Random Post #1

Can Bad Things be Good?

It's probably safe to say that most of us want to have good taste. It's almost a universal feeling to want to show off our refined interests, whether it be in fashion, film, and music. We have metrics for judging the quality of things:

- Movie and television critics rate shows and films.

- High fashion can be judged in a competition.

- Music is also critiqued, rated, and awarded.

In these fields, critics will disagree but a relative consensus is usually met. Despite this, it's blatantly obvious that critics' taste doesn't transfer to general audiences. The "best" films are not the highest grossing. You probably won't hear the most "masterful" album ever made being played at a party. Lastly, most people will prefer wearing jeans and a white t-shirt over high fashion. This begs the question: if something is more liked by more people, should the roles of good and bad be reversed?

I have my own distinction for this. I tend to judge things based off of their achievement towards their purpose. I'm not afraid to say that I love some things that are considered bad. The revamp movie Baywatch has a 17% on Rotten Tomatoes. The critics hated it. I got to see the Rock and Zach Efron battle it out to see who could be the biggest meathead on the beach. It was great. The purpose of Baywatch wasn't to convince you to reexamine your political biases, it was to be stupid and make you laugh. On the other hand, a movie like Don't Look Up* was well-received critically. Its purpose was to offer a commentary on politics, ignorance, and climate change. Did it achieve its goal better than Baywatch? 

I'm not saying Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure is a better movie than the Korean masterpiece Oldboy, but it might be closer than the critics would tell us. Critical judgment has for a long time been bathed in academic elitism. It feels good to think you have a more refined opinion, to feel like you can understand something better than most of the population can. This shouldn't cross the boundary where we put down less complicated and experimental things simply because they are not. New metrics of quality can be invented and used to cross-examine movies at a whim. Are these really useful, or just a new way for critics to self-justify based on their own pseudo-standards. The most real judgment we experience is our emotional reaction to the art. I say ignore the critics*. Love something simple. Hate something simple. Don't forget to throw a crappy action movie in between those enlightening arthouse films. Most of all, next time that film bro tries to throw on an experimental French film from 1967 about two ladybugs mating for the first time, tell him you want to watch Top Gun. At the very least, I won't have to listen to him talk about it in my next class.

*Some might argue this fell into "camp", which has a definition that is still up for debate but some experts in the field argue it means unintentionally bad in an entertaining way.

*When making value judgments as a consumer of art. I think critics are an integral part of the art world for other reasons.