i think it's a double-edged sword.

on one hand, critics are useful for dissecting and interpreting subject matter in a way that serves both the novice and the seasoned fan. i read Roger Ebert's reviews because i am a sometime film student and can appreciate his expertise but i suspect those who know next to nothing about the philosophy of film also enjoy his writing because it simply informs them.

on the other hand, there is a kind of glut of criticism at the moment. when faced with such a rash of sources deriding or praising something it becomes difficult to discern who actually knows what they're talking about. i mean, some joe blow on the street is welcome to tell me that he thinks the new Damien hirst show at Gagosian sucks donkey balls, but i'm less likely to trust his judgement than a critic whose job it is to study contemporary art and probably holds some degrees on the subject. there is such a thing as quantitive worth when it comes to criticism.

however, i should add that using critics as a basis for whether or not you enjoy something is really, really dumb. all art is subjective and if you base your entire opinion of a movie or a band or a painting exhibition on what a critic says, then i don't know if there's help for you. criticism is a guidebook, a preliminary taste. it is not an edict from god.

on that note, the new Damien Hirst show at Gagosian sucks donkey balls.

I think the idea of what criticism is has shifted into weird territory that has little to do with the purpose it served. In the 19th century and before, criticism moved forward the discussion of art, as mentioned above. Critics helped to assign meaning to work, and their discussion of it often led to new artistic endeavour to address issues that critical discussion of work pointed out. Artistic culture at that time was generally more cerebral then than it is now because artists didn't neccesarily feel the need to cater to the lowest common denominator, nor did they really need to dumb down their statements, opinions, and meanings so that the public at large could understand what they were trying to say.

Now, critics exist to tell you what to buy, or, in cultural cases, to reenforce your preexisting ideas about things. People want culture that makes them feel comfortable with their existence; most don't like having their existence, their motivations, or their opinions questioned anymore. it's hard on the ego. Everything in our intimately networked world is becoming like politics and political commentary in that way. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go buy some DVDs that have no opinion whatsoever on what the point of my life is, because thinking about that make me uncomfortable and scare me.

Thumbs up to this story; I bought the whole seat, but I only needed the edge!

So, instead of one asshole telling me what I'm supposed to like, I've got a group of assholes telling me what I'm supposed to like?

i have a hard time feeling bad for critics for a number of reasons. first, i have *no clue* what their credentials are. i've heard a few stories that run like "i got a degree in econ, and now i review food for this paper!" i mean, why should i buy anything you say?

second, it seems that critics are *constantly* involved in a game of being hep. whatever.

third, is anything that critics talk about really that important? seriously? is the new radiohead or u2 such a demanding opus on the human condition that i need their thoughtful commentary? most critics focus on pop culture, and pop culture is fine fine stuff. but let's not pretend it's all picasso or bach or nabokov or bergman. cultural critique is great stuff, but you really have to be talking about something that has meat, and i'm not sure that the band i never heard playing down at the local pub constitutes that (sure - they might some day. but what are the odds?). in light of that, most pop culture is really personal - does this connect to me? did i have a good time? that seems more interesting to me than what greg kot (the local snob in the chicago tribue) thinks this band's place in rock history is.

finally, most critics don't say anything interesting. they don't even seem to GET the subtext of what's going on. they just babble on about mixing or lighting, as if i care. themes are virtually absent in almost all critics that i read anyway - so what the fuck is the point?

criticism is all fab - i like to critique things. but the fact is - not everything deserves deep thought, and on top of that, critics seem to do a shitty job at their column anyway.

I sure wish critics could shut down Ashlee Simpson...