What do you think?
Rate this book
دربارۀ نقد
In a recent poll of practicing art critics, 75 percent reported that rendering judgments on artworks was the least significant aspect of their job. This is a troubling statistic for philosopher and critic Noel Carroll, who argues that the proper task of the critic is not simply to describe, or to uncover hidden meanings or agendas, but ultimately to determine what is of value in art. Carroll argues for a humanistic conception of criticism which focuses on what the artist has achieved by creating or performing the work. Whilst a good critic should not neglect to contextualize and offer interpretations of a work of art, he argues that too much recent criticism has ignored the fundamental role of the artist's intentions. Including examples from visual, performance and literary arts, and the work of contemporary critics, Carroll provides a charming, erudite and persuasive argument that appraisal and evaluation of art are an indispensable part of the conversation of life.
238 pages, Unknown Binding
First published October 14, 2008
9 people are currently reading
130 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews
March 16, 2022
Noël Carroll’s On Criticism was published under the Routledge series, “Thinking in Action”, a series that aims to bring philosophy to the public in a way that is free from its academic shackles. Carroll’s book in particular focused on the role of criticism in contemporary culture – whether it be art, literature, movies, or television. He seeks to answer the question: is there a way to objectively review art? Do ‘principles’ for judging art exist in a world where critical taste is often seen as deeply subjective?
Carroll’s writing unpacks arguments and counterarguments lucidly. He argues that the modern academic world focuses on theories of interpretation (whether through a political, sociological, or ideological lens), rather than an evaluation of artistic value. His definition of criticism instead centres on artistic analysis and evaluation, naming it the “pre-eminent object of criticism”. In doing so, he charges criticism as a series of activities – description, classification, contextualisation, elucidation, and interpretation, all of which feed into the analysis of the work at hand. While it may appear that Carroll is aligned with the New Critics, Carroll’s inclusion of contextualisation and interpretation allows for the artwork to be read in relation to their socio-historical contexts and the genres they’re a part of. For instance, a realist novel would be judged on its ability to craft believable, thoughtful characters, while a mystery novel would not be judged as strongly on that metric. A mystery would be more interested in its breadcrumbing of clues, the ability of the author to decoy and distract their readers.
Carroll’s background as an art critic is a positive point for this book, as he brings plenty of contemporary examples to help readers understand what criticism is like. Jumping from Goya’s painting of Saturn Devouring his Son to Thoreau’s Walden, from the movie Sunset Boulevard to Virginia Woolf’s To The Lighthouse, Carroll cites contemporary critics and explains how their analysis rests on a careful reading of the work, their ability to “provide a rational motivation for one classification over another”. In this, he refutes the idea that classification is a subjective affair. Personally, I found Carroll’s writing persuasive in explaining what feels common-sense’in criticism. He defends against arguments that there are no critical principles by which objective judgement occurs, noting that those working in the sciences are able to hypothesize and scope its claims. Why indeed, shouldn't critics be allowed to judge a work by category or period? Why do detractors insist upon principles applying to art across all forms of media and time periods? “Permitting scientists [the use of ceteris paribus arguments] but not critics to use such devices,” he writes with some dryness, “seems downright arbitrary.”
Overall, this book held a sustained and cogent argument for the role of criticism in today’s world. It holds value in how it refutes the artist’s argument that critics cannot judge the intentions of an art piece, especially when art is created free of rules. Carroll supports the reviewer, arguing that it is not the job of the critic to judge whether an artwork breaks with established form. That is the purview of the artist. The critic’s job is to judge the reception of the artwork and help the public best understand how to interpret the work and get the most out of it. Treading a fine line and sticking the landing, Carroll's text is well worth a read.
Carroll’s writing unpacks arguments and counterarguments lucidly. He argues that the modern academic world focuses on theories of interpretation (whether through a political, sociological, or ideological lens), rather than an evaluation of artistic value. His definition of criticism instead centres on artistic analysis and evaluation, naming it the “pre-eminent object of criticism”. In doing so, he charges criticism as a series of activities – description, classification, contextualisation, elucidation, and interpretation, all of which feed into the analysis of the work at hand. While it may appear that Carroll is aligned with the New Critics, Carroll’s inclusion of contextualisation and interpretation allows for the artwork to be read in relation to their socio-historical contexts and the genres they’re a part of. For instance, a realist novel would be judged on its ability to craft believable, thoughtful characters, while a mystery novel would not be judged as strongly on that metric. A mystery would be more interested in its breadcrumbing of clues, the ability of the author to decoy and distract their readers.
