Are critics a waste of time?

HeyWayne

When you'll make up your own mind anyway.

I've read so many reviews (music, food, film, books, art etc) where the critic has talked their way up their own @rse and back again, trying to make themselves sound intelligent, when really three words will do - try it yourself.

Does "critical acclaim" actually mean anything to anyone other than the critics?

he still stands

Isn't this forum just a bunch of critics?

HeyWayne

he still stands wrote:

Isn't this forum just a bunch of critics?

In some respects I guess yes - but how many are getting paid to air their opinions in print?

I guess by critics - I meant those that are paid to inflict their opinions on the world.

Point taken though.

JaneNY

Waste of time - yes and no. Take critics' reviews with a grain of salt, but also keep in mind the background of the writer. I'd be more interested in Yo Yo Ma's review of a new cello recording, or Julia Child's review of a restaurant than that of an uneducated person unfamiliar with the subject at hand.

tybird

Critics saved me from spending any $$$ on the last Indiana Jones movie. :twisted:

decides2dream

HeyWayne wrote:

When you'll make up your own mind anyway.

I've read so many reviews (music, food, film, books, art etc) where the critic has talked their way up their own @rse and back again, trying to make themselves sound intelligent, when really three words will do - try it yourself.

Does "critical acclaim" actually mean anything to anyone other than the critics?

of course you will, but i do enjoy reading critic reviews, especially of films....but sure, even music, restaurants, etc. i also like getting opinions from people i know. hell, right here on the board people discuss films, books, music, art.....get recommendations, etc. there are many films that may interest me and only so much time/$$$ to put towards such interests. i like getting outside opinions. i also find there are certain critics who i tend to 'agree' with often, just like certain friends/family....and that's helpful in the decision process. i do not have the time nor the $$$ to try out EVERY restaurant, film, book, CD, etc....so sure....critical reviews ARE helpful. as to critical acclaim all it means is that many critics happen to be in agreement. what that 'means' to one person or the next, will vary greatly. tis the same with bestseller lists, all it means...sold a lot of books or CDs, thus many people like em...but still doesn't mean i necessarily will.

tybird wrote:

Critics saved me from spending any $$$ on the last Indiana Jones movie. :twisted:

i hope you at least rented it. i do agree, i have many films that i rank as 'DVD rental' worthy only....nd then quite a few not even worth that. films i actually see in the theatre AND rent AND sometimes buy...now ya know i loved em. that said, you should see that flick simply for cate blanchett. she is awesome in it, as always. the rest, sure....meh.

fuck

lol this reminds me of my friend who convinced the school paper to give him a job as a food critic last year... he got fired after he gave an upscale restaurant an F (his first review)... apparently he didn't like the mozzarella cheese, though I think it ended up being ricotta anyway.

he still stands

my problem with critics is that they usually get into that vocation because they have no talent themselves. The book critic can't write, the music critic doesn't play one single instrument, the movie critic hasn't ever directed or film or even acted. Now if Christopher Moore suggested a book, I'd read it... if Eddie Vedder told me to go listen to a certain band, I'd listen... etc.

decides2dream

he still stands wrote:

my problem with critics is that they usually get into that vocation because they have no talent themselves. The book critic can't write, the music critic doesn't play one single instrument, the movie critic hasn't ever directed or film or even acted. Now if Christopher Moore suggested a book, I'd read it... if Eddie Vedder told me to go listen to a certain band, I'd listen... etc.

why does that matter?
seriously?


obviously, critics can write, since most critiques are written. sure, perhaps they can't write a novel, but the same could probably be said of many journalists. beyond that, one need not know how to direct a film, write book, write music or cook great food to be able to recognize greatness, or the lacking of, in any of the above. one does not need to be a sculptor to recognize great sculpture, and so on and so on. one can "know" a great deal w/o actually being able to do so themselves. seriously, b/c i don't have the first clue about directing a film, i can't have an opinion, even a well-versed one....on the quality of a film? also, i find it far more helpful to me to get food, film, music recommendations from people who have similar tastes as i do as opposed to someone who is simply good at any of the above, even great. my husband recommending a new band to me probably would hold more value than ed....simply b/c my husband knows my likes and dislikes....ed does not.....and honestly, many bands ed raves about are meh to me. so again, one need not have the actual skill to offer opinions, nor offer educated opinions. one need not be a great chef, but perhaps eat a lot of great food, to be able to offer an 'educated' opinion.

he still stands

decides2dream wrote:

he still stands wrote:

my problem with critics is that they usually get into that vocation because they have no talent themselves. The book critic can't write, the music critic doesn't play one single instrument, the movie critic hasn't ever directed or film or even acted. Now if Christopher Moore suggested a book, I'd read it... if Eddie Vedder told me to go listen to a certain band, I'd listen... etc.

why does that matter?
seriously?


