It's time again for the Literary Blog Hop, hosted by The Blue Bookcase. And oh, hey . . . look at me participating again!
In the epilogue for Fargo Rock City, Chuck Klosterman writes:
"It's always been my theory that criticism is really just veiled autobiography; whenever someone writes about a piece of art, they're really just writing about themselves."Do you agree?
Why, yes, I do agree. I see truth in this statement because I don't think individual opinion can ever be separated from the individual. In short, complete objectivity doesn't exist.
|Objectivity isn't in this picture? It must have stepped out.|
Objectivity is certainly a necessary and worthy goal in all fields, not just journalism, but in my experience the reporters who most stubbornly claim objectivity tend to be the most likely to let their personal opinions sneak into print. If you want to take a shot at being objective, you have to confront and accept your personal views. They will inevitably color your view of things, but you'll be aware of how they are changing your perception and in a better position to control the outcome.
If the elusive nature of objectivity holds true in journalism, which is a science, I imagine it runs rampant in art criticism. I mean, art is meant to elicit emotion . . . and what's more subjective than that?