{"id":1015,"date":"2016-08-28T23:16:26","date_gmt":"2016-08-29T06:16:26","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/diacritical\/?p=1015"},"modified":"2016-08-29T06:58:05","modified_gmt":"2016-08-29T13:58:05","slug":"what-happens-when-critical-opinion-separates-from-the-audience","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/diacritical\/2016\/08\/what-happens-when-critical-opinion-separates-from-the-audience.html","title":{"rendered":"What Happens When Critical Opinion Separates From The Audience?"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"UChicago_pole_vault\"<\/a>Three stories this week get to the heart of the question. First, the BBC polled critics worldwide and asked them what were the best 100 movies made so far <\/a>in the 21st Century. Look at the list and you see something striking – the top 10 films collectively took in $213 million, or, as Barry Hertz observed in The Globe & Mail<\/a>, about $50 million less than Suicide Squad<\/em> made in two and a half weeks this summer. Of course, you say, mass-appeal blockbustery entertainment is supposed to find bigger audiences than art. But blockbusters can’t be art? A list of best movies of the 20th Century <\/a>shows much closer convergence between box office and critical opinion.<\/p>\n

Hollywood’s artistic<\/em> model is based on making money. In recent years that model has cleaved in two. At the top end “critic-proof” story franchises like The Avengers, Spiderman<\/em>, and Hunger Games<\/em> rule, making hundreds of millions of dollars worldwide. The bets on success are big but the possible returns so huge, these are gambles that have been worth making. Low-investment tiny-budget art films still bump along, their investments small enough that box office failures are survivable. It has been widely observed that the middle has fallen out of the model – that is, mid-budget movies that aren’t reasonably sure of making back their money are too much of a risk and are no longer being made.<\/p>\n

This summer, though, even the blockbusters seem to be failing to find audiences<\/a>.<\/p>\n

These movies didn\u2019t just fail; they almost seemed to never exist in the first place, having been dismissed or disposed of almost immediately upon impact. And even if they did<\/em> do OK for a weekend or two, they never reached beyond their predictable (and increasingly stratified) core audiences. Instead, they were dumbo-dropped into our ever-expanding cauldron of content, where they played to their bases, while everyone else turned to the newest video game, or the latest Drake video, or some random \u201cDamn, Daniel\u201d parody.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

At the high end of the model, Hollywood’s sure-thing audiences have started fading. So-called core audiences are no longer sufficient to propel an expensive movie’s success and critics that no longer matter also no longer seem to care.\u00a0There was a time not so long ago when movie critical and popular taste were more closely aligned. Now movie criticism looks a lot more like criticism in other arts, often with chasms between popular and critical taste.<\/p>\n

So is the gap between critics and audience just a sign that movies have matured as an art form and that critical taste of those who are really paying attention inevitably diverges from mass taste? Or is it something different?<\/p>\n

Two possibly unrelated observations:<\/strong><\/p>\n

    \n
  1. I was watching synchronized diving during the Olympics, getting increasingly irritated\u00a0at the TV commentators who repeatedly pointed out how this heel or that toe was turned slightly wrong. These egregious faults evidently made a huge difference between whether a dive was a success\u00a0or not. After a bit I turned the sound off, not just unconvinced but thoroughly annoyed at a grading system that seemed beside the point. A bit later I changed the channel, because, of course, one dive looked pretty much like another.Watching pole vaulting, however, was unexpectedly captivating. Suspense, anticipation and then… no question whether the athlete had made a successful jump or not. Thrilling. Of course I don’t know a thing about either of these sports, they’re all top athletes, and I’m unsophisticated. But unless critical judgment is aligned with values an audience understands, the critical judgment is meaningless to that audience and critics lose their value. So how well do critics make their case not just for or against a work but also for the importance of the values they’re judging by?<\/li>\n
  2. Instead of a quality problem maybe Hollywood studios have a scale problem. Perhaps the scale of what’s possible has outstripped the scale of what’s desirable or optimal, and just because one era supported movies that cost $200 million doesn’t mean that another era will. Today’s high-end movies work if they’re critic-proof and there’s already a built-in audience. At the low-budget end, films are successful only<\/em> if critics embrace them. These are movies without big marketing budgets or\u00a0wide distribution and they have to depend on critical buzz to find an audience. Not that they’ll ever earn on the scale of the blockbusters, as demonstrated by the BBC list. But there is enough of a reasonable expectation of return that these movies are still being made.\n