obviously, critics can write, since most critiques are written. sure, perhaps they can't write a novel, but the same could probably be said of many journalists. beyond that, one need not know how to direct a film, write book, write music or cook great food to be able to recognize greatness, or the lacking of, in any of the above. one does not need to be a sculptor to recognize great sculpture, and so on and so on. one can "know" a great deal w/o actually being able to do so themselves. seriously, b/c i don't have the first clue about directing a film, i can't have an opinion, even a well-versed one....on the quality of a film? also, i find it far more helpful to me to get food, film, music recommendations from people who have similar tastes as i do as opposed to someone who is simply good at any of the above, even great. my husband recommending a new band to me probably would hold more value than ed....simply b/c my husband knows my likes and dislikes....ed does not.....and honestly, many bands ed raves about are meh to me. so again, one need not have the actual skill to offer opinions, nor offer educated opinions. one need not be a great chef, but perhaps eat a lot of great food, to be able to offer an 'educated' opinion.

yeah that makes sense, I agree that one can "offer an educated opinion" and yes I do think my friends and wife's opinion often leads me to reading a book or watching a movie. I guess I am referring to an "objective critique," something that can only be offered with in-depth knowledge.

slightofjeff

HeyWayne wrote:

When you'll make up your own mind anyway.

I've read so many reviews (music, food, film, books, art etc) where the critic has talked their way up their own @rse and back again, trying to make themselves sound intelligent, when really three words will do - try it yourself.

Does "critical acclaim" actually mean anything to anyone other than the critics?

Usually, where critics come in handy to me are when it comes to music, films, etc that I don't know much about and haven't thought much about.

If a critic can shed some light on why THEY think it's good, and those reasons sound like plausible reasons that I might think it's good, then there's a chance I might check out something that I normally wouldn't have checked out before.

slightofjeff

he still stands wrote:

my problem with critics is that they usually get into that vocation because they have no talent themselves. The book critic can't write, the music critic doesn't play one single instrument, the movie critic hasn't ever directed or film or even acted. Now if Christopher Moore suggested a book, I'd read it... if Eddie Vedder told me to go listen to a certain band, I'd listen... etc.

I think that's a little silly, frankly. I don't have to be a football player to know Jake Delhomme sucks as a quarterback.

Just like I don't have to be a musician to have an opinion about music.

he still stands

slightofjeff wrote:

he still stands wrote:

my problem with critics is that they usually get into that vocation because they have no talent themselves. The book critic can't write, the music critic doesn't play one single instrument, the movie critic hasn't ever directed or film or even acted. Now if Christopher Moore suggested a book, I'd read it... if Eddie Vedder told me to go listen to a certain band, I'd listen... etc.

I think that's a little silly, frankly. I don't have to be a football player to know Jake Delhomme sucks as a quarterback.

Just like I don't have to be a musician to have an opinion about music.

there is a difference between offering an opinion and being a critic. I assumed when we talk about critics we mean people who are PAID to say "X" is good or bad. In football, the guys who haven't played don't know shit and it is obvious to me cause I played football up until I was a junior in college. Anyone who seriously played a sport for a long period of time would probably agree. "The Professor" on ESPN is a good example... he doesn't know shit. You just can't really be an expert about ANYTHING without practicing it... just reading about ANYTHING isn't enough. Would you trust a doctor who only read about medicine in a book and hadn't worked as an intern for several years? Why is it that in college science classes there is lecture and LABS where you actually practice the experiment?... Would an artist be any good just by reading about technique and not practicing it? I could go on and on... the point is that critics without experience in the field don't have the knowledge required to give an objective analysis. An opinion??? Sure!

decides2dream

he still stands wrote:

slightofjeff wrote:

he still stands wrote:

my problem with critics is that they usually get into that vocation because they have no talent themselves. The book critic can't write, the music critic doesn't play one single instrument, the movie critic hasn't ever directed or film or even acted. Now if Christopher Moore suggested a book, I'd read it... if Eddie Vedder told me to go listen to a certain band, I'd listen... etc.

I think that's a little silly, frankly. I don't have to be a football player to know Jake Delhomme sucks as a quarterback.

Just like I don't have to be a musician to have an opinion about music.

there is a difference between offering an opinion and being a critic. I assumed when we talk about critics we mean people who are PAID to say "X" is good or bad. In football, the guys who haven't played don't know shit and it is obvious to me cause I played football up until I was a junior in college. Anyone who seriously played a sport for a long period of time would probably agree. "The Professor" on ESPN is a good example... he doesn't know shit. You just can't really be an expert about ANYTHING without practicing it... just reading about ANYTHING isn't enough. Would you trust a doctor who only read about medicine in a book and hadn't worked as an intern for several years? Why is it that in college science classes there is lecture and LABS where you actually practice the experiment?... Would an artist be any good just by reading about technique and not practicing it? I could go on and on... the point is that critics without experience in the field don't have the knowledge required to give an objