A Critique Of Critics
Critic, the definition: A person who judges the merits of literary or artistic works, especially one who does so professionally. (Oxford dictionary) etc. Music Critic. Reading the definition you can notice how non specific it is. Anyone who judges the value and beauty of an artistic work, especially if he gets paid is considered a critic. Many problems are noticeable with this definition: The work of an artists does bear a certain beauty and value, but can not be judged or compered. Only appreciated. And why should the opinion of one who gets paid to expresses it be more credible then the ones who do not get any profit for it; In the capitalist age that we live in it seems quite the contrary. Despite how wrong this definition actually seem to me it is true that this is what most people do consider critics to be. But like we all now the public opinion is not always right.
 |
| Best Critique In My Home Town |
I believe the modern critic has gone astray of what was the original premise behind being a critic. This is easily shown trough a common thing that is used: The rating system. Entire opinion summed up in a numeric value of one to five or one to ten, same difference. This is something that must have had started as a joke and too many people took it seriously. Basically it is patronizing to the people who do not want to hear the full article and just and just need the opinion dumbed down.. Almost every modern review uses this method for a short summery of their article. It implies that the artists are contestants performing numerous stunts to impress the crowd, but foremost the highly regarded elites whose opinion is well backed by education, experience & of course the ability to express those opinions in the most elegant & flamboyant fashion. It paints the picture of the art world being an imaginary Olympics where the main purpose of the piece is to win the gold medal.
Instead of this imaginary Olympics i am looking at a different world of art. I see it as a never-ending boulevard full of all kinds of performers, each doing an unique act, telling an intimate story, expressing them self and educating anyone who'll listen. The critics today are the highly regarded nutcases walking on the streets and screeming at the top of his lungs: "YOU SUCK. THIS IS GOOD." and each has it's own little audiance which consume and accept theirs opinion as their own, foremost because they believe that they have credibility, while no one actually has any and can not even have any. Most of the critics today are just egomaniacs who don't indulge into exploring the real meaning of the music, the artists message to the world, but are solly focused on the quality of the brushes the artist used and the preciseness his strokes had, strictly superficial to say it otherwise.
Interesting you might say one speaks of his own kind in such a way, you might say. But no, i do not consider myself to fit into the modern definition of a critic. Instead i see myself more of a tour guide, pointing out what are some worthy acts to see and what some find interesting and i explain why. Even if i do not i primarily . If i sometimes mention what i consider as a flaw in a technique that needs more perfection; It is not too brag to the audience of my sharp eye, but instead directed at the artist of what he should consider improving and will not be the backbone behind my general opinion.
This a boulevard that expands beyond what the eyes can see. It is full of amassing people and beautiful things. It is normal that you will not like it all the same. Some will suit your personality more than other and this is we can call our taste. Sometimes we forget that everyone has an opinion and we start to think of our opinion as the golden standard. This is what can happen even to critiques who understand that artists are not in a competition and happens to most who do not . Diversity is not something that we should fear, but instead embrace. Because to humans it comes just naturally.
No comments :
Post a Comment