A Comparative Mirror

Comparison is a tool used by a lot of critics. In some respects its a lazy tool, like putting together Ikea furniture with an electric screwdriver. And, in just the same way, it's useful. Giving a more well-known basis for comparison for a sound or a sight can intrigue a reader into giving something a look and in a way that's your job as a critic: to explain to the uninitiated the background behind the artist, the piece, and what to expect when you experience that piece. It doesn't make sense to review a Coldplay record without at least touching on their obvious sonic touchpoints (Radiohead, U2, blah blah blah).



My problem with comparison in criticism-- my problem with criticism in general-- is when it becomes personal.



That sounds kind of weird; any sort of review is obviously a personal opinion. However, too often I see reviews that reveal more about the critic than they do about the music. Say what you will about the overly prosaic style, the occasional purple tone, that cropped up especially in earlier Pitchfork reviews, but very rarely could you say they were more about the critic than the music.

The most subtle, but often the most telling, form of this is through comparison. The critic doesn't compare one artist's work to the artist connected to the work of art being critiqued. Instead, the critic compares other critic's opinions on the piece and uses that as the lens through which to frame their own opinions.

This is most evident-- and most annoying-- in the world of independent music review when you see various blogs and websites dissecting Pitchfork's year end lists, talking about how egregious leaving certain songs or albums out, and the inclusion of various other songs and albums. It's an inherently arrogant frame to look at your own opinions. Essentially it says, "I have a superior viewpoint on this piece or these pieces of music," and then using that self-declared state of superiority as a self-fulfilling argument; since this critic is implying that their viewpoint is more enlightened than others, they are lending their review the same implication of superiority, regardless of the actual writing quality.

In the end, however, the comparison is immaterial. Since all opinions are subjective, all opinions are inherently either of value or valueless. Thus, the discussion of the validity of other opinions within the context of your own opinion is self-defeating. You are automatically framing your opinion in a way that is irrelevant to the piece of art being discussed. It's like making a movie about how much another movie sucks (Wait, wasn't that what the Jay/Silent Bob scene at the end of Chasing Amy was?).



Too often this same idea, this use of comparison to frame our own opinions or actions, is used in personal lives.

Sometimes its tragic, where an addict will use a worse addiction to justify their own addiction: "Look, Jack's strung out on coke. All I do is drink every once in a while, I don't need rehab."

Sometimes its humorous, if still somewhat self delusional: "I have a lot of clothes, and sure they take up three walk-in closets, but did you see that Mariah Carey episode of Cribs? She has, like, an apartment-sized closet. I'm not to that point."



What makes it harder to dissuade people from the relevance of these comparisons is that, usually, these comparisons are accurate, or at least have a kernel of accuracy in them. The fact that there is this accuracy allows people to justify their behaviors or opinions. However, it ignores a fundamental fact about comparisons: No matter how accurate the comparison might be, there are different circumstances that surround anything that can be compared.

Nothing is exactly alike-- except maybe the behavior of hedgehogs?-- so to take something definitive and inarguable from any comparison is short sighted.



The fact is that we are most accurately able to understand something, a behavior, an opinion, or a piece of art, by looking at the thing itself independent of outside influence. That's an impossible task to do completely, of course, to avoid outside influence is to live in a complete cultural vacuum. However, it is possible to regard something without framing your opinion from the view of that outside influence.

Put more simply, when you're talking about art, look at the art.

When you're talking about your opinions, look at your opinions.

And when you're talking about yourself, take a look at yourself.

If you do it without placing those things within the framework of something or someone else, the results may surprise you.