporary poetry, and how critical writing ends up being its own art.

... and you'd be right, ecritdansleau! I DO love reading this article, thanks for providing.

For anyone who has followed some posts of mine and is fed up with my so-called disciplinary distinctions (even though that's not at all what this is), I ask not only for your patience, but to consider this line from the article that ecritdansleau just sent:

"...his essay illustrates the difficulty of being precise in a realm of imprecision..."

This strikes a deep chord in me and much better articulates my fondness for language as a primary tool - both artful and academic - which is why I previously tried to engage in qualititative/quantitative dialogue [fail!] and also why I found attractive this idea that criticism can be [should be?] art. Hopefully, then, it becomes clear that I'm not anti-anything, rather I'm pro-everything, very much trying to have my cake and eat it to. I don't think this is so much greed or ambition or a set of blinders so much as it is a hopeful passion... and a largely correct intuition for the types of [apparently unpopular but nonetheless valid] questions that I want to ask.

By the way, ecritdansleau, the way that that author Rosenbaum discusses "To Autumn" is probably similar to how I feel about Emily Dickinson's "As if I asked a Common Alms" and may indirectly [or directly?] be my inpsiration for entering a gorgeous new field. I think it's telling, too, that I have written so little about this work, formally or otherwise. I clearly have a big mouth and am not afraid to run it, but that I have been silent on a subject for which I have such tremendous respect is indicative, to me, of the attitude that Rosenbaum describes in crticism of poetry - that the criticism must needs be at a comparable caliber to that of the poem itself. So true.

Certainly then, I'm flattered by wordslinger's two-line cryptic Ezra Pound reference - a very artful form of criticism in its own right (about my post!) and one that follows Rosenbaum's discovery that two-line kernals of colorful cricitism - poetry about poetry - are as delicious as the "mandarins" that spawn them. I'm left to conclude that wordslinger therefore identifies as an artistically-inclined critic, and thus unwittingly [or wittingly?] answers my question. Words well slung, lingering on like the citric aroma of that fleshy mandarin stain burned into my skull by Oscar Wilde!

To Bumblebee9: you note a very interesting phenomenon. I have nothing to add, other than to agree with your observation.

To Riotbeard: Peter Hopkirk comes to mind on the narrative front, especially The Great Game. Talk about your gateway drug to [geopolitical] History, I love that guy!

To glasses: quite possibly the most apt responder who would be able to offer a perspective on whether Mencken [or Wilde] comes off as offensive. Care to share?

[GK Chesterton]

Why would Mencken or Wilde come off as offensive in this context?

With regard to Mencken - note that he is a large fan of Nietzsche, who obviously writes in a manner which mixes criticism and "art".

I guess you would have to explain what you mean by "art" - it strikes me that most art is obviously criticism, in the sense in which criticism means responding to ideas. Style is important to all authors, and plays an integral role in their work. There's a tradition in Jamesonian Marxist interpretation of confusing, muddled language in a vein similar to Derrida and Lacan that tries to destabilize and denaturalize language as a means of supporting or emphasizing the points made in criticisms of the novel as "bourgeois" art or language as representative.

For what it's worth, I think your affinity for the quote about the "difficulty being precise in a realm of imprecision" has more to do with your style of writing than anything else (or does it? [That remains to be investigated!])