The Art of Criticism 5: The Written Word vs. The Moving Image

I think it's very possible that this last decade will come to be viewed as one of the most important in the development of the branch of the arts that includes movies, television, and youtube videos among others. That isn't to say that youtube is the equivalent of the printing press or that "The Wire" is the equivalent of Hamlet but its pretty undeniable that a huge leap forward has been taken. While for centuries the written word has been widely respected for its artistic merit in all sorts of forms (from a novel to a short story, and prose to poetry), the movies have dominated all discussion of artistry in the moving images. It is quickly becoming undeniable that movies, television, and short form video all constitute one of the most important art forms today. Vadim Rizov, in his recent blog entry "Why we need better television criticism", argues that because television has been seen as film's unimportant cousin for so long there are hardly any reputable television critics (not to mention the time commitment to watch all the important shows of the past as well as the present). Yet, television is becoming increasingly important and Rizov is onto something with his call for better criticism in that field.


Perhaps this is all a sign that these related fields will soon be viewed as equals alongside more traditional arts like literature and painting. And like those art forms, soon be taught in schools. It isn't crazy. These branches of art are among the most pervasive in our society today. Imagine the benefit of a populace armed with the ability to discern meaning from the images they see every day. Training people to be critical of things most (sadly) never encounter anymore (literature, fine art) is one thing, but actually training them to think critically about the advertisements they see on TV and the youtube videos they watch on their computer can only benefit society. To quote Vadim Rizov in a different entry of his (titled "Cinélycée: teaching movies and values"), "Media literacy is about being able to engage with actively deceptive and mendacious material: to pick up on would-be subliminal advertising, call bullshit as needed, and generally not be a slave of manipulative content." In that same article he describes the new French initiative to teach some film history in secondary schools. Like Rizov, I think its a terrific start but it doesn't go far enough. Teaching pre-80s film is a good way to bore an audience not prepared for what they are watching. Its also a good way to remove most of the value of watching those movies. The answer is to focus on critical evaluation of current movies, maybe even ones they've seen before. It isn't about what you watch, but how you watch it.