The Place of Criticism in Our Hobby

The Place of Criticism in Our Hobby by Christopher Stevens

Neill’s blog entry of October 14th, “Address to the Richmond CORPS Pipe Show: Crucible Moments,” sparked debate among A Passion for Pipes members. Views encouraging the idea that serious and sustained criticism of pipes and tobacco be given a more visible place in our hobby typically do. I believe it important that we understand why this is so. For only then will we be equipped to fairly judge arguments in favor of the idea.

I am a professional philosopher who has taught courses in the philosophy of art at the undergraduate and graduate levels for ten years on two continents. So I am intimately familiar with the issues Neill discusses in the post. They’re also close to my heart. This is not only because I’m a logician and relish the making of distinctions, but because pipes and pipe smoking matter to me.

There are some common misunderstandings that should be immediately done away with: (1) those in favor of reasoned criticism are necessarily elitist or anti-egalitarian; (2) aesthetic judgments are necessarily subjective; (3) there is no existing body of literature addressing these issues; (4) criticism kills a practice.

If one operates under the mistaken belief that (3) is true, he might well believe (1), (2), and (4). There is, however, a literature. It extends at least as far back as the 18th century with Immanuel Kant and David Hume, two philosophers central to the canon. There was a time when an education in the humanities would have been thought incomplete without one’s having read them. But due to the belief that education per the canon is oppressive because it is critical, today’s student is instead lucky to come across them. Both were concerned to show that aesthetic judgments can be objective. Hume in particular was concerned with the role of critics in understanding what objectivity in aesthetic judgment amounts to.

Click to read more ...

Oct. 12, 2013 Address to the Richmond CORPS Pipe Show: Crucible Moments

Tonight, I’m going to speak to you about crucible experiences. When a mountain climber climbs Mt. Everest, reaching the summit is a crucible experience. A soldier who has faced live fire in combat is elevated by valor; this is a crucible experience. When a young comic plays The Tonight Show, this is a crucible experiences. Crucible experiences transform those who experience them. Inside them, we face our fears and find out what we’re made of. They are defining moments.

Classical Guitarist Neill Archer RoanI will never forget my New York debut recital at Carnegie Hall. It was a “crucible” experience. I knew that my future as a performing artist hung in the balance. Most of my friends and colleagues wished me well, although I knew some people nourished hopes that I would fail and be “put in my place.” Who did I think I was, anyway? I was told more than once that I lacked the pedigree for the career to which I aspired. 

At 7:55 PM, as I stood backstage waiting to go on, my hands were shaking so much that I wondered how I would possibly find the strings, let alone make music. The stage manager told me that Peter Davis from The New York Times was in the audience, words that amplified my fear. I venerated Peter Davis’ opinion. I would have been lucky if a lesser-known stringer reviewed me; I never expected to be reviewed by one of the Times’ most respected music critics.

This was not the first time I’d played before critics, but like most musicians, I held The New York Times in greater esteem because its critics were thought-leaders not only among musicians like myself, but among other critics, too. A poor opinion from the Times could be a roundhouse punch to a career. Although I didn’t say it out loud, I worried that I could not recover from a bad performance. Standing there, shaking and sweating and feeling my gut churn like a cement mixer, that is exactly what I thought I was about to deliver.

When the review came out in the following Sunday edition, it was favorable. It was thoughtfully worded. Davis did not gush, but it was clear that he heard music that he liked. Over time, I learned that what mattered was not what he wrote, but that he wrote. The two most important words in that review were Peter Davis. In the music world, people consider the source. That’s what thought-leadership means.

My story is a common one. Any musician serious about a career as a soloist goes through what I went through. A career as a musical artist requires not just one of these experiences, but an ongoing series of them. Indeed, the ongoing scrutiny of critics, peers, music directors, presenters, producers, and colleagues is relentless and very public.

In that world, you are only as good as your last performance, and there are plenty of people waiting to take your place. Because the competition is fierce, the entire system conspires against complacency. One of the first lessons any musician learns is that one is not entitled to make a living as a performer. Being a professional is a status that is earned. And one must keep on earning it month in and month out. The fine and performing arts world is a brutal place where predation is not a feature of the landscape; it is the landscape.

Although I am no longer a professional musical artist, I was shaped by my experience. It is how I see and understand the world–art and otherwise. In my frame of reference, there are three legs to the stool: artist, audience, and critics. All three legs are necessary to advance the overall system.  So what does all this have to do with pipes and tobaccos?

Click to read more ...

Joe Harb, Rick Newcombe, and I discuss our approach to judging the Balkan Sobranie Throwdown

ON THE PIPES WE USE

JOE: Rick, I chose the pipes for tasting the blends because I know I can enjoy the type of tobacco in it, and selected the same year of manufacture and shape because those are the only ones that have a similar heritage, but most importantly, a good track record for the way they smoke Oriental blends.  Also, I am confident that there will be small differences between the pipes.  I chose which to assign to the sample blends on a  simple random basis.  Had we been tasting a different type of blend, I would have selected a different set of pipes which would meet the same expectations as above.

RICK: I am pretty casual about what pipes I smoke the blends in. I’ve just been smoking my regular briars, whatever suits my fancy, and the tastes have been consistent in all cases. I keep the pipes clean anyway. However, I have decided that clay pipes are overrated as a tool for really tasting the tobaccos. i bought four clay pipes for the testing, and I really can’t tell the difference in taste when I am using a clay pipe versus a briar pipe. And clay pipes smoke so hot and are much less fun than smoking a good briar pipe.

NEILL: Rick, I laughed about your comments about clay pipes. Let me just say that I HATE them. Not only could I not tell any difference at all in the flavor of the tobacco, but they were so ungodly hot I had to smoke using a glove. And I’m talking holding on to the things by the stem.

Click to read more ...

Furthering the Common Good

“The truth is that I am bored witless all too often these days.”

-Neill Roan

I’m less bored now, Neill, because I’m busy contemplating with a little more hopefulness the thought that if enough brave persons like you speak out as you have, then more people might gain the courage to begin considering ways to think publicly about value-related questions.

Here’s one way: rather than avoiding those value-related questions in an effort to smooth relations with our pipe fellows, and rather than taking the easy way out by

Click to read more ...