Two Thumbs Up: How Critics Aid Appreciation

265 Pages·2020·2.258 MB·English

by  Stephanie Ross

Two Thumbs up

Two Thumbs Up
how CriTiCs Aid AppreCiATion
Stephanie Ross
The University of Chicago Press ChiCAgo And London
The University of Chicago Press, Chicago 60637
The University of Chicago Press, Ltd., London
© 2020 by The University of Chicago
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be used or reproduced
in any manner whatsoever without written permission, except in
the case of brief quotations in critical articles and reviews. For more
information, contact the University of Chicago Press, 1427 E. 60th St.,
Chicago, IL 60637.
Published 2020
Printed in the United States of America
29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 1 2 3 4 5
isbn- 13: 978- 0- 226- 06428- 4 (cloth)
isbn- 13: 978- 0- 226- 70503- 3 (e- book)
doi: https:// doi .org /10 .7208 /chicago /9780226705033 .001 .0001
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Ross, Stephanie, author.
Title: Two thumbs up : how critics aid appreciation / Stephanie Ross.
Description: Chicago : University of Chicago, 2020. | Includes
bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCn 2019053421 | isbn 9780226064284 (cloth) | isbn
9780226705033 (ebook)
Subjects: LCsh: Hume, David, 1711–1776. | Art appreciation. |
Aesthetics. | Art—Philosophy. | Art criticism.
Classification: LCC N75 .R67 2020 | ddC 701/.18—dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2019053421
♾ This paper meets the requirements of Ansi/niso Z39.48- 1992
(Permanence of Paper).
Contents
Preface vii
Introduction 1
1 · Taste and Preference 8
2 · Aesthetic Qualities 29
3 · Hume on the Standard of Taste 61
4 · Identifying Critics 83
5 · When Critics Disagree 107
6 · Comparing and Sharing Taste 134
7 · Some Applications 159
Appendix: A Checklist for Appreciation 203
Acknowledgments 205
Notes 207
Bibliography 239
Index 245

Preface
My first book, What Gardens Mean (University of Chicago Press, 1998), was
an exercise in landscape aesthetics. It allowed me to happily think about
gardens’ powers and their status as art. It was also one of those rare phil-
osophical projects that required its author to travel. For quite some time
thereafter, I cast about for a suitable follow- up. The project I eventually
chose is summarized by my subtitle, “How Critics Aid Appreciation.” I
found myself drawn to an interconnected set of issues that emerged as
I repeatedly taught and pondered two key essays: “Aesthetic Concepts,”
published by Frank Sibley in 1959; and “Of the Standard of Taste,” pub-
lished by David Hume some two hundred years earlier. Between them
these pieces raise compelling questions about how we engage with works
of art and about whether some individuals are specially situated to serve as
guides. Concerns about aesthetic realism and the objectivity of aesthetic
claims are ever- present in the background.
My aim has been to write for a broad audience in addressing these
questions— not just professional philosophers and philosophy students,
but also humanists, generalists, art enthusiasts, autodidacts, and more. I
examine a rich set of issues here. Since readers might want to pick and
choose, pursuing some of the topics I take up but skipping others, I have
prefaced each chapter with a précis that indicates its content. I have also
created a brief appendix with a suggested checklist for appreciation. Ex-
amining it will allow readers to consider their own critical practice.

Introduction
Consider the careers of film critics Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert. Starting
with the 1975 debut of Opening Soon at a Theater Near You on their local
Chicago PBS affiliate, they held forth until Siskel’s death in 1999, rating
films and entertaining an ever- growing audience with their opinionated
analysis and captivating banter. They transitioned from print to electronic
media (both began as film critics for Chicago daily papers) and presided
over increasingly ambitious iterations of that first local show.1 At the height
of their popularity, Siskel and Ebert were said to reach 95 percent of the
nation with their reviews.2 Their personal relationship was competitive
and rancorous. A 2013 retrospective published in Slate magazine compares
their interactions to “a peevish marriage” and notes that tapings of the
half- hour show would often take four to six hours because the two stars
argued so vociferously about every little thing.3
I take away two important morals from this brief history. First, Siskel
and Ebert’s long reign shows that arguing about art is both entertaining
and engrossing. And second, they perfected a way to give aesthetic ad-
vice to a mass audience. There was a predictable structure to Siskel and
Ebert’s programs. Generally several films were reviewed. The critics took
turns leading the discussions. They called attention to details of character
and plot, discussed nuances of acting, noted tone and mood, unpacked
special effects. They also offered illuminating comparisons, ranking the
current film against other work by the same artists and similar work by
others. Short clips were shown throughout to support these various claims.
As Siskel and Ebert’s high ratings attest, this formula made for a very
popular show. Viewers get a good sense of each of the films being rated.
The fact that each segment offers evaluative claims about a film together