However, reflecting on these three functions makes clear that the art critic actually offers
very little to society. The first function is better accomplished by docents and teachers, who are
more able to enhance a layperson’s appreciation and understanding of art by providing an
objective, educated interpretation of it. Besides, true appreciation of art occurs at the moment
we encounter art; it is the emotional, even visceral impact that art has on our senses, spirits,
and souls that is the real value of art. A critic can actually provide a disservice by distracting us
from that experience.
The critic’s second function that of evaluator who filters out bad art from the worthwhile is
one that we must be very wary of. History supports this caution. In the role of judge, critics
have failed us repeatedly. Consider, for example, Voltaire’s rejection of Shakespeare as
barbaric because he did not conform to neo-classical principles of unity. Or, consider the
complete dismissal of Beethoven’s music by the esteemed critics of his 6me. The art critic’s
judgment is limited by the narrow confines of old and established parameters for evaluation.
Moreover, critical judgment is often misguided by the ego; thus its value is questionable in any
event.
I turn finally to the critic’s third function: to provide useful feedback to artists. The value of
this function is especiaUy suspect. Any artist, or anyone who has studied art, would agree that
true art is the product of the artist’s authentic passion, a manifestation of the artist’s unique
creative impulse, and a creation of the artist’s spirit. If art were shaped by the concern for
integrating feedback from ali criticism, it would become a viable craft, but at the same time
would cease to be art.
In sum, none of the ostensible functions of the critic are of much value at all, let alone of
lasting value, to society. On the other hand, the artist, through works of art, provides an
invaluable and unique mirror of the culture of the time during which the work was produced a
mirror for the artist’s contemporaries and for future generations to gaze into for insight and
appreciation of history. The art critic in a subordinate role, more often than not, does a
disservice to society by obscuring this mirror.
Issue 61
"People who are the most deeply committed to an idea or policy are the most critical of it."
The speaker claims that people who are the most fmnly committed to an idea or policy are
the same people who are most critical of that idea or policy. While I find this claim paradoxical
on its face, the paradox is explainable, and the explanation is well supported empirically.
Nevertheless, the claim is an unfair generalization in that it fails to account for other empirical
evidence serving to discredit it.
A threshold problem with the speaker’s claim is that its internal logic is questionable. At first
impression it would seem that firm commitment to an idea or policy necessarily requires the
utmost confidence in it, and yet one cannot have a great deal of confidence in an idea or policy
if one recognizes its flaws, drawbacks, or other problems. Thus commitment and criticism
would seem to be mutually exclusive. But are they? One possible explanation for the paradox
68
is that individuals most fmnly committed to an idea or policy are often the same people who
are most knowledgeable on the subject, and therefore are in the best position to understand
and appreciate the problems with the idea or policy.
Lending credence to this explanation for the paradoxical nature of the speaker’s claim are
the many historical cases of uneasy marriages between commitment to and criticism of the
same idea or policy. For example, Edward Teller, the so-called "father of the atom bomb," was
firmly committed to America’s policy of gaining military superiority over the Japanese and the
Germans; yet at the same time he attempted fervently to dissuade the U.S. military from
employing his technology for destruction, while becoming the most visible advocate for various
peaceful and productive applications of atomic energy. Another example is George
Washington, who was quoted as saying that all the world’s denizens "should abhor war
wherever they may find it." Yet this was the same military general who played a key role in the
Revolutionary War between Britain and the States. A third example was Einstein, who while
committed to the mathematical soundness of his theories about relativity could not reconcile
them with the equally compelling quantum theory which emerged later in Einstein’s life. In fact,
Einstein spent the last twenty years of his life criticizing his own theories and struggling to
determine how to reconcile them with newer theories.In the face of historical examples supporting the speaker’s claim are innumerable influential
individuals who were zealously committed to certain ideas and policies but who were not
critical of them, at least not outwardly. Could anyone honestly claim, for instance, that
Elizabeth Stanton and Susan B. Anthony, who in the late 19th Century paved the way for the
women’s rights movement by way of their fervent advocacy, were at the same time highly
critical or suspicious of the notion that women deserve equal rights under the law? Also, would
it not be absurd to claim that Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King, history’s two leading
advocates of civil disobedience as a means to social reform, had serious doubts about the
ideals to which they were so demonstrably committed? Finally, consider the two ideologues
and revolutionaries Lenin and Mussolini. Is it even plausible that their demonstrated
commitment to their own Communist and Fascist policies, respectively, belied some deep
personal suspicion about the merits of these policies? To my knowledge no private writing of
any of these historical figures lends any support to the claim that these leaders were
particularly critical of their own ideas or policies.
