TYPES OF CRITICISM

Types refer to the class which a specific critique fits into. It shows the approach, which
a critic may adopt, in the execution of the creative exercise of criticism. The strategy
adopted, accounts for the perspective, through which a critic treats an artistic work.
The approach may be either prescriptive or descriptive in nature.

(a) PRESCRIPTIVE CRITICISM. This approach believes that specific rules and laws
guide activities and actions. The law may be that of nature, like the use of canoes and
boats, as transportation modes in riverine areas. It means that the rule stipulates that
people must paddle the canoe if movement is to be achieved in the river. They can also
swim but cannot walk on the river. The rule explains why walking on the river is
abnormal and can only be achieved through a supernatural approach, which may pass
as a miracle. Prescriptive criticism, therefore.

1. Lays down rules of artistic performance and uses the rules to assess how the
work has conformed or deviated from them. It therefore uses rules to set the
boundary of compliance, as the index for evaluation. It believes that such an
understanding can enhance the comprehension of the film.

2. Evaluates the logic of structural and organic unity, based on the -reasoned
deductions. In this way, the sequence, progression and development
of plot, character and language are reviewed and assessed. The essence is to
illuminate how the elements of artistic composition blend, in an orderly manner.

3. Assesses the activities of characters, to deduce if their actions can be rationalized

in a logical manner. It observes the consequences of actions and reactions in
determining the believability of responses, as activities in the film. The essence
is to show why believability is essential, to produce acceptance by an audience.

4. Evaluates the work of the director in the film, using knowledge of production
principles. It may also use experience to show how the director has applied
expertise in the instruction of the characters to ensure an acceptable film
production. This strategy ensures that the unity between directorial
interpretations and the script, for the production is examined.

5. Assesses the relationship between the events in the film and the stated objective,
as the statement of the process message of the work, to see if they relate. It also
shows how experience, knowledge and common sense have mixed in the work to
produce the desired effect on the viewer. The essence is to facilitate an
understanding of how mood, feelings and emotions have been achieved in a
work.

6. Relies on the characteristics of the genre, as the template for classifying works
and assessing their conformity to the class. It abhors genre blending, which it
believes, confuses the audience. It also believes that genre blending reduces the
 purity of the work, as a class and reduces comprehension and aesthetic
appreciation, due to confusion in the classification of the film.

7. Is an unproved remedy, which provides a panacea for artistic relief, based on the
signs and symptoms, presented by the work, and diagnosed, by the critic? The
essence is to ascertain how the various activities in the plot contribute,
respectively, towards the production of the catharsis, often associated with
emotions and feelings, arising from watching a film. Characters are the source of
the observed signs. Their actions reveal the symptoms and their language
become the vehicle for the clarification of events and activities in the film.

8. Is authoritative and command based since it deals with order and compliance. It
sets the artistic dictum and sees how the work fits the ordinance. It evaluates
how characters have acted their roles, based on the film director’s instructions,
to achieve the objective of the work. It advocates strict compliance to
instructions.

(b) DESCRIPTIVE CRITICISM. This approach to criticism deals with a detailed

account and evaluation of the work, so that vital and valuable information about the film
can be obtained. It gives an insight into the reason behind actions. It is designed to
articulate how the elements of artistic composition have been presented to produce, the
film. Descriptive criticism, therefore:

1. Deals with genre as the basis for the classification of a film. It evaluates how the
component parts of the work facilitate the achievement of the characteristics of a
specific class. It becomes an avenue for the assessment of how the film fits into a
film type.

2. Organizes detailed information about the film in a sequential order, as contained

in the film, so that the storyline can be appreciated. The presentation of the
critique adopts a systematic approach, so that the audience can access useful and
reliable information, necessary for the rationalization of artistic decisions.

3. Emphasizes structural unity of the various artistic elements, evident in the work.
It believes that a disorganized structure makes the work incoherent and
confusing.

4. Substantiates organic unity in content, based on character and language. The

approach observes the consistency of characters in the plot and their language
use, throughout the work, to expose the motives and consequences of their
actions.

