I'm primarily a musician who dabbles in writing. I've also done a little visual art over the years. I'm not very talented at that but did manage to win a small scholarship out of high school. No matter the medium, I create because what is inside me wants out. I think I have something unique to say, and seeing or hearing it externalized from me gives the piece its own life. I don't expect to be famous or make it or any of that stuff; I create for the pure expressionism of the creative act, nothing more and nothing less. If someone has suggestions for improvement, I'll listen, and where the critique is useful, I will employ the advice. The entire point to me is getting across what is inside me to the outer world, and to do so in such a manner as to communicate as clearly as possible what is happening inside. How on earth can you ensure clear lines of communication if you're engaging in monologue as opposed to dialogue? It's like artillery: if you want your shells to land on target, you'd better listen to your spotters and make the needed corrections.
crit·ic noun (from Merriam Webster) 1 a : one who expresses a reasoned opinion on any matter especially involving a judgment of its value, truth, righteousness, beauty, or technique b : one who engages often professionally in the analysis, evaluation, or appreciation of works of art or artistic performances 2 : one given to harsh or captious judgment Everyone's a critic. Your readers are critics, as defined by definition '1a' above. You are being critical of critics, making yourself... a... critic. If you are writing for readers, then they are going to be critical of your work. Whether they think it's good or bad, they are going to make critical judgements about it. If you don't want readers then write for yourself, keep it to yourself, and don't worry about all those "stupid" things that people expect that make something worth reading. If you are writing for readers, then accept that criticism comes along with that.
professional critics exist because many humans actually like to be told what they should like and should not... don't blame the messenger, blame those who want the message!
you don't make art and write to have every one approve of your work. you don't do it to be the best at what you do. hell don't even do it to entertain others. do it because its what you love to do forget about everyone/everything else. for me art and writing were a way to help me cope through a lot of tough situations (same story as almost every other artist/author.) I do it for me if others love it great! But the main reason I do what I do is because its what I want to do for myself.
Or because they want to have some idea what a book is like before they spend their hard-earned money on it. There's a difference between wanting to be told what they should like and being given one person's opinion and making up their own mind. I don't pay attention to stranger's reviews, but I do pay attention to what my friends say (so they fill the role of critic).
Very well said. Thanks for posting this, you are a true artist. I am thinking that if you won a small scholarship, then you may be a little more talented than you think you are. That's alright, most artists are toughest on themselves. Once on awhile I need to remind myself why I keep writing (and playing the guitar), your post did just that. Thank you!
That does make it sound a bit like professional critics aren't humans. Why not say 'many people'? You are separating the two species.
Maybe this is just me, but I see an internal conflict raging inside of the OP's mind. I, too, like to think I don't care what others think, but, as much as I don't care, I am also ruled by that opinion, as I believe most are. The reason, or I should say, the one I've come up with, is due to humans being creatures searching for understanding, in every sense of that word. We want others to understand us, as much as we want to understand ourselves. It's the very reason why those cave pictures were drawn in the first place, and it's the very reason art or whatever you want to call it came into existence--for it is an exploration of life through expression, a journey in which we not only discover others and absorb the stuffs of life, but one in which we are searching for ourselves. I think critics are in place, not because they have malicious intentions and are solely bent on having their opinion rammed down the throats of others, but because there is a standard regarding beauty, or art, and it's there for a reason. This kind of deals with why I believe free verse to be a cop-out, because it depends so much on the cliche, 'Beauty is in the Eye of the Beholder,' and it allows the author to wipe his ass with the page and call it art, and if you don't think so, that's fine, because he's entitled to his own opinion, due to beauty, according to him, being subjective. What a crock of shit. We, as humans, have an innate ability to acknowledge beauty, or am I wrong here? Is there a reason why so many love sunsets? or sunrises? or calm mornings? or a first snowfall? Have you ever found yourself in awe as you listen to the sounds of a winter night, the sky clear? Isn't there a sort of stillness that's hard to describe? and even harder to fully grasp as you're experiencing it? all the while the town sleeps and the people inside of their houses breathe in the stresses of the closing day, and exhale the peace of the coming tomorrow? There is a standard, set in place, due to feelings that stir inside of us, feelings incited by things that go beyond our ability to fully communicate them. And artists of all walks of life have observed this, and made it their goal to capture, translate, and produce back into existence their interpretation of that thing stirring inside all of us. And the reality is, we are not perfect beings, not even the masters who have wonderfully captured the human condition in all its beauty. So, there will always be flaws, and flaws open up doors to improvement. Maybe, if you are so dead set on hating critics for having an opinion that is generally more than accurate, do something to floor them, if you have enough balls to rise to the challenge. Or, you can spend your time whining and allowing these things that have no bearing on life to own you and your mind and your peace and your ability to express yourself truly. And most people who make comments about lawyers, typically, have no idea what they are talking about, and have zero experience with the profession. Considering I come from a family of attorneys, and have grown up around law and that type of environment, I can tell you that the looming stereotype is bullshit. Sure, there are some dudes out there that make money lieing and cheating and manipulating the law, but as a generalization, from what I've personally seen, it's untrue. The profession is not only extremely hard, but it's emotionally taxing, and people like to overlook that fact. And most of them represent people like you, and me, when we are too busy pissing our lives away, needing more than just a fox-hole prayer, but someone to bail us out of whatever it is we got ourselves into. And then we get pissed when they don't get us what we want, when we probably should have stayed in trouble. Or maybe they got you money you rightfully deserved, after some drunk driver smashed into your car and took you out of the work place, or the help you needed when someone was driving irresponsibly, or maybe your son died on the job due to half-assed safety measures, or maybe you watched your brother go up in flames because he was locked inside of a safety entrapment, due to a defective fail-safe, while the place he was repairing went up in flames, and you got your money for the funeral and the salary he would have made, so that the family didn't have to pay for the expenses themself, because it would have bankrupted them. Maybe, you should just open your mouth when you have a clue. anyway, *end rant.* That's my two cents.
i don't see how that erroneous assumption could be made... but in re your suggested change, it's no different... per your own reasoning, that would mean i was saying critics aren't people...