Carroll’s background as an art critic is a positive point for this book, as he brings plenty of contemporary examples to help readers understand what criticism is like. Jumping from Goya’s painting of Saturn Devouring his Son to Thoreau’s Walden, from the movie Sunset Boulevard to Virginia Woolf’s To The Lighthouse, Carroll cites contemporary critics and explains how their analysis rests on a careful reading of the work, their ability to “provide a rational motivation for one classification over another”. In this, he refutes the idea that classification is a subjective affair. Personally, I found Carroll’s writing persuasive in explaining what feels common-sense’in criticism. He defends against arguments that there are no critical principles by which objective judgement occurs, noting that those working in the sciences are able to hypothesize and scope its claims. Why indeed, shouldn't critics be allowed to judge a work by category or period? Why do detractors insist upon principles applying to art across all forms of media and time periods? “Permitting scientists [the use of ceteris paribus arguments] but not critics to use such devices,” he writes with some dryness, “seems downright arbitrary.”
Overall, this book held a sustained and cogent argument for the role of criticism in today’s world. It holds value in how it refutes the artist’s argument that critics cannot judge the intentions of an art piece, especially when art is created free of rules. Carroll supports the reviewer, arguing that it is not the job of the critic to judge whether an artwork breaks with established form. That is the purview of the artist. The critic’s job is to judge the reception of the artwork and help the public best understand how to interpret the work and get the most out of it. Treading a fine line and sticking the landing, Carroll's text is well worth a read.
February 17, 2020
This book contains forceful arguments for at least two important ideas:
1. The ideal art critic is someone who assists us in finding value in artworks that we might otherwise fail to appreciate.
2. The evaluation of artworks should be sensitive to the class or category into which the work arguably fits (eg. a realist novel is not to be judged according to the same criteria as a fantasy novel).
These ideas may sound intuitive to the general public but the book makes it clear that (for good if not obvious reasons) they are quite controversial among specialists in the philosophy of art.
1. The ideal art critic is someone who assists us in finding value in artworks that we might otherwise fail to appreciate.
2. The evaluation of artworks should be sensitive to the class or category into which the work arguably fits (eg. a realist novel is not to be judged according to the same criteria as a fantasy novel).
These ideas may sound intuitive to the general public but the book makes it clear that (for good if not obvious reasons) they are quite controversial among specialists in the philosophy of art.
May 14, 2023
منقدی که فقط به دنبال منفی گفتن از اثری است، منتقد نیست، استندآپ کمدین و احتمالن اسندآپ خوبی هم میتونه نباشه
September 14, 2018
رویکرد کرول در پرداختن به مباحث فلسفهی نقد در این کتاب کاملاً تحلیلی است؛ پرسشها را دستهبندی کرده، مفاهیم را میکاود، استدلال میکند، اشکال میکند و...
در خلال مباحث، کرول مشخصاً از موضع و نظریات خودش دفاع میکند و از این رو نمیتوان کتاب را نوعی کتاب مقدماتی که صرفاً به توضیح نظریات و آرا مختلف میپردازد، دانست.
دو نکتهی جالب توجه در این کتاب یکی تلقی مؤلف از نقد به عنوان فعالیتی ارزیابانه و دیگری رد نظریهی مشهور «مرگ مؤلف» و دفاع از موضع «نیتخوانیگرایی» است. کرول معتقد است که تنها وجه مشخصهای که نقد را از سایر صورتهای نوشتاری/گفتاری متمایز میکند ارزیابی است. بنا بر این به صرف توصیف، تبیین، تفسیر و...نمیتوان نام آن فعالیت را نقدکردن گذاشت. مخالفت کرول با «مرگ مؤلف» از طریق رد استدلالهای مقوم این نظریه صورت میگیرد. کرول خود مدافع نظریهای مشابه «فرمالیسم» است که در آن وظیفهی منتقد ارزیابی اثر نسبت به غایات منتسب به مقولهی است که اثر در آن جایمیگیرد.
ترجمهی آقای طباطبایی فوقالعاده دقیق و بینقص است و از این بابت از ایشان سپاسگزارم.