5. Discusses the canon of complexity, as a template for illuminating how the

various scenes blend to form a synergy. Here, the relationship between the
various scenes in the plot and how they lie, to achieve the objective of the film is
established.
6. Reveals the canon of intensity that enables suspense, dilemma, and dramatic
action to generate the mood, feelings and emotions associated with the film.

7. Evaluates the plot and characters to show why specific characters appeal more
than others in the film; and language, which exposes the frailty of the human
person. It, therefore, exhibits the mistakes of life, the penetration of actions and
the pretension of individuals, representing society. It provides the reason, why
specific behavioral attitudes become anathema for the characters that are
involved, in the film.

8. Defines the scope of treatment without bias, so that the contributions of both the
conceptual and interpretative artists can be appreciated and understood.

9. Presents a graphic account of an artistic work, so that the details of its content
can be disclosed, according to artistic specifications.

THE CRITIC.

The critic deals with a work of art as a concept. He investigates the appropriate
use of production elements, to achieve an understanding of the work and
enhance aesthetic appreciation. He observes the details in the production and
uses specific templates to evaluate the applied principles in the work. He,
therefore, sees artistic composition ‘and presentations very clearly, records and
evaluates them meticulously.

The critic is a technically proficient commentator on artistic performance. He

understands film and its production principles. He knows the structural outlay
of plots and their classification, as genres, based on observed specific
characteristics. He understands the significance of a production and the essence
of direction as a co-ordination of the various aspects of the performance.

He is knowledgeable about postproduction exercises, like editing and previews.

He understands how artistic performance should blend in a production to
produce the intended process message, to achieve the objective of the work. It is
the knowledge in productions and performances that the critic brings to bear on
the work he evaluates. He sees the work conforms or deviates from known,
defined and acceptable standards.

Experience is a veritable attribute, which a critic must use in evaluating artistic

works. His repertoire of knowledge of how performances have taken place
under various production situations enables the critic to assess the characters
and their activities, the director and her interpretative ability in the production,
and the technical crew in their capacity to translate the activities into a creative
presentation, for the consumption of the audience.

He uses experience to determine the limits of performance, through a

comparative analysis of similar works in the same genre. The more exposed a
critic is to the kind of work he assesses, the better for him in the acquisition of
experience that could be used to evaluate other works.

The critic should be a wordsmith, using words that are, suitable to the kind of
work assessed. The choice and selection of words, their arrangement in a logical
sequence of thought, as sentences and paragraphs, must be illuminating and
captivating to facilitate comprehension. The words must call attention to the
work in an impressive manner. The critic arrests and retains readership
interests as well as elicits the desire of the readers and the audience of the work,
to discuss the work with reliable and credible information.

There is a striking similarity between the critic and the scriptwriter. Both are
concerned with performance or a production. None of them takes part in a work.
Each articulates ideas on paper, which form the basis of the activities of others in
the production chain.
For instance, the scriptwriter creates the production idea, which directs the
performance in an artistic work. The critic, on the other hand, produces an
evaluative report, which facilitates an understanding of the work and provides
the information, which the audience uses to discuss the work. Both focus on the
production script, as the basis of performance by the artists or as the parameter
for assessing the performance quality and the presentation style of the work.

It is important to note that neither the scriptwriter nor the critic performs within
the film, as part of the production personnel. Their duties are outside the theatre
and mostly involve creative imaginations. It is the mental picturization that
enable them to either conceive a production idea, as with the scriptwriter, or the
recollection of the screen experience, which helps the critic to assess
performance.

The psychological and temperamental dispositions of the critic, differ from those
of the scriptwriter. For instance, it is the scriptwriter that creates tragedies,
comedies, farce, and parodies based on emotional and mood considerations,
which may reveal the feelings of the writer. It is his choice of words, the
expected delivery of actions by the characters created in the plot that give
meaning to a production and in fact, enables the classification of the work, into a
specific genre.

On the other hand, the critic is not emotional and temperamental as an assessor.
He employs artistic skill, production knowledge, and an intellectual capability in
logic and reasoning, to execute his function to the audience and society. He is
unbiased as an umpire, who sees the good and bad aspects of a production.