    So what determines the scale of a movie? No one is making a picture that costs $1 billion. That makes no sense, even by blockbuster standards. Blockbusters are not, by definition, bad movies; they are calculations of a potential market set against the cost of appealing to that market. Low-budget films are not, by definition, good movies; they are a calculation of a potential market set against the (significantly lower) cost of appealing to that market. Whether either succeeds depends on how well the market calculations were made. And artistic quality? One counts on critics having no power. The other counts on critics being able to convince. But the growing gap between popular and critical successes is becoming an increasingly bigger problem, not just for the art of making good movies, but for a business that seems to have severed the connection between quality – however that is defined – and judgments of that quality.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Image: Wikimedia<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    Three stories this week get to the heart of the question. First, the BBC polled critics worldwide and asked them what were the best 100 movies made so far in the 21st Century. Look at the list and you see something striking – the top 10 films collectively took in $213 million, or, as Barry […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":1016,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_genesis_hide_title":false,"_genesis_hide_breadcrumbs":false,"_genesis_hide_singular_image":false,"_genesis_hide_footer_widgets":false,"_genesis_custom_body_class":"","_genesis_custom_post_class":"","_genesis_layout":"","advanced_seo_description":"","jetpack_seo_html_title":"","jetpack_seo_noindex":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[31,19,21],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-1015","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-audience","8":"category-audience-experience","9":"category-culture-business-models","10":"entry"},"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.artsjournal.com\/diacritical\/wordpress\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/08\/UChicago_pole_vault.jpg?fit=1024%2C683&ssl=1","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p4ePZm-gn","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":48,"url":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/diacritical\/2007\/11\/a_low_pressure_air_mass.html","url_meta":{"origin":1015,"position":0},"title":"A Low Pressure Air Mass…","author":"Douglas McLennan","date":"November 16, 2007","format":false,"excerpt":"If the power of mass culture is based on the ability to attract a mass audience, then perhaps it's worth looking at the size of the mass. Magazines: People magazine is solidly mass market. In 2006 it had a circulation of 3.8 million. Its rivals Us Weekly sold 1.8 million\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "main"","block_context":{"text":"main","link":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/diacritical\/category\/main"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":619,"url":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/diacritical\/2015\/11\/mass-market-versus-arts.html","url_meta":{"origin":1015,"position":1},"title":"The Mass Market Ain’t What It Used To Be (And What That Means For The Arts)","author":"Douglas McLennan","date":"November 30, 2015","format":false,"excerpt":"What does it mean to \"engage with an audience\"? It's a fundamental question for anyone who makes anything. Whether it's a political party trying to win votes, Coke trying to sell drinks, an entrepreneur trying to sell an idea, or a theatre trying to sell tickets. Whole industries thrive on\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "audience"","block_context":{"text":"audience","link":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/diacritical\/category\/audience"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.artsjournal.com\/diacritical\/wordpress\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/1chogfans_t598.jpg?fit=598%2C398&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.artsjournal.com\/diacritical\/wordpress\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/1chogfans_t598.jpg?fit=598%2C398&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.artsjournal.com\/diacritical\/wordpress\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/1chogfans_t598.jpg?fit=598%2C398&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x"},"classes":[]},{"id":2944,"url":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/diacritical\/2024\/11\/how-should-we-measure-art.html","url_meta":{"origin":1015,"position":2},"title":"How Should we Measure Art?","author":"Douglas McLennan","date":"November 3, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"Pre-internet, the lines were pretty clear about the binary relationship between artist and audience. Artists created and audience consumed. In today\u2019s digital world, the landscape is fluid\u2014we create and express our identities by what we choose to share online. Sharing, or curating what we encounter both online and in the\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "audience"","block_context":{"text":"audience","link":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/diacritical\/category\/audience"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.artsjournal.com\/diacritical\/wordpress\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/clown-4133113_1280-1.jpg?fit=1000%2C601&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.artsjournal.com\/diacritical\/wordpress\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/clown-4133113_1280-1.jpg?fit=1000%2C601&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.artsjournal.com\/diacritical\/wordpress\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/clown-4133113_1280-1.jpg?fit=1000%2C601&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.artsjournal.com\/diacritical\/wordpress\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/clown-4133113_1280-1.jpg?fit=1000%2C601&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":854,"url":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/diacritical\/2016\/05\/dougs-list-highlights-from-this-weeks-aj-cautionary-tale-edition.html","url_meta":{"origin":1015,"position":3},"title":"Doug’s List: Highlights From This Week’s AJ, Cautionary Tale Edition","author":"Douglas McLennan","date":"May 8, 2016","format":false,"excerpt":"This week: a great example of the de-monetization of audience, the deadening burden of being a critic, some contradictions about how we use data in the arts, why technology is complicating our fetishment of original art, and remembering a time before words were processed and forever changed how we write.