در خلال مباحث، کرول مشخصاً از موضع و نظریات خودش دفاع میکند و از این رو نمیتوان کتاب را نوعی کتاب مقدماتی که صرفاً به توضیح نظریات و آرا مختلف میپردازد، دانست.
دو نکتهی جالب توجه در این کتاب یکی تلقی مؤلف از نقد به عنوان فعالیتی ارزیابانه و دیگری رد نظریهی مشهور «مرگ مؤلف» و دفاع از موضع «نیتخوانیگرایی» است. کرول معتقد است که تنها وجه مشخصهای که نقد را از سایر صورتهای نوشتاری/گفتاری متمایز میکند ارزیابی است. بنا بر این به صرف توصیف، تبیین، تفسیر و...نمیتوان نام آن فعالیت را نقدکردن گذاشت. مخالفت کرول با «مرگ مؤلف» از طریق رد استدلالهای مقوم این نظریه صورت میگیرد. کرول خود مدافع نظریهای مشابه «فرمالیسم» است که در آن وظیفهی منتقد ارزیابی اثر نسبت به غایات منتسب به مقولهی است که اثر در آن جایمیگیرد.
ترجمهی آقای طباطبایی فوقالعاده دقیق و بینقص است و از این بابت از ایشان سپاسگزارم.
July 3, 2020
بهگمانمان،
حیاتی ست که کارول را توی سنّتي موقعیّتیابی کنیم که ادامهٔ کسي مثلِ آرثور دانتو فهمیده شود. بیراه نیست اگر بنویسیم ایدهٔ
evaluation
که همچون نسخهٔ نهاییی کارول برای نقد توی این کتاب ارائه شده است، فیالواقع پس از چهارچوبهای فکریی دانتو صورتبندی شده که بهاختصار برایاش کاري هنری ست که دربارهٔ چیزي باشد؛ وقتي کاري هنری میشود که آن متعلّق، یعنی هماني که کار دربارهٔ آن است، را به فرمي مناسب دربیاورد ــــو همین (به تصریحِ کارول) به دانتو الگویي برای نقد داده بود.
تفصیلِ بیشترش را توی مصاحبهٔ زیر از کارول خواهید یافت، بهخصوص برای ردیابیی تأثیرِ دانتو بر کارول:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43Bw3...
[لینک اگر کار نکرد،توی یوتیوب این عنوان را جستوُجو کنید:
An Interview with Noël Carroll - On Arthur Danto and Art Criticism
]
حیاتی ست که کارول را توی سنّتي موقعیّتیابی کنیم که ادامهٔ کسي مثلِ آرثور دانتو فهمیده شود. بیراه نیست اگر بنویسیم ایدهٔ
evaluation
که همچون نسخهٔ نهاییی کارول برای نقد توی این کتاب ارائه شده است، فیالواقع پس از چهارچوبهای فکریی دانتو صورتبندی شده که بهاختصار برایاش کاري هنری ست که دربارهٔ چیزي باشد؛ وقتي کاري هنری میشود که آن متعلّق، یعنی هماني که کار دربارهٔ آن است، را به فرمي مناسب دربیاورد ــــو همین (به تصریحِ کارول) به دانتو الگویي برای نقد داده بود.
تفصیلِ بیشترش را توی مصاحبهٔ زیر از کارول خواهید یافت، بهخصوص برای ردیابیی تأثیرِ دانتو بر کارول:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43Bw3...
[لینک اگر کار نکرد،توی یوتیوب این عنوان را جستوُجو کنید:
An Interview with Noël Carroll - On Arthur Danto and Art Criticism
]
August 19, 2019
A thought-provoking exploration of ideas around criticism of all kinds of art from film and theatre to literature and music. Although I don’t agree with all his points, Carroll drills down into the role of criticism and how it is evaluation grounded in reasoning. He gets bogged down in terminology in the second half of the book but the first two chapters are a useful read for anyone interested in the practice of criticism. This is my critique of a book critiquing the practice of criticism.
January 21, 2022
A wonderful book in the analytic tradition of philosophy. Carroll argues against the type of explainer critics such as Jerry Saltz or Peter Schjedahl and for a criticism based in evaluation. Much of the book is concerned with how we find value and the different types of value to be located. A great read for anyone interested in the philosophy of art.
