Theory Criticism and Criticizing Theory

As art is constantly being redefined by artists and viewers both, and those who can follow it, theorize with it, predict it and chronicle it are generally on the cutting edge of intellectual thought and writing. Writers such as Allan Kaprow (I) come to mind. Pauline Kael is a perfect example of this phenomenon. She makes sure to write about something interesting—if this cannot be the movie, then it must be something else. If this makes her a lesser critic, it also makes her a greater writer.
Kael has no qualms about avoiding the expected critical discussion of a movie— “writing about everything but the movie” was an “accusation” made by those who believe a review must be ‘to-the-point’. Her desire to always write about something interesting, even if it is at the expense of adherence to common critical form, makes her a good writer. Her injection of social commentary into her pieces, as in “Excerpt From Fantasies Of the Art-house Audience—Hiroshima Mon Amour” is a fine example. Writing a review of a film (which isn’t even too abysmal) would nevertheless be less interesting than ideas like “the educated audience often uses ‘art’ films… …for finding wish fulfillment in the form of cheap and easy congratulation on their sensitivities and their liberalism (1).” When one can be writing art & social theory, if one is intelligent, they should be doing so, and Kael is no exception. Her art-theory-oriented thinking can be noted in her view of pop art: “movies… …can combine the energy of a popular art with the possibilities of high art (2).” This art theory may be applicable to the films in question, but the theory can stand on its own. The typical role of a critic is irrelevant to Pauline Kael, and her diversion there-from should be likewise irrelevant to her readers.
Kael does not pander to critical mediocrity. Conversely, she is intrigued by the mediocrity of audience and their artistic-merit-stipulations and opinions (e.g. “…one of the reasons we love movies [is] the pop element (3)”). She is as interested in the audience as in the movie, and seemingly writes just as much about the former as the latter. These attributes make her more than a critic but a theorist and a skillful writer. She goes above and beyond the typical movie critic.
Though Kael does stay on topic in many of her reviews, such as that of “My Left Foot” or of “Top Gun”, but even then has is sharp as a knife. Even then she makes artistic conjectures such as “the result is a new art form: the self referential commercial (4).” Her constant thinking about the re-definition of the film medium and its many different degrees of artistry comes through in her writing, and though some seem to think this dilutes it, in all intelligent and scholarly senses it is infinitely superior to the common critical form.

I-Kaprow is a contemporary artist and professor at the University of California, San Diego.
1. KPFA broadcast review of “Excerpt From Fantasies Of the Art-house Audience—Hiroshima Mon Amour”, 1961
2. Davis, Francis: Afterglow—a Last Conversation with Pauline Kael; De
Capo Press, 2002 (p. 32)
3.) Davis, Francis: Afterglow—a Last Conversation with Pauline Kael; De
Capo Press, 2002 (p. 91)
4.) New Yorker review of “Top Gun”, June 16 1986