Pitchfork, Metacritic

In this post, Horning flogs a set of vaguely economic language in a discussion of the limits and ontic incongruities of quantifications of aesthetic works, specifically, a dismissal of the point-blank specificity of Pitchfork's 0.0 - 10.0 rating system as a kind of category error.

With banal philosophic pedantry, Horning writes: " A "9" in Pitchfork in 2007 is quite different from a "9" in Spin or even a "9" in 2009." Of course, Horning's purpose here is to highlight the failure of scientific modes of inquiry to effectively 'speak' to the 'language' of art, and not a call for some "international governing body" that could "establish rates of conversion for the various aesthetic quantification modes." Horning's critique is simply an exercise in the post-modern sport of pointing out the failure of specificity when faced with the inscrutable complexity of art, and is, following Carles, a veiled smashing of the entire project of criticism/social-assessments/language-at-large.

Regarding the creation of hierarchical scales, one can look to metacritic as an even-higher authority on the dialogue of the interested, particularly with its translation of various typologies of quantifications of the aesthetic into a "concrete" 100-point scale. Further, not only does Metacritic translate 2.5 stars into a 1-100 number, Metacritic will go so far as to translate non-graded reviews into their private (but absolute) rubric: if no grade is supplied by the critic, Metacritic will assign a grade based on their assessment of the critic's intent.

A perfect scientism is the holy grail of criticism, and, clearly, venues like Pitchfork and Metacritic have internalized this urge, recognizing the absolute power of the language and accountrements of scientific discourse. Horning's economic analysis cries out for a final arbiter of meaning, a foundation upon which the value of a work can be built, discussed, truly known. Are words, compliments, hyperbole to be somehow "added up?" How might the analyst total the weight of her words? Should the name of the reviewer matter? One can imagine a metacritic-critic, in which the social capital of various critics and critical venues are weighted. Certainly Pitchfork's Stephen Deuesner has more critical capital than Tinymixtapes' Mr P. Ought this be taken into account for a truly inclusive encapsulation of criticism? Pursuits of this sort are obviously futile, and consideration of the complexities of aesthetic quantfications will only further illustrate the failure of methods of science or languages in quantifications of the aesthetic.

Rather than a empirical collation of value, Pitchfork's ratings (and other similar quantifications of the aesthetic), these ratings serve as a kind of shorthand for a larger body of meaning, specifically reliant upon context. Wittgenstein's articulations in Philosophical Investigations are crucial here: "Meaning just is use." Hyperbole is extended in a review only to be qualified moments later: the review exists as a complete and un-excerptable artifact. The numerical summary given at the beginning of each review acts as an inviolate and total summary.

Carles writes:

All of my life, I have been told that the Beatles are the best band ever. They have created the best music in the history of the world. It was always hard for me to evaluate music when a Pitchfork review of the artist/album/mp3 didn’t exist.

This articulation perfectly summarizes the two impulses satisfied by Pitchfork. Following Becker's denial-of-death considerations of the play between the finite nature of the biological apparatus of one's biological make up and the infinite capacity for self-making within the matrix of the social world, one wishes against powerlessness to contain and access absolute authority, one wishes to make oneself limitless above the shifting sands of insipidity and pointlessness. The great fear in light of finitude is social irrelevance.