Here's the link
The old defenses are being trotted out again. Like much else that used to sound like common sense, they have a tinny, clueless ring in present circumstances. The separation of art and artist is proclaimed — rather desperately, it seems to me — as if it were a philosophical principle, rather than a cultural habit buttressed by shopworn academic dogma. But the notion that art belongs to a zone of human experience somehow distinct from other human experiences is both conceptually incoherent and intellectually crippling. Art belongs to life, and anyone — critic, creator or fan — who has devoted his or her life to art knows as much.
Furthermore, Mr. Allen’s art in particular is saturated with his personality, his preoccupations, his biography and his tastes. One of the most powerful illusions encouraged by popular art is that its creators are people the rest of us know. This is not only because tales of their childhoods and news of their marriages and divorces feed our prurient appetites, or because we can peek into their lives on Instagram and Twitter. It’s also because they carry intimate baggage into their work and invite us to sort through the contents.
This is the blog of the Arts Reviewing and Reporting Class Spring 2018 at the University of San Francisco. As Oscar Wilde wrote, “To the critic, the work of art is simply a suggestion for a new work of his own.”
Thirteen Ways of Looking at a Review
Our Class Blogs
Showing posts with label A.O. Scott. Show all posts
Showing posts with label A.O. Scott. Show all posts
Friday, February 2, 2018
NYTimes Film Critic Wrestles with the Woody Allen Problem
Labels:
A.O. Scott,
Woody Allen
J. Michael Robertson directs the journalism program in the Department of Media Studies at the University of San Francisco. He was an editor/staff writer at the San Francisco Chronicle, 1980-1991, and Atlanta Magazine, 1976-1980. He received a Ph.D. in English Literature from Duke University in 1972.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)