I think criticism is very useful. It allows us to widen our perceptions and sharpen our skills. Your ego might get skinned a little, but that is life.
I couldn't disagree with this more. There is no objective standard for beauty that exists outside the percipient mind. The very fact that you dispute the beauty of free-verse supports my point, because many of us find beauty in the shifting rhythms, consonance, and assonance of free verse. We take delight in the surprises unfolded by words not brow-beaten into regimentation, marching past in review like a battalion of recruits with boot-camp spit-and-polish. If that's what you like, great. But assuming that your standards are more correct is laughable. In parts of Asia, the musical octave is divided into 32 and not twelve tones, tones that to the Western ear are often unsettling and, to many, ugly. Yet guys like Vishna Mohwan Bhatt or Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan move many, myself included, to tears with what we find beautiful in their music. Who is right? The idea that beauty is an objective Platonic ideal is silly on its face -- binary thinking in an analog world.
Most people I know think writing anything is a headache. I actually enjoy it. I understand how to do it better than most of the people I know in my day-to-day life, but that does mean in any way that I am a "good" writer. Sometimes there are things I feel I need to say. I know I can write down what I'm feeling well enough to at least get someone to understand what I'm thinking. Really, in the end, the stories I write are just something to try and get people to see the world the way I do. There isn't much more to it than that. Now in regards to critics... well, shit! I kinda like em! Sure, the word critic is laden with negative connotations. I myself imagine a surly middle-aged man sitting at his desk in a room with no windows muttering to himself and rubbing the sizable bald-spot in the middle of his scalp whenever I hear the word "critic". I think art is much more exciting when it's shared with others. I want to make sure what I do will please other people or at least impact them in some way! To be able to do that, I've got to listen to critics! There are some that are intentionally aggravating and snobbishly obtuse, but being able to pick those ones out is just another skill you need if you want to handle criticism. You've got to admit that you've made mistakes! Anyway, good luck with your art, everyone.
To be honest, outside of literary theory (though, not looking at you Terry Eagleton! Those two nights I spent reading your book I will never get back) I think the standards of reviewing and criticism has gone down in recent years. Most of the time people ignore it anyway, and the only critics who are listened to are on the internet, be it Amazon reviews or something like the Angry Video Game Nerd or Nostalgia Critic. Most 'professional' or newspaper reviews are mostly a detailing of the plot and a general 'Ye or Ne'. The only exception I can find personally are those highbrow literary review magazines, and how often do you see them on the shelves of newsagents?
I think the problem with a lot of critics, mainly professional critics, is that they do see themselves more equipped, by reason of experience or intelligence, to comment in an authoritative way. Their comments are not those of an interested party with an opinion, but are an exultation or condemnation of someone's art; comments often made in a derogatory manner by someone who has no real experience of the arts other than watching someone else perform them.
People bitching about critics are infuriating. Critics are simply journalists employed to give their professional opinion from a consumer's perspective on new entertainment . People read their reviews and opinions out of interest, sometimes before and sometimes after they themselves have experienced that particular product. People are open to ignore or accept what a critic may feel about works of entertainment, be they films, novels, music or whatever. Good critics earn the respect of their readers for giving them honest criticism or praise of something they might want to spend their money on. Bad critics are generally ignored. And to those idiots who think that critics are just people commenting negatively on things they themselves can't do, then they have obviously never read a review. Good critics provide both scorn and praise. Good critics are honest and experienced. Honest criticism creates trust, and trust creates readership. Critics are witers too, you know (except for TV show hosts.) I like many different critics, and sometimes disagree with what they say, but I read their opinions with interest. Their perspectives are often fascinating, just like a conversation about a movie with a friend. One of my favourite ends to a review was by Roger Ebert when he wrote about Beasts of the Southern Wild, proving that genuine praise from an honest critic speaks volumes. He wrote: So stop bitching and write a good book.
I think it would be well to remember that reviews (not critiques) are not for the artist's benefit but for their audience (or potential audience). Critics owe the author absolutely nothing - not a good review, not a "fair" review, not even common courtesy. They are commenting for the reader, and that's as it should be.
And I think that's where some of the problem lies. I would have thought that anyone commenting on anyone's work in any media or situation, would at least be expected to show 'common courtesy'. An opinion is still only an opinion no matter whose it is and one man's taste doesn't have to be another's. There wouldn't be the variety of works out there if that wasn't the case.
But many critic's readers love snark! And that's who the critic writes for. And let's face it - how many times would we love to tell some writer they really are pretentious idiots in the way they write? Critics can do that because they have no stake in the writer - they write to inform and entertain their readers. Now, someone giving a critique is working with the writer, and I think common courtesy is a must in that situation.