He reports the observations faithfully, to illuminate meaning and comprehension

of the work. He penetrates pretensions and apprehends absurdities in the
activities of characters, to articulate mistakes. The critic uses interpretative and
deductive statements, to discuss the work.
FUNCTIONS OF THE CRITIC

The critic plays three significant roles. He is an evaluator of performance based

on specific standards. He is an assessor of an artistic work to ascertain how the
various elements of production have been harnessed and coordinated to produce
a synergy, like the film. He is also, a reporter who articulates observations in a
performance and brings them to public glare and discussion. He sets the
assessment agenda in post-performance appreciation of artistic works. The
details of the functions of the critic are as follows:

A. An Evaluator: The critic uses the rhetorical approach to deal with issues
pertaining to evaluations. He considers methods and techniques as vital
strategies for the realization of the objective of a production and as
approaches through which the communication intent of the work is achieved.
He applies the theory and practice of argumentation, which facilitate a better
understanding of a work of art.

The critic uses the artistic production as an argument. He sees how the
scriptwriter has been able to create a message about life and living
conditions, through the actions and activities of the characters in the work.
He notes how the systematic approach of the work guide role assignment and
performance, in the accomplishment of the activities permitted by situations
and circumstances, in the film.

The critic, therefore, creates messages about the import and significance of
the work, through the selection of details and evidence’, so that a parameter
for weighing the attributes of the work can be established. This deliberative
approach enables the critic to establish the basic argument, which can
translate to reasoning, deductions, and judgment.

When reactions are incident on actions, in the production, one would ask if
the reaction were just and equitable. If a character or groups of performers
violate moral principles, one would want to ascertain the justification for
such actions. It becomes obvious that justice becomes the template for
evaluating actions and events in a work.

The critic observes evidence, as proof, to be used in highlighting the

significance and relevance of actions and activities, in the work. This
evidence approach, towards the establishment of proofs, is known as the
forensic style in criticism.

The critic also uses the epideictic style to show an act, belief and action
deserving commendation because of their work or condemnation due also to
their worth. He uses the style to rationalize activities, which the audience
must appreciate, if it must understand the work. It shows the glorious and
inglorious aspects of performance, as the basis for evaluation of a work of art,
like the film.
B. An Assessor: The critic uses theme, subject or topic of discourse, to assess a
film. He ascertains the theme as indicated by the scriptwriter. He observes
how a plot fits the theme and how the characters perform, to achieve the
import of the theme. The critic uses the theme to ascertain the significance
and relevance of the work to the society. Here, the canon of invention is used
as the basis of assessment of the work.

The order of events, the arrangement of language, and action are important
in the determination of the value of a work. The critic assesses the unity of
idea in the script, the nature, and types of complexities in the plot and the
intensity of action in the work, as the bases for artistic appreciation. He,
therefore, uses the canons or principles of unity, complexity, and intensity, to
assess a work of art. The disposition of the work becomes a subject of
assessment.

The relationship of the work to society is essential to audience appreciation.

Its engineers’ audience participation, if one can relate the actions in a work,
like the film, to real life situations. The critic, therefore, assesses the use of
language, costumes and makeup, the choice of location or scenic designs and
the semblance of actions to natural occurrences, as evident in the work. The
idea is to show how the film relates to events and expectations of the
audience.

There is the need to find out if the presentational style of the work, matches
its objective, as interpreted by the director. The audience becomes a major
consideration for assessing the delivery of the message of the work. The
critic, therefore, ascertains if the presentation style is in consonance with the
expectations of the audience, to guarantee consumption and comprehension.

The hallmarks that can stimulate recall capability of the scenes in the work
are noted. The actions of the protagonists and antagonists are properly
documented. The resolution trend of the plot conflict is ascertained. The
exhibition of dramatic effects, like suspense, surprise and dilemma are also
assessed, so that the catharsis produced by the film, can be rationalized. The
critic, therefore, uses memory, as an indicator of knowledge and experience,
derived from the film, to assess the work.