Jargogled Impressions.

Until a few years ago, I used to believe that a work of art, no matter how bad, had elements of truth in it. That a movie for example can be trashy as a whole, but even inside the trashiest of movies, you could find moments of revelation if only you kept your eyes open for it.  It is for this reason, that I loathed any critic who savaged a book, a movie, or any piece of art without saying anything good about it. For no objective reason, such criticism reeked of a pathological disdain and contempt that I found distasteful.

And yet, over the past few years I noticed a disturbing trend – I was beginning to be cynical in my consumption of movies and books. I was starting to locate tropes, cliches, jingoism, etc. more than I would have earlier. As I noticed it more, I realized that part of this was projection. A cynical attitude towards life (and extending to works of art) that arose out of the existential dilemmas that I found myself in.

It’s easy to succumb to criticism. When we observe things closely, and are impassioned by a medium (of art, of business, of discourse), we will inevitably notice things more closely. Say you watch a lot of movies and are intrigued by the technical aspects (cinematography, sound design, editing, production design, acting) of movie making. The more you watch, especially if you watch everything from the masters to the pulp, you will start noticing patterns – how an idea is seeded, how a narrative is imprinted, how a character is enriched, etc. And it’s so much easy as well, to go down the rabbit hole of critiquing outputs as you start evaluating what you see with your own mental model of the ‘right way’ of doing things. I sensed our natural tendency to do so when we lose our ability to get surprised and end up constantly evaluating.

This led me to dig deeper and understand the effects of this by going through the literature around the role of critics and cynics in society.

On Twitter, of all places, criticism and cynicism abounds. You need only look at replies on tweets from the ‘blue tick’ folks to understand just how much of the cynical vitriol gets surfaced on the platform. And yet, the rolling feed provides a great randomization of what you see and what you read. One such discovery was the below –

Ever since I came by it, I have been thinking about the oft-quoted words from Roosevelt. Theodore Roosevelt, the 26th president of the United States, is widely regarded as one of the most influential figures in American history. A man of great intellect and courage, Roosevelt lived a life that was dedicated to the principles of honesty, integrity, and hard work. His legacy has continued to inspire generations of Americans, and his famous quote, “The Man in the Arena,” has become a symbol of perseverance and determination.

The quote comes from a speech that Roosevelt delivered at the Sorbonne in Paris, France, in 1910. In this speech, Roosevelt spoke about the importance of being an active participant in society, rather than a passive observer. He argued that it is not the critic who counts, but the man who is actually in the arena, fighting to achieve his goals, despite the obstacles that he may face.

Certainly, as I highlighted here, the act of creation is always superior to that of consuming. And therefore, those that are out there trying, failing, acting, doing, falling, succeeding, experimenting – those are by far the ones who are doing it right. They are focused on their effort, they are bringing their skin into the game, they are risking it out.

Incidentally, I am also currently reading this book “A Mathematician’s Apology – G.H. Hardy”, and it struck me as odd when the famous mathematician mentions this in the very first page:

“Exposition, criticism, appreciation is work for second-rate minds”.

A part of me bristled at this direct assault at something a very many numbers of people choose as their occupation, and a many more who like indulging in it for a sense of pure satisfaction, and a much greater number of people who partake in it as if they are washing their hands in a running stream. I think it’s the last category of ‘vocal consumers’ though that is responsible for much of the malignment that the rest of this group suffers from when looked at from the vantage point of ‘the man in the arena’.

The first group – the professional critics – are varied in their approach to criticism. For example, Roger Ebert was famously known for approaching every movie with a child like wonder and someone who focused more on what went well with a movie versus what did not. None of his reviews savaged the artist. There is a sense of calm construction and a loving, warm embrace of the movie in Roger’s work. Which leads me to believe that some critics indeed are creators themselves.

The second group – where I guess I would want to find myself in – are those that approach the world with a mindset of abundance. Every creative act furthers human progress by advancing the content available to us to make sense of it. Even though we might as well be churning inputs for our future AI overlords, it is always better than no creation because it allows individuals to explore their creativity, learn from their mistakes, and contribute to the collective knowledge and innovation of society. And our appreciation and recognition can go a long way towards surfacing more of these creations – some of which may indeed herald a new future for us all. In critiquing, we are stacking odds against Pascal’s wager (metaphorically).

I will leave you with this:

“Construction and destruction alike satisfy the will to power, but construction is more difficult as a rule, and therefore gives more satisfaction to the person who can achieve it.” Bertrand Russell.