What makes a good critic? Debatable…

Andres Gallego

09/25/2010

Reviewing the arts

What makes a good critic? Debatable…

In the long discussion of what a critic is, the one critic that is on the right track, in terms of what it criticism is and what it has become, it would have to be Anne Holub. There are few statements that is whole-heartedly agreeable with most of these critics. There is not a right or wrong interpretation of what it means to be a critic and it’s just an opinion. Having said that, Holub has a number of statements that one could consider being unbiased to a certain extent. The first statement Holub hits her point home is the statement where she explains “…subjects are constantly changing and growing. It’s likely going to be a lifelong pursuit.” This statement is very true in the sense that it is a great way to describe the current state of criticism and writing since the field has gotten very cut-throat and very harsh not just towards the art they are criticizing, but from one critic to another.

It’s an age-old discussion of Modern vs. the older critic. We have a lot of the older critics like Roger Ebert for printed Chicago Sun times press and some younger critics like Harry Knowles on ain’t it cool news online printing, who do essentially the same job, but have very dissimilar tastes and writing styles. People are always going to have different values and experiences. While you fall into one camp or another, it’s not about judging criticism on just passion alone, you also must take into account that this person specializes in a certain style of writing and that their values may differ from the last critic you read. It’s clear that Ebert comes from a more classical background in watching films as he saw the medium grow from an earlier place and Knowles comes from a more recent age of films, where he grew up with films comparable to your 35 Year-old film lover. Print and online print have the same standards and integrity as most other forms of criticism where it’s about expression of one’s experience with the art or media. An older demographic might look for Ebert’s view on something, while the younger generation may like to read Knowle’s opinion of a film or work.

In going with the previous statement, Holub also nails it on the head with the saying that “it starts with identifying a critic’s viewpoints.” In reading criticism, it’s all about matching your sensibilities. It’s about finding a critic that you can connect to. Not necessarily agree with, but someone whose word you can trust, but not take as gospel. In reading reviews, you can not take the critic’s word as the final word on the work. It’s just his or her opinion and nobody is right or wrong. Everyone has a different choice and view on the world, and a criticism is mainly their perception of how the work affected them. It’s about how it made them feel and not about what you should feel going in to experience the work. All you can do is keep reading till you find a critic you like to read his or her perception on the work.

Overall, Anne Holub’s viewpoint on criticism takes a more adaptive viewpoint to criticism. A critic shouldn’t conform to a viewpoint and neither should the reader. The reader will find their critic at same point and criticism will always grow and change with every new generation and way to get one’s opinions out.