June 27, 2021
پس از دهه هایی که نقد به معنای کلاسیک از سکه رواج افتاده، اقای کارول حرکت جالب توجهی انجام داده و سعی کرده ساختار و چهارچوبی روشمند برای نقد اثر هنری ارایه بده... ترجمه کتاب هم خیلی خوب و اموزنده ست. مخصوصا پانوشتهای مترجم
March 28, 2021
بیشتر شبیه جزوات کلاسی یا چیزی شبیه یادداشت برداری سخنرانی است
June 8, 2016
Carroll begins On Criticism by suggesting that criticism, and by extension the critic, has lost its way. He wants to "reconstruct rationally the practice (or practices) of art criticism" (3). This quote implies that he is only concerned with art criticism, or shall we say, critical interpretations of visual art. This, however, is deceptive because he tends to use terms like "art criticism" to signify any creative, artistic enterprise (e.g. novels, plays, film, etc.). Carroll's reconfiguration of criticism stands on two pillars of critical interest that he argues have been ignored and marginalized in recent critical endeavors: evaluation and intention. For Carroll, evaluation is not necessarily a superficial, qualitative endeavor. That is to say, he rejects criticism that simply pronounces a work as either good or bad. Evaluation is a value-based approach to criticism that longs to engage a text on its own terms. Therefore, Carroll prioritizes the place of intent more so than most because he argues that we can, in fact, infer an author's intent. Knowing an author's intent helps the critic better understand how an author approached his or her work, which enhances and facilitates the critic's critical endeavor.
I was under the impression that intention-based criticism was not in fashion. To my surprise, at times, Carroll makes a persuasive appeal to intention-based criticism. He loses me when he begins exploring the limits of anti-intentional criticism (think the intentional fallacy). The intentional fallacy argues that artistic intent is far too slippery of an epistemology to used for critical evaluation, and any criticism that prioritizes (this word's important) the artist's intentions exposes itself to evaluative flaws. Furthermore, knowing what an artist intended to do only takes the critic so far. In effect, intents cannot be a benchmark, and perhaps criticism should not use such scientifically sounding means as a way of understanding what is artistically successful. Carroll realizes this, but too often over-simplifies the position anti-intentionalist take when assessing art critically. I cannot think of a contemporary critical movement (at least not in literary studies) that completely eschews and dismisses intent. Not since the New Critics of the mid 20th century has intent been met with such scrutiny. So at times, it feels like Carroll argues against a strawman who may or may not look exactly like Cleanth Brooks.
To Carroll's credit, his most persuasive moments are those when he sends shots across the bow at the sort of list-making Internet criticism that has increased in size since this book's original publication in 2008. Admittedly, I'm not as familiar with visual art criticism as I am with literary criticism, so I suspect that I am unfamiliar with some of what Carroll reacts to in this book.
I was under the impression that intention-based criticism was not in fashion. To my surprise, at times, Carroll makes a persuasive appeal to intention-based criticism. He loses me when he begins exploring the limits of anti-intentional criticism (think the intentional fallacy). The intentional fallacy argues that artistic intent is far too slippery of an epistemology to used for critical evaluation, and any criticism that prioritizes (this word's important) the artist's intentions exposes itself to evaluative flaws. Furthermore, knowing what an artist intended to do only takes the critic so far. In effect, intents cannot be a benchmark, and perhaps criticism should not use such scientifically sounding means as a way of understanding what is artistically successful. Carroll realizes this, but too often over-simplifies the position anti-intentionalist take when assessing art critically. I cannot think of a contemporary critical movement (at least not in literary studies) that completely eschews and dismisses intent. Not since the New Critics of the mid 20th century has intent been met with such scrutiny. So at times, it feels like Carroll argues against a strawman who may or may not look exactly like Cleanth Brooks.
To Carroll's credit, his most persuasive moments are those when he sends shots across the bow at the sort of list-making Internet criticism that has increased in size since this book's original publication in 2008. Admittedly, I'm not as familiar with visual art criticism as I am with literary criticism, so I suspect that I am unfamiliar with some of what Carroll reacts to in this book.
June 2, 2009
"This book is best read by the light of another, John Carey’s What Good are the Arts? (Oxford University Press, 2006), a witty, truculent, masterful polemic which argues that a “work of art is anything that anyone has ever considered a work of art, though it may be a work of art only for that one person; and the reason for considering anything a work of art will be as various as the variety of human beings.”
