What is Evaluative Criticism? https://quod.lib.umich.edu/f/fc/13761232.0040.118?

view=text;rgn=main

Andrew Klevan
Volume 40, Issue 1, January 2016

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3998/fc.13761232.0040.118 [https://doi.org/10.3998/fc.13761232.0040.118]

[http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/]

Although the criticism of every art will be based in the particularities that arise from its specific media,
I am interested here in highlighting aspects of criticism applicable across the arts (and which are
therefore relevant to film criticism). Equally, although the characteristics of evaluative criticism have
developed through and in relation to written criticism, most of the aspects listed below would be
germane to work currently taking place within audio-visual formats. I offer this interdisciplinary
résumé because my experience is that many students of film studies ‘in the 21st Century’ are currently
lacking an awareness of the practice of evaluative criticism.
Some might consider the phrase “evaluative criticism” tautological because the etymology of the word
“criticism” implies evaluation. It is derived from the Greek word kritikos, which means to judge, and
the kritikoi were the judges or jurymen who gave verdicts (often in competitions). The kritikoi were
also encouraged to come to their judgements after careful consideration—for Aristotle criticism was
not simply judging but judging well—and mindful that they should be for the good of the society
allowing future judges to judge more soundly. [1] [#N1] Over time, however, criticism has become
capacious including all manner of commentary, and its evaluative dimension is less determining and
in many cases non-existent. My own feeling is that the other approaches referenced by the term could
go by their more specific and accurate names, for example, scholarship, philology, contextual/cultural
study, and theory, or critical theory. The distinctive discipline of evaluative criticism would then be
less likely to be lost in the broad church.
Contemporary evaluative criticism is now inextricably linked to the aesthetic. Put very briefly, the
conception of aesthetics to which I refer is that which came to fruition in 18th Century and most
profoundly in Immanuel Kant’s Third Critique. It concerns the philosophical study of artistic
judgement and value, and more particularly the evaluative experience of a work’s form and style.
Despite the emphasis on form and style, an aesthetic approach does not entail formalism or
aestheticism and, therefore, does not discount meaning or “content,” or demean moral, political, or
ethical dimensions.
A fundamental aspect of the aesthetic point of view is experience. The actual encounter between this
viewer/critic and this work in front of him/her underpins the critical process. This distinguishes
criticism from many other prominent approaches to artistic work. Historical or other forms of
contextual study wish to illuminate the work by returning it to its original context (place, culture,
politics, institutions or people). The individual’s aesthetic experience of the work—in the present—is
downplayed and sometimes repudiated. Theoretical study wishes to illuminate the work by placing it
within generalised systems and structures, abstracting it, which often, once again, detaches it from the
individual’s aesthetic experience (of its particularity). By contrast, criticism is experiential all along the
line: it conceives of the work as one that expresses or embodies experiences, and is based on an appeal
to experience; it is responsive to the aesthetic experience as the work is encountered; it is mindful that
the experience of the work may be modified by knowledge of a range of contexts (historical, cultural,
intellectual), new evidence, other works, experiences of life, and by taking account of the experiences
of friends, colleagues and students; and, ultimately, it intends to contribute to the reader’s experience
of the work.
Evaluation is a necessary but not sufficient component of criticism because evaluation is an important

1 sur 4 12/02/2024, 19:01

What is Evaluative Criticism? https://quod.lib.umich.edu/f/fc/13761232.0040.118?view=text;rgn=main

practice in many areas of life that are not criticism. Evaluative criticism also involves:

Communicating an understanding of a work which often includes but is not equivalent to presenting
an account of its meaning (interpretation narrowly conceived). The work is shown to be intelligible
(or unintelligible), or can be experienced in ways we may not have realized, and is a more (or less)
significant achievement.

Awakening perception by drawing attention to aspects of the work. Something we were partly aware
of is clarified or enhanced, or something new is revealed. Criticism often directs itself towards the
missed, or dismissed. It advocates that the work be regarded in a certain way. An account shows,
prescriptively, how it could, or even should, be seen.

Describing and analyzing the form and style of the work attentively and often moment by moment—
a practice known as close reading—in order to adjust perception and bring to light the previously
unseen (or unheard), explain inner workings, refine interpretations, justify and evidence evaluative
claims, and deepen the experience.

Appreciating the work and encouraging others to appreciate. Appreciation is not something casually
adopted but more fundamentally a “mode of apprehension” that starts with an expectation of value
and proceeds as a “structured perception of value.” One believes that paying the work the right sort
of attention, something that may require training and experience, will be worth one’s while, and lead
to a valuable experience. [2] [#N2] Appreciation is often admiring, but it may also carry the sense of
taking full or sufficient account of—as in, for example, appreciating a problem—rather than feeling
thankful or grateful for, or valuing highly.

Recognising, and responding to, the particularity and irreducibility of the work. In what way is it
distinctive? The English literary critic F.R. Leavis wrote that the critic should regard the work “as
something that should contain within itself the reason why it is so and not otherwise.” [3] [#N3]

Detecting the work’s qualities—the distinguishing characteristics, traits, and attributes—and how
they are generated. These may be, for example, formal (balanced, tightly knit, economical),
emotional (sad, angry, joyful, serene), behavioural (bouncy, sluggish, pretentious, subtle),
representational (realistic, true to life, distorted), or historical (original, derivative, daring). [4] [#N4]

Gauging the capacity of the work to engage and stimulate our faculties of perception, cognition,
emotion or imagination. [5] [#N5]

Comparing, implicitly or explicitly, with other works. Discriminatory activity draws on cumulative
experience.