To sum up, while at first glance a deep commitment to and incisive criticism of the same idea
or policy would seem mutually exclusive, it appears they are not. Thus the speaker’s claim has
some merit. Nevertheless, for every historical case supporting the speaker’s claim are many
others serving to refute it. In the final analysis, then, the correctness of the speaker’s assertion
must be determined on a case-by-case basis.
Issue 62
"Tradition and modernization are incompatible. One must choose between them."
Must we choose between tradition and modernization, as the speaker contends.; I agree
that in certain cases the two are mutually exclusive. For the most part, however, modernization
does not reject tradition; in fact, in many cases the former can and does embrace the latter.
In the first place, oftentimes so-caUed "modernization" is actually an extension or new
69
iteration of tradition, or a variation on it. This is especially true in language and in law. The
modern English language, in spite of its many words that are unique to modern Western
culture, is derived from, and builds upon, a variety of linguistic traditions--and ultimately from
the ancient Greek and Latin languages. Were we to insist on rejecting traditional in favor of
purely modern language, we would have essentially nothing to say. Perhaps an even more
striking marriage of modernization and tradition is our system of laws in the U.S., which is
deeply rooted in English common-law principles of equity and justice. Our system requires that
new, so-called "modern" laws be consistent with, and in fact build upon, those principles.
In other areas modernization departs from tradition in some respects, while embracing it in
others. In the visual arts, for example, "modern" designs, forms, and elements are based on
certain timeless aesthetic ideals--such as symmetry, balance, and harmony. Modern art that
violates these principles might hold ephemeral appeal due to its novelty and brashness, but its
appeal lacks staying power. An even better example from the arts is modern rock-and-roll
music, which upon first listening might seem to bear no resemblance to classical music
traditions. Yet, both genres rely on the same twelve-note scale, the same notions of what
harmonies are pleasing to the ear, the same forms, the same rhythmic meters, and even many
of the same melodies.I concede that, in certain instances, tradition must yield entirely to the utilitarian needs of
modern life. This is true especially when it comes to architectural traditions and the value of
historic and archeological artifacts. A building of great historic value might be located in the
only place available to a hospital desperately needing additional parking area. An old school
that is a prime example of a certain architectural style might be so structurally unsafe that the
only practicable way to remedy the problem would be to raze the building to make way for a
modern, structurally sound one. And when it comes to bridges whose structural integrity is
paramount to public safety, modernization often requires no less than replacement of the
bridge altogether. However, in other such cases architecturally appropriate retrofits can solve
structural problems without sacrificing history and tradition, and alternative locations for new
buildings and bridges can be found in order to preserve tradition associated with our historic
structures. Thus, even in architecture, tradition and modernization are not necessarily mutually
exclusive options.
To sum up, in no area of human endeavor need modernization supplant, reject, or otherwise
exclude tradition. In fact, in our modern structures, architecture and other art, and especially
languages and law, tradition is embraced, not shunned.
Issue 63
"Because of television and worldwide computer connections, people can now become familiar
with a great many places that they have never visited. As a result, tourism will soon become
obsolete."
The speaker asserts that television and computer connectivity will soon render tourism
obsolete. I agree that these technologies might eventually serve to reduce travel for certain
purposes other than tourism. However, I strongly disagree that tourism will become obsolete,
or that it will even decline, as a result.
As for the claim that television will render tourism obsolete, we already have sufficient
70
empirical evidence that this will simply not happen. For nearly a half-century we have been
peering through our television sets at other countries and cultures; yet tourism is as popular
today as ever. In fact, tourism has been increasing sharply during the last decade, which has
seen the advent of television channels catering exclusively to our interest in other cultures and
countries. The more reasonable conclusion is that television has actually served to spark our
interest in visiting other places.
It is somewhat more tempting to accept the speaker’s further claim that computer
connectivity will render tourism obsolete. However, the speaker unfairly assumes that the
purpose of tourism is simply to obtain information about other people and places. Were this the
case, I would entirely agree that the current information explosion spells the demise of tourism.
But, tourism is not primarily about gathering information. Instead, it is about sensory
experience--seeing and heating firsthand, even touching and smelling. Could anyone honestly
claim that seeing a picture or even an enhanced 3-D movie of the Swiss Alps serves as a
suitable substitute for riding a touting motorcycle along narrow roads traversing those
mountains? Surely not. The physical world is laden with a host of such delights that we
humans are compelled to experience firsthand as tourists.
Moreover, in my view tourism will continue to thrive for the same reason that people still go
out for dinner or to the movies: we all need to "get away" from our familiar routines and
surroundings from time to 6me. Will computer connectivity alter this basic need? Certainly not.