# Interpreting works of art **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Tags:** movies\ **Created:** [August 26, 2024, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interpreting-works-of-art/1006253 "2024-08-26T15:28:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Lucas\_Jackson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lucas_jackson/32/303_2.png) [@Lucas\_Jackson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lucas_Jackson)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2024, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interpreting-works-of-art/1006253/81 "2024-08-30T16:27:22Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > and for Roger Ebert, at least, it failed to do that. No part of the bit of his review you quoted is _inaccurate_ about anything. I feel reviewers have an implied responsibility. When they say ‘I didn’t like this movie’, the implication is, ‘so, you, as a reader of my column won’t either’. Otherwise why even read a review? So, yes, if he says he didn’t like it, that’s not factually incorrect. But if the majority of other reviewers and movie-goers think it’s a great movie, it’s also not incorrect to say his review is was wrong in his assessment of the movie. I feel writing, ‘I didn’t care’ is sloppy and lazy and lacks objectivity. But that’s me. I understand you feel differently. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2024, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interpreting-works-of-art/1006253/82 "2024-08-30T16:39:15Z")
What’s the implied responsibility? To not give a review that’s out of step with the critical and popular reception of the film? And movie reviewers aren’t _supposed_ to be objective. They’re supposed to give their personal reaction to the film. And sometime, a film fails to hook the viewers attention, and they’re left uninterested and disconnected from the film. If a film fails to invest me in the characters or the plot, how am I supposed to express that in a way that’s not “sloppy and lazy?” ---
**Author:** ![DPRK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/4491bb/32.png) [@DPRK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DPRK)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2024, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interpreting-works-of-art/1006253/83 "2024-08-30T16:48:58Z")
> [@puzzlegal](#): > > I “get” Pollack. I don’t “get” Rothko. But i haven’t really looked at his works since i was young, maybe i should try again I have also had the experience where you can really see what is going on in person (versus a tiny blurry uncalibrated picture of an all-black canvas) ---
**Author:** ![Lucas\_Jackson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lucas_jackson/32/303_2.png) [@Lucas\_Jackson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lucas_Jackson)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2024, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interpreting-works-of-art/1006253/84 "2024-08-30T16:49:18Z")
> [@puzzlegal](#): > > I “get” Pollack. I don’t “get” Rothko. But i haven’t really looked at his works since i was young, maybe i should try again Some abstract art is amazing and some ‘looks a child did it’. What’s the difference? It’s very hard to define. Is it implicit in the art itself? Is it an evolved appreciation? I don’t know. But I do know this, as a former artist myself, I struggled to find meaning or appreciation of Rothko… that is, until I saw them in person. I was strolling through a museum once and came upon the Rothko room. I was literally stunned! I sat on the viewing bench for probably 20 minutes in awe. So maybe it’s seeing the art in person. I developed a much deeper appreciation for Pollok after seeing his work in person. And others as well. I visited the Van Gogh exhibit when it was in San Francisco. I was literally brought to tears by his ‘Wheatfield with Crows’. I went through the giftshop to get a poster of it. It was so flat and non-representative of the original that I left a little sadder. The same for Warhol. I used to dismiss his work as pop schlock, until I went to an exhibit in Las Vegas. In person, his work is alive and vibrant and I came away with a new appreciation. Rothko is now one of my top favorite artists. I suggest you review him again. But certainly if you can get to his stuff in person, that will make all the difference. ---
**Author:** ![puzzlegal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puzzlegal/32/3827_2.png) [@puzzlegal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puzzlegal)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2024, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interpreting-works-of-art/1006253/85 "2024-08-30T16:52:41Z")
Movie reviewers aren’t anointed by God. They are popular or unpopular, successful or unsuccessful. When they are popular and stay on the air (or in print) it’s either because their reviews are fun to consume in their own right, or because many viewers find them helpful in picking movies they’ll like. Usually a bit of both. But if most viewers disagree with their reviews, people stop watching the reviews and they become unimportant. ---
**Author:** ![Lucas\_Jackson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lucas_jackson/32/303_2.png) [@Lucas\_Jackson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lucas_Jackson)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2024, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interpreting-works-of-art/1006253/86 "2024-08-30T16:54:29Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > And movie reviewers aren’t _supposed_ to be objective. I disagree. ---
**Author:** ![Eyebrows\_0f\_Doom](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eyebrows_0f_doom/32/3119_2.png) [@Eyebrows\_0f\_Doom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eyebrows_0f_Doom)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2024, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interpreting-works-of-art/1006253/87 "2024-08-30T17:55:41Z")
By definition they _must_ be subjective. A film is not objectively good. Liking or not liking something is not a fact. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2024, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interpreting-works-of-art/1006253/88 "2024-08-30T18:12:49Z")
Yeah, “movie reviewers must be objective” doesn’t really make sense. Unless you’re talking about, I dunno, having a personal beef with the filmmaker and giving it a shitty review because of that. But a movie reviewer’s job is literally to give their subjective opinion about a movie. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2024, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interpreting-works-of-art/1006253/89 "2024-08-30T18:14:12Z")
> [@Lucas\_Jackson](#): > > But if the majority of other reviewers and movie-goers think it’s a great movie, it’s also not incorrect to say his review is was wrong in his assessment of the movie. Shouldn’t this also work for viewers? If you take out a lonely position that movie reviewers _should_ be objective, isn’t that just as “wrong”? > [@Lucas\_Jackson](#): > > The same for Warhol. I used to dismiss his work as pop schlock, until I went to an exhibit in Las Vegas. In person, his work is alive and vibrant and I came away with a new appreciation. I agree with you on this point, except my example is Yoko Ono. When all I knew about her were the negative judgements in the press, I reflexively dismissed her art. Until I went to a life exhibit of hers at the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art. Her work proved to be witty and insightful and well-conceived given the proper context. Putting art into context is one great advantage a museum has. ---
**Author:** ![Lucas\_Jackson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lucas_jackson/32/303_2.png) [@Lucas\_Jackson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lucas_Jackson)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2024, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interpreting-works-of-art/1006253/90 "2024-08-30T20:54:40Z")
> [@Eyebrows\_0f\_Doom](#): > > By definition they _must_ be subjective. A film is not objectively good. Liking or not liking something is not a fact. If someone who’s never heard Elton John asks me to review his music for them, I would say that he plays piano beautifully, his compositions are well constructed, follow many music conventions and are generally well received. But personally I don’t like his music. It’s not difficult to not like something yet appreciate it. ---
**Author:** ![Pleonast](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pleonast/32/1183_2.png) [@Pleonast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pleonast)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2024, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interpreting-works-of-art/1006253/91 "2024-08-30T22:28:53Z")
> [@Lucas\_Jackson](#): > > I would say that he plays piano beautifully, his compositions are well constructed, follow many music conventions and are generally well received. But personally I don’t like his music. Every one of your statements is subjective. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2024, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interpreting-works-of-art/1006253/92 "2024-08-30T22:30:17Z")
> [@Lucas\_Jackson](#): > > If someone who’s never heard Elton John asks me to review his music for them, I would say that he plays piano beautifully, his compositions are well constructed, follow many music conventions and are generally well received. But personally I don’t like his music. The problem here is, you’ve given the person who asked you absolutely no useful information. If I’m asking you to review Elton John, it’s going to be because I value your insights into music. “He’s a competent and popular musician,” doesn’t tell me anything about what his music is _like_, which is what I want to know when I read a review. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interpreting-works-of-art/1006253.md?page=4)