Identifying, and being knowledgeable about, relevant artistic contexts and traditions—authorial,
generic, stylistic—to reveal aspects of the work that only manifest when perceived with these in
mind, and to show ways in which it is different, atypical, and perhaps exceptional. [6] [#N6]

Acknowledging the work as something made by people and designed to achieve some end(s) that
may or may not be accomplished. An important part of evaluation is the recognition that it has been
made, and made well, or not so well. Criticism recognises that certain things may be achieved, or
not. Leavis believed that the critic should not merely react to the completed work but respond to a
sense of the makers’ creativity and choices, to the implied activity of its composition. [7] [#N7] This
creativity will sometimes manifest as a distinctive personal style which criticism will evaluate for its
qualities and efficacy.

2 sur 4 12/02/2024, 19:01

What is Evaluative Criticism? https://quod.lib.umich.edu/f/fc/13761232.0040.118?view=text;rgn=main

Accepting that there are no fixed evaluative criteria that will apply in all cases. Most critics and
aesthetic philosophers believe that criteria cannot be ascertained and prescribed a priori but will
emerge as one engages with the particularity of the work and its critical context. Criticism often
evaluates whether a feature feels fitting and suitable: does it work here, does it seem right, and why.
[8] [#N8] Criticism is conditional, contingent, practical, and pragmatic, but this does not make it
arbitrary. Although they refrain from adopting pre-ordained systems, critics are often systematic
because they wish to think in an ordered way about the way the work has been arranged. Rather than
absolute or universal criteria, criticism abides by principles or standards of critical practice and
procedure. [9] [#N9]

Expressing dissent in order to seek assent. There is a non-conformist impulse in criticism that serves
revaluation. The critic feels that the work has been overrated or not rated highly enough and this
misjudgement needs rectifying in order to gain fair recognition. This is more than an academic
intervention; it is felt to be an ethical imperative.

A piece of criticism contributes, in a formalised and extended manner, to a continuing conversation

about a work. This is one reason why criticism endeavours to operate within ordinary language—aside
from using the creative terminology and language of its art—and resists being unduly determined by
specialist discourses from other disciplines. Such discourses may well be necessary to achieve
alternative perspectives, for example, when offering a radical critique. For criticism, however, these
would break its continuity with the creative processes of the art to which it attends and intelligent
everyday exchange about aesthetic experience.

Andrew Klevan is Associate Professor in Film Studies in the Faculty of English at the University of
Oxford. His most recent attempt at evaluative criticism concerns the film Trouble in Paradise [http://
www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/film/movie/contents/the_art_of_indirection_in_trouble_in_paradise.pdf] [click
on title]. A slightly expanded version of ‘What is Evaluative Criticism?’ including a more extensive
bibliography can be found at his academia.edu [https://oxford.academia.edu/AndrewKlevan] page.

1. René Wellek, “Literary Criticism” in What is Criticism?, ed. Paul Hernadi (Bloomington: Indiana
University Press, 1981), 297; F.E. Sparshott, The Concept of Criticism (Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1967), 17. [#N1-ptr1]
2. S.H. Olsen, The End of Literary Theory (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), 137; see
also S.H. Olsen, “Appreciation,” in Oxford Art Online, accessed March 30, 2015. [#N2-ptr1]
3. F.R. Leavis, The Common Pursuit (London: Hogarth, 1984 [1952]), 224. [#N3-ptr1]
4. List by Alan H. Goldman, Aesthetic Value (Colorado, CO: Westview Press, 1998), 17; see also
Frank Sibley, Approach to Aesthetics: Collected Papers on Philosophical Aesthetics, eds. John
Bensen, Bett Redfern and Jeremy Roxbee Cox (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2006 [original essays
1950-93]), 1-23. [#N4-ptr1]
5. Alan H. Goldman, “Evaluating Art,” in The Blackwell Guide to Aesthetics, ed. Peter Kivy (Oxford:
Blackwell, 2004), 93-108. [#N5-ptr1]
6. Kendall Walton, “Categories of Art,” in Marvelous Images: On Values and the Arts (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2008), 195-219. [#N6-ptr1]
7. Michael Bell, F.R. Leavis (London: Routledge, 1988), 47. [#N7-ptr1]
8. Roger Scruton, Art and Imagination (London: Methuen, 1974), 247-8); see also Ludwig
Wittgenstein, Lectures and Conversations on Aesthetics, Psychology and Religious Belief
(Oxford: Blackwell, 1989 [1966]), 3, Point 8. [#N8-ptr1]
9. David Hume, “Of the Standard of Taste,” in Aesthetics: A Comprehensive Anthology, eds. Steve

3 sur 4 12/02/2024, 19:01

What is Evaluative Criticism? https://quod.lib.umich.edu/f/fc/13761232.0040.118?view=text;rgn=main

M. Cahn and Aaron Meskin (Oxford: Blackwell, 2008 [original 1757]), 103-112. [#N9-ptr1]

Hosted by Michigan Publishing, a division of the University of Michigan Library.

For more information please contact mpub-help@umich.edu.
Print ISSN: 0163-5069 • Online ISSN: 2471-4364

4 sur 4 12/02/2024, 19:01