It’s December, and so that means that the arrival of oodles and oodles of “Best of…” lists is imminent. Help us all.I have always had some general reservations about year-end “10 Best Lists” and their ilk (AFI’s “100 Best Films” and Time Magazine’s “100 Best Novels” of a few years ago, for example) – reservations that can really be boiled down to two things:
1) Ranking creative works fosters an artificial sense of competition – one that encourages people to stress the value of one work over another when it is, in fact, often the case that items on the list will be so disparate in style and tone that comparison is faintly ridiculous.
2) Systems that rank “quality” in art are entirely subject to personal taste and, therefore, never definitive – even though some of these lists (AFI, The Oscars…) are packaged as such.
To be fair, there are many sources of these year-end lists that do not market their ranking system as ‘definitive,’ but rather as markers of taste. And there are many excellent critics who honestly admit to the failings of the numeric ranking system.
Let me be clear: I don’t object to the notion of a critic, or a group of critics, discussing what they felt were the year’s best artistic endeavors. I am not arguing for the absence of critical judgment, or that certain creative works aren’t better than others (I do not suggest, for example, that Plan 9 From Outer Space is a better movie than 2001: A Space Odyssey). What I object to is the notion that a numeric ranking of quality is the best method of discussing the merits of films.
A list that is frankly presented as a matter of taste, however (even one that is numerically ranked), does have two genuine, and important, merits: it may draw public attention to a series of excellent works, and it may help more people to think deeply about works of art.
So, having given my spiel about numbered lists, I now provide a link to… a numbered list. What the?!
All I can say in defense is that one of the folks presenting their “Best-of” list is film-director, and maestro of bad taste, John Waters – and there is absolutely no doubt that his list is a matter of taste.
To be fair, there are many sources of these year-end lists that do not market their ranking system as ‘definitive,’ but rather as markers of taste. And there are many excellent critics who honestly admit to the failings of the numeric ranking system.
Let me be clear: I don’t object to the notion of a critic, or a group of critics, discussing what they felt were the year’s best artistic endeavors. I am not arguing for the absence of critical judgment, or that certain creative works aren’t better than others (I do not suggest, for example, that Plan 9 From Outer Space is a better movie than 2001: A Space Odyssey). What I object to is the notion that a numeric ranking of quality is the best method of discussing the merits of films.
A list that is frankly presented as a matter of taste, however (even one that is numerically ranked), does have two genuine, and important, merits: it may draw public attention to a series of excellent works, and it may help more people to think deeply about works of art.
So, having given my spiel about numbered lists, I now provide a link to… a numbered list. What the?!
All I can say in defense is that one of the folks presenting their “Best-of” list is film-director, and maestro of bad taste, John Waters – and there is absolutely no doubt that his list is a matter of taste.
No comments:
Post a Comment