What a work of art isn’t, says Carey, is what many people who spend their lives working in the field say it is. It isn’t, for example, what Arthur Danto claims; according to Carey, Danto—a critic for The Nation—believes with Immanuel Kant that art is special, that there is a kind of “trans-historical essence in art, everywhere and always the same.” To see something as art requires an “atmosphere” of artistic theory, a knowledge of the history of art. Only those who possess this are qualified to comment on a work of art because they are privy to its background and intention; success of the work is thus determined by the extent to which it achieves this intent. What results, says Carey, is a transcendental knowledge that automatically overrides personal, subjective opinion, an authority whose verdict cannot be questioned.
Loaded with dazzling, pugilistic rhetoric, Carey’s arguments demolish this Kantian scaffolding, but in so doing, they leave us stranded unhappily in an anarchic quagmire of subjective relativism, where the intentions of artists are unknowable and the opinions of those who haven’t, for example, read any 20th-century fiction are deemed just as valid as those of critics who have read them all.
On Criticism methodically hardens and recaptures this ground, constructing a foundation upon which criticism—objective, evaluative criticism—can reasonably operate. As a starting point…
read the rest at Rain Taxi
http://www.raintaxi.com/online/2009sp...
What a work of art isn’t, says Carey, is what many people who spend their lives working in the field say it is. It isn’t, for example, what Arthur Danto claims; according to Carey, Danto—a critic for The Nation—believes with Immanuel Kant that art is special, that there is a kind of “trans-historical essence in art, everywhere and always the same.” To see something as art requires an “atmosphere” of artistic theory, a knowledge of the history of art. Only those who possess this are qualified to comment on a work of art because they are privy to its background and intention; success of the work is thus determined by the extent to which it achieves this intent. What results, says Carey, is a transcendental knowledge that automatically overrides personal, subjective opinion, an authority whose verdict cannot be questioned.
Loaded with dazzling, pugilistic rhetoric, Carey’s arguments demolish this Kantian scaffolding, but in so doing, they leave us stranded unhappily in an anarchic quagmire of subjective relativism, where the intentions of artists are unknowable and the opinions of those who haven’t, for example, read any 20th-century fiction are deemed just as valid as those of critics who have read them all.
On Criticism methodically hardens and recaptures this ground, constructing a foundation upon which criticism—objective, evaluative criticism—can reasonably operate. As a starting point…
read the rest at Rain Taxi
http://www.raintaxi.com/online/2009sp...
October 23, 2015
Noel Carroll's On Criticism is very good. Noel Carroll explains the the book's goal in the following way. While making a work of art, the artist has an intention. For instance, some artist makes a particular painting in order to make people think. The business of art criticism is for the art critic to find the artist's intention and the artistic value.
Noel Carroll divided art criticism into seven parts. The main goal is evaluation. According to Carroll, if the art critic doesn't evaluate art, then the art critic isn't really an art critic. Nevertheless the critic has other goals in order to do evaluation. Firstly, the critic evaluates. Second is classification. The critic should describe the art. Third is classification. For example, some painting fits with a historical period--Baroque, Modern Art, and so on. Fourth is contextualization. The critic finds and explains the context. For instance, why was this artwork made? When? Et cetera.
As for the final categories, there's elucidation, interpretation, and analysis. Fifth is elucidation. When the art critic elucidates, she explains the words and symbols in the art. Sixth is interpretation. The critic explains the art's meaning. Seventh is analysis. Here the art critic compares the parts of the work of art to its whole.
Noel Carroll divided art criticism into seven parts. The main goal is evaluation. According to Carroll, if the art critic doesn't evaluate art, then the art critic isn't really an art critic. Nevertheless the critic has other goals in order to do evaluation. Firstly, the critic evaluates. Second is classification. The critic should describe the art. Third is classification. For example, some painting fits with a historical period--Baroque, Modern Art, and so on. Fourth is contextualization. The critic finds and explains the context. For instance, why was this artwork made? When? Et cetera.
As for the final categories, there's elucidation, interpretation, and analysis. Fifth is elucidation. When the art critic elucidates, she explains the words and symbols in the art. Sixth is interpretation. The critic explains the art's meaning. Seventh is analysis. Here the art critic compares the parts of the work of art to its whole.
January 4, 2009
Noel Carroll is my new favorite theorist.
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews