In a modern era where new technology is constantly broadening public access to art, almost anyone can be an art critic.  Throughout the 20th century, innovations such as the television and the Internet have vastly increased the number of people who can both publish and view commentaries on art.  Along with the dramatic rise of these new mediums has appeared a new set of terminology and categorization used to describe art.  One of the most famous examples of this new terminology is the categorization “thought-provoking.”

The term “thought-provoking” is a fairly intuitive one, and its meaning stays entirely true to the sum of its parts.  Oxford Dictionary defines thought-provoking simply as “prompting serious thought.” The first known usage was in 1791, with more common usage showing up in the 19th and 20th century (“Thought”).  Since its inception, “thought-provoking” has consistently been used to describe situations which entice or force people to consider new ideas or reconsider old ones.  In the context of art criticism, the meaning of “thought-provoking” remains almost unchanged. Specifically, art deemed as “thought-provoking” stimulates thinking about the world outside of art.  Thought-provoking art prompts audiences to consider issues which have “real” implications beyond the confines of a piece.  Take, for example, Booklist’s book review of A More Beautiful Question.  Booklist describes the book as thought-provoking because it provides knowledge which can be used to expand the reader’s mindset and character.  Furthermore, the Akron Beacon Journal’s review of an art exhibit in the Canton Museum of Art deems the arrangement “thought-provoking” because it deeply explores the evolution of American identity through art.  Rolling Stone’s review of “Telefone” also recognizes the album as thought-provoking because of its deep exploration of human nature and emotion.

There seems to be a heavy association between artwork recognized as thought-provoking and original.  For example, News-Register Online’s movie review of Before Midnight praises its unconventional filming techniques and meaningful dialogue for being thought-provoking.  Likewise, Metropolis’s review of the Portugese Pavilion rewards its creators for developing an unconventionally equal relationship with its inhabitants.

The common consensus in the world of art criticism seems to be that art which says something about the world we live in is “thought provoking.”  However, if we examine this rule a little closer, the term “thought-provoking” reveals its nuance.  Famed aesthetic philosopher Theodor Adorno decreed that all art maintains a relationship with reality.  This seems to be universally true because all artists, whether consciously or not, are affected by the reality in which they live.  Thus, all art must inherently contain a piece of the reality in which it was created.  This piece of reality may be exhibited in many different forms, and each piece maintains its own unique position.

If we follow this line of reasoning, then it should become fairly clear that all art has something to say about the world in which we live.  We just have to think hard enough to discover this relationship.  For notably original pieces of art, this should not be too difficult.  We can ask ourselves questions such as, “How has this shifted the way I have seen the world before?” and “What are some things I can take away from this piece?”  For art that contains a mix of unique and unoriginal ideas, we can ask ourselves, “How did the differing nature of these ideas interact with each other” and “Why did some aspects of the artwork challenge my views more than others?”  What about artwork with little to no originality?

Many critics seem to think that art (especially story driven mediums such as film and literature) which contain too much predictable or overused content is not only boring, but is also factually not thought-provoking.  This is not true.  A good strategy to uncover the relationship between artwork and a critique on reality is to go “meta,” or take a higher level view of the artwork.  Imagine the blandest and most unoriginal television show you can possibly think of.  Imagine that it’s completely saturated with tropes and there is not a single original idea in the entire show.  Now, let’s go meta.  Instead of solely considering the content of the artwork, we can also ask ourselves why it is that this piece of artwork is so completely unoriginal.  Questions like, “What conditions led to these types of portrayals to oversaturate the genre and become tropes,” “What human qualities do these tropes appeal to,” and “What allows this type of content to continue to exist?” will quickly reveal a plethora of engaging conflicts stemming from the artwork.  Thinking about how artwork affects human emotion can often lead you to unexplored places of thought.  Another perhaps less intense way to go meta would be to start by comparing works of art to each other.  Consider how portrayals of different subjects contrast, and how they can affect audiences differently.  These strategies can work to reveal strong observations about the medium of the artwork in question, as well as the state of art as a whole.  Furthermore, this method of thinking recognizes value in all examples of art, instead of only pieces with original ideas.  Rather, this strategy recognizes how all art can be useful to its audience, even if it’s not in the way the author intended.  

So what does this say about using the term “thought-provoking?”  On one hand, rewarding books for forcing readers to expand their areas of thought seems to be beneficial and productive to art criticism.  This practice encourages creators to produce art which can teach common audiences new thoughts and emotions.  By extension, the usage of this term seems to particularly favor original content and portrayals of ideas.  For their art to earn this title, creators are forced to think outside of the box and can’t rely on commonly used tropes or stereotypes as crutches.  The prevalence of the term “thought-provoking” also provides evidence that there is still a large body of people who wish to engage themselves with art.  This body of people hunger for new experiences and are willing to engage in discussion with creators and their creations.  Furthermore, this legitimizes the significance of art because it recognizes that art can be valuable for reasons beyond mere aesthetic enjoyment.  The categorization of “thought-provoking” proves that there is learning value in art and we can potentially use aesthetic experiences to guide how we act.  Thus, many critics should be emboldened by the fact that such a large audience is willing to place value in art and engage their minds in aesthetics for the sake of learning.  

