By Sid Yadav

I have been thinking a lot lately about the critics of films, websites, books, and other art forms, and what makes them feel the way that they do. Sometimes they seem to love something the “mainstream” will never comprehend, sometimes they hate something the “mainstream” goes in dozens to watch or buy, and in cases where stars align, they all unanimously agree with the “mainstream” in that the particular art form is the best thing in the world (case-in-point: The Dark Knight), or the worst thing in the world (case-in-point: Spiderman 3). But almost all the time, at whatever level, they seem to disagree with each other, which at its highest capacity results in something like the reception of the most recent Indiana Jones.

While pondering this, I was able to break down “taste” in its most simplest definition and come up with the following ‘equation’:

Taste = Logic + Emotion

To delve further, logic is when you like the thinking that has gone behind, and technicalities of, the art form, and emotion is when you have some kind of a former emotional attachment with either the creator of the art form, or the art form itself (such as in the case of a book-to-film, or a remake.)

Here’s something interesting. If we switch around my equation like it’s pre-algebra, we get this:

Logic = Taste - Emotion

and this:

Emotion = Taste - Logic

The definition of taste, by the way, is how much you like something. If you find a movie which is broken in a lot of parts and by a director whose work, nor the previous incarnation of the work itself, you’re not fond of, chances are, you’re not fond of that work itself, so your taste for it is minimal.

So, this brings me to a point of debate. Should a work be judged in comparison  — either to the previous work of the same author or director or creator, or to the previous incarnation(s) of that same (kind of) work — or should it be judged by the merit and appreciation for work itself, regardless of how it compares to anything else? (Note the difference: one is relative, and the other is absolute.)

There are good arguments which could be made for both cases.

In favor of judging the work in relative terms:

• It’s easier to weigh and grasp for the reader or listener of the particular opinion prior to seeing the work itself
• It, and the opinion of the “reviewer” has an anchor — it doesn’t stand alone
• It’s easier to say X is better than Y, as opposed to going into what makes X so special

In favour of judging the work in absolute terms:

• It is time and situation independant. No matter what you compare it to, that comparison will likely carry a infinite baggage of events, circumstances, and status of society, which would make the comparison “incompatible” in some ways, as ‘a lot has changed since then.’
• It deservingly applauds and embraces the work and merits of the art and the artist, and acts progressively toward new ideas, which is important for society
• It is by definition appreciative of efforts, regardless what the fruits of those efforts might have resulted in

So, what is the better kind of judgement for taste? I don’t know. But I think just like the slight modification of the old saying, judgement is in the eye of the beholder. It’s up to you to decide what kind of judgement you weigh more impactfully in what you consume, but I think most importantly, to appreciate nevertheless. I think the kind of humility an artist faces, whether he is the director of a film, a musician, or creator of a website, triumphs any amount of opinion or literary judement that could be passed merely by making his art form available for all to prey their eyes on. A great Pixar film comes to mind.

Thoughts? Leave a comment, or send them to sid at nincha dot com.