What are the five types of criticism?

Criticism is an important tool for providing feedback and analysis on creative works. There are five main types of criticism that serve different purposes in assessing art, literature, music, and other creative endeavors. Understanding the distinctions between each type can help us better comprehend critiques and formulate our own assessments. The five types are descriptive, comparative, prescriptive, interpretive, and evaluative criticism.

Descriptive Criticism

Descriptive criticism objectively describes the key elements and characteristics of a work without making any qualitative judgments. The aim is to help readers understand what the work is about and what it seeks to accomplish. Descriptive criticism provides an overview of the work’s subject matter, form, style, and context. Some key things descriptive criticism may examine include:

  • The subject, theme, or message of the work
  • The techniques, structures, or forms used
  • The mood, tone, or style of the work
  • Notable features like characters, imagery, or motifs
  • The historical, social, or biographical context

This type of criticism takes an objective, almost scientific approach to observing and characterizing the work. By avoiding qualitative words like “good”, “bad”, “beautiful” or “ugly”, descriptive criticism lets readers evaluate the work for themselves. It aims to educate rather than persuade. For example, a descriptive critique of Picasso’s Guernica might discuss the anti-war theme, cubist painting style, distorted figures, monochromatic color scheme, and Pablo Picasso’s artistic response to the bombing of a Basque village during the Spanish Civil War.

Comparative Criticism

Comparative criticism analyzes works in relation to other works, often looking at similarities, differences, and influences between them. It might consider how a work builds upon, incorporates, or departs from artistic conventions and traditions. Some typical comparative focuses include:

  • Comparing a work to other works by the same creator
  • Looking at a work in relation to a specific genre, movement, or era
  • Analyzing how it compares to similar works by different creators
  • Considering influence and context by comparing the work to predecessors
  • Examining how it compares to contemporary works

This type of criticism requires knowledge of multiple works to reveal insightful relationships. For instance, comparative analysis might contrast Picasso’s cubist style to more realist 19th century traditions, align Guernica with Picasso’s distinct “Blue Period”, or connect its anti-war message to parallel works like poetry by Wilfred Owen. Placing the work in a comparative context often enriches understanding and evaluation.

Prescriptive Criticism

Prescriptive criticism takes a practical approach, offering specific advice and guidelines on how a work could be altered or improved. This may involve suggestions for editing, revising, or reworking parts of the piece. Prescriptive criticism might:

  • Point out sections that could be shortened, expanded, or reorganized
  • Recommend adding or modifying parts to enhance coherence or flow
  • Advise tweaking elements like word choice, timing, color, or composition
  • Propose ways to sharpen intent, refine techniques, or better reach the intended audience

This constructive feedback identifies weaknesses and practical solutions, allowing creators to strengthen their work. For example, a prescriptive critique of Guernica might advise lightening extremely thick paint in certain areas or boosting contrast between lights and darks to improve legibility. Prescriptive criticism offers specific changes to achieve excellence.

Interpretive Criticism

Interpretive criticism aims to perceive deeper meanings and illuminate broader significance through analysis and deduction. It looks beyond surface elements to explore underlying messages, symbolism, themes, and subtexts. Interpretive criticism may involve:

  • Analyzing metaphors, motifs, and symbols
  • Examining values, beliefs, philosophies implied
  • Relating form, style, and content to meaning
  • Interpreting meaning based on knowledge, research, contexts
  • Revealing and analyzing latent psychological and social dimensions

This style of criticism relies on the viewer’s insights to interpret significance. For example, interpretive criticism of Guernica might expound on themes of chaos, suffering, and anti-war politics conveyed through the anguished, distorted figures and monochromatic palette. It offers thoughtful perspectives on potential deeper meanings.

Evaluative Criticism

Evaluative criticism involves making judgments about the overall quality and value of a work through analysis and opinion. This may include assessing:

  • Overall craftsmanship, artistry, and creativity
  • Mastery and implementation of techniques, style, form
  • Emotional impact or resonance with the audience
  • Innovation or contribution to the genre or field
  • Lasting influence, timelessness, or universality

Evaluative criticism combines objective and subjective reasoning to offer informed and thoughtful verdicts on the work’s merits. For instance, evaluative criticism on Guernica might applaud Picasso’s powerful anti-war sentiments and masterful cubist style, while noting certain visual clutter and opacity. It combines analysis and personal reactions to assess overall quality and significance.

Conclusion

These five types of criticism all serve unique purposes in analyzing creative works. Descriptive criticism objectively identifies key attributes and facts about a work. Comparative criticism illuminates insightful relationships between works. Prescriptive criticism provides constructive suggestions for practical improvement. Interpretive criticism deduces deeper symbolic meanings. Evaluative criticism weighs overall quality and importance. Understanding this critical taxonomy equips us to better comprehend critiques and sharpen our own critical practice.