\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Weekly AJ Top Stories"","block_context":{"text":"Weekly AJ Top Stories","link":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/diacritical\/category\/weekly-aj-top-stories"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.artsjournal.com\/diacritical\/wordpress\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/05\/0501_technoheritageHistory.jpg?fit=371%2C511&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":627,"url":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/diacritical\/2016\/01\/playing-for-the-screens-is-our-obsession-with-changing-the-live-arts-experience.html","url_meta":{"origin":1015,"position":4},"title":"Playing For The Screens – Is Our Obsession With Video Changing The Live Arts Experience?","author":"Douglas McLennan","date":"January 20, 2016","format":false,"excerpt":"One weekend last November, the biggest box-office at movie theatres throughout the UK wasn't for the latest Hollywood blockbuster (the latest \"Hunger Games\" movie opened that Friday). It was for a live broadcast of \u00a0Kenneth Branagh\u2019s production of \u00a0\"The Winter\u2019s Tale\" which was streamed live to 520 theatres in the\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "audience"","block_context":{"text":"audience","link":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/diacritical\/category\/audience"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.artsjournal.com\/diacritical\/wordpress\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/Judi-Dench-Paulina-and-Kenneth-Branagh-Leontes-in-The-Winters-Tale-CREDIT-Johan-Persson-700x455.jpg?fit=700%2C455&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.artsjournal.com\/diacritical\/wordpress\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/Judi-Dench-Paulina-and-Kenneth-Branagh-Leontes-in-The-Winters-Tale-CREDIT-Johan-Persson-700x455.jpg?fit=700%2C455&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.artsjournal.com\/diacritical\/wordpress\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/Judi-Dench-Paulina-and-Kenneth-Branagh-Leontes-in-The-Winters-Tale-CREDIT-Johan-Persson-700x455.jpg?fit=700%2C455&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.artsjournal.com\/diacritical\/wordpress\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/Judi-Dench-Paulina-and-Kenneth-Branagh-Leontes-in-The-Winters-Tale-CREDIT-Johan-Persson-700x455.jpg?fit=700%2C455&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":636,"url":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/diacritical\/2016\/01\/is-earning-making-money-the-new-audience-building-strategy.html","url_meta":{"origin":1015,"position":5},"title":"Is Earning Making Money The New Audience-Building Strategy?","author":"Douglas McLennan","date":"January 4, 2016","format":false,"excerpt":"Maybe it's obvious, but in the for-profit world, making money is the point; profit defines success. In the non-profit world, the relationship between profit and success is more complicated. \"Profit\" (or balancing the books) is regarded as a hill to be climbed over rather than the objective. In the hyper-connected\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "audience"","block_context":{"text":"audience","link":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/diacritical\/category\/audience"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.artsjournal.com\/diacritical\/wordpress\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/MakingaLivingMakingMusic-6.25.13-Final-hi-res.jpg?fit=1200%2C783&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.artsjournal.com\/diacritical\/wordpress\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/MakingaLivingMakingMusic-6.25.13-Final-hi-res.jpg?fit=1200%2C783&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.artsjournal.com\/diacritical\/wordpress\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/MakingaLivingMakingMusic-6.25.13-Final-hi-res.jpg?fit=1200%2C783&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.artsjournal.com\/diacritical\/wordpress\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/MakingaLivingMakingMusic-6.25.13-Final-hi-res.jpg?fit=1200%2C783&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.artsjournal.com\/diacritical\/wordpress\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/MakingaLivingMakingMusic-6.25.13-Final-hi-res.jpg?fit=1200%2C783&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]}],"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/diacritical\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1015","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/diacritical\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/diacritical\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/diacritical\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/diacritical\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1015"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/diacritical\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1015\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1069,"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/diacritical\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1015\/revisions\/1069"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/diacritical\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1016"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/diacritical\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1015"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/diacritical\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1015"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/diacritical\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1015"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}