However, there also seems to be a darker side to the term “thought-provoking.”  As we have previously discussed, all art has the potential to be thought-provoking if we ask ourselves the right questions.  Therefore, it seems almost lazy for critics to describe works of art as “thought provoking.”  It’s almost as if the words “thought-provoking” can be seen as filler words.  Of course, there is a solution to this problem.  Critics need to elaborate upon why and how exactly it is that these works were thought-provoking.  A deeper inspection into the aspects of thought provoking art pieces can provide a meaningful conversation which is more specific to the art itself.  In fact, many art reviews do, in fact, do this effectively.  For example, Megan from The Hungry Bookworm’s short book review of Becoming Nicole: The Transformation of an American Family does this eloquently and concisely.  However, many other critics use the term in their blurbs without adding anything to their analysis.  One example of this would be user joachimz’s Buzzfeed review of the movie Metropolis, which utterly fails to provide us with any reason as to why the movie was thought-provoking (Dadds).  

Another potential problem with the categorization of “thought-provoking” is that it allows audiences to be lazy.  The common usage of “thought-provoking” rewards content that makes it easy for audiences to engage their minds.  This categorization thus inadvertently devalues art which may be more difficult to engage with.  It places a large part of the burden on the creator to create original pieces, without considering the fact that, in order to learn from art, the audience must be willing to work as well.  We must be extremely wary of using the judgement, “A piece of artwork is not thought-provoking,”  as an excuse to cover our own laziness as an audience.

Despite the simplicity of its definition, the term “thought-provoking” is loaded with nuance.  On one hand, it promotes power in art criticism because it recognizes that art can be valuable in guiding the ways we think and act.  It also encourages audiences to engage their minds with art.  On the other hand, it can be used to conceal the laziness of both art critics and audiences.  Of course, there are some works of art which promote discussion between the audience and the creator more than others, and they should be recognized for doing so.  However, we need to remember that all art can teach its audience about their reality, and we shouldn’t devalue art merely because it is harder to engage with.  To productively use the categorization, we must avoid the pitfalls of its laziness and be specific with how exactly works are thought-provoking.  If we abide by these guidelines, we will be able to wield the double-edged sword of “thought-provoking” as a menacing weapon of productive discussion in the world of art criticism.

Works Cited

Adorno, Theodor. Aesthetic Theory (1970), trans. R. Hullot-Kentor, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1997. (358-270)

Dadds, Kimberly. “52 Movies That Are So Clever They'll Have You Thinking For Days.” BuzzFeed, Buzzfeed, Incorporated, 2016. buzzfeed.com/kimberleydadds/movies-that-actually-make-you-think. Accessed 8 January 2021

King, Alana. “A thought-provoking drama – Movie Review: Before Midnight.” News-Register Online, North Lake College News Register, 2013. newsregisteronline.com/a-thought-provoking-drama-movie-review-before-midnight. Accessed 8 January 2021.

Levy, Joe. “Review: Noname’s ‘Telefone’ Is Truth-Telling Hip-Hop Sunshine.” Rolling Stone, Rolling Stone, LLC, 2016. rollingstone.com/music/music-album-reviews/review-nonames-telefone-is-truth-telling-hip-hop-sunshine-109082. Accessed 8 January 2021.

Megan. “Books for Thought-Provoking Discussions.” The Hungry Bookworm, Hungry Bookworm, 2020. hungry-bookworm.com/2020/08/13/diverse-book-club-picks-for-discussion. Accessed 8 January 2021.

Quirk, Vanessa. “Timely, Urban, and Contextual: The Venice Architecture Biennale’s Most Thought-Provoking Pavilions.” Metropolis, Metropolis, 2016. metropolismag.com/architecture/timely-urban-and-contextual-the-venice-architecture-biennales-most-thought-provoking-pavilions. Accessed 8 January, 2021.

“This Thought-Provoking Book Offers Important Insights.” A More Beautiful Question, A More Beautiful Question by Warren Berger, 2014. amorebeautifulquestion.com/thought-provoking-book-offers-important-insights. Accessed 8 January 2021.

"Thought" OED Online, Oxford University Press, December 2020, www.oed.com/view/Entry/201055. Accessed 8 January 2021.

Turner, Anderson. “Art review: Canton exhibit thoughtfully explores American impressionism.” Akron Beacon Journal, www.beaconjournal.com, 2020. beaconjournal.com/story/entertainment/2020/12/02/art-review-canton-museum-exhibit-explores-american-impressionism/6476865002. Accessed 8 January 2021.