While a single critique often combines several critical approaches, focusing on one core goal allows more penetrating insights. Descriptive and prescriptive criticism offer concrete advice for revision and refinement. Comparative and interpretive criticism foster understanding of context and meaning. Evaluative criticism assesses overall excellence and significance. Each approach provides a vital analytical lens. The five branches of criticism interweave to build multilayered appraisal and deeper appreciation of creative works.

Descriptive Criticism in Practice

To understand descriptive criticism more fully, let’s examine an example using Edgar Allan Poe’s classic Gothic horror story “The Tell-Tale Heart”. A descriptive critique would objectively overview:

  • The macabre subject matter and descent into madness
  • First-person narration and dramatic monologue structure
  • Dark Romantic style with melodramatic tones
  • Tension built through suspense and foreshadowing
  • Emphasis on gruesome details and psychological interiority
  • Poe’s influence on horror fiction genres

This commentary avoids subjective words like “thrilling” or “disturbing” to offer purely informative analysis. It provides essential facts and context without judging quality. Descriptive criticism seeks not to sway opinion, but simply convey knowledge – laying groundwork for the reader’s own conclusions.

Comparative Criticism in Practice

For comparative criticism, we could contrast “The Tell-Tale Heart” to Poe’s detective story “The Murders in the Rue Morgue”, highlighting differences and similarities such as:

  • Both exemplify Poe’s Gothic style, but in different genres
  • Each relies on unreliable narrators and dark psychological tension
  • “The Tell-Tale Heart” has a claustrophobic intimacy, while “Rue Morgue” has sweeping urban scope
  • The obsessive killer’s perspective in “Tell-Tale Heart” differs from the detached analyst in “Rue Morgue”
  • While both contain murder, “Rue Morgue” focuses on solving the crime

This comparative analysis reveals deeper insights about Poe’s style and the unique facets of each work by contrasting them. We understand both tales better by examining their relationship.

Prescriptive Criticism in Practice

Prescriptive criticism of “The Tell-Tale Heart” might suggest:

  • Editing repetitive phrases in the narrator’s monologue to enhance unpredictability
  • Adding description of the old man to amplify sympathy and impact
  • Letting the intense heartbeat build more gradually so the violent ending has even greater force
  • Making the narrator more three-dimensional through nuanced details to supplement the focused interior view

This constructive feedback aims to strengthen the story’s effect by advising specific improvements. While Poe’s craft is masterful, prescriptive criticism can offer minor revisions to refine the tale.

Interpretive Criticism in Practice

Interpretive criticism might analyze hidden meanings in “The Tell-Tale Heart” like:

  • The narrator’s slipped sanity as a metaphor for ungovernable human darkness
  • The heartbeat symbolizing the narrator’s own buried guilt and terror
  • The eye representing piercing self-awareness and the evil within
  • Madness as inverted morality and loss of empathy

This interpretive reading probes beyond plot details to uncover profound existential and moral themes conveyed through potent symbols. It offers an imagined decoding of the tale’s shadowy psychological depths.

Evaluative Criticism in Practice

Finally, evaluative criticism would judge “The Tell-Tale Heart” as:

  • A masterfully suspenseful narrative and seminal Poe work
  • Thought-provoking in its atmospheric moral questioning
  • Technically brilliant in its tight construction and unrelenting tension
  • Potentially overwrought at times in its theatrical style
  • Continuing to resonate for modern audiences across changing times

This critique assesses that the tale is an overall exemplary and tremendously influential short story, despite some minor flaws. The evaluation weighs its enduring literary achievement.

Putting the Criticisms Together

While each critical approach has distinct goals, their techniques combine to offer multilayered perspective. The descriptive overview grounds us in the work’s style and substance. Comparative analysis elucidates artistic choices and context. Prescriptive criticism suggests refinements. Interpretive reading proposes underlying meanings. Evaluative judgment assesses overall quality and impact. Together, these complementary approaches deepen appreciation and understanding to the benefit of both the work and audience.

Conclusion

In summary, the five types of criticism provide diverse lenses for unpacking creative works:

  • Descriptive – Objective facts and attributes
  • Comparative – Relationships to other works
  • Prescriptive – Practical suggested improvements
  • Interpretive – Symbolic and thematic analysis
  • Evaluative – Quality and artistic assessment

Though often blended, focusing criticism through one primary framework allows more meaningful insights. Understanding the core purpose behind each critical approach empowers richer analysis and dialog. Descriptive, comparative, prescriptive, interpretive and evaluative criticism all work together to enlighten, educate and elevate our understanding of art and literature. Each plays an essential part in illuminating works’ varied facets to foster enduring appreciation.

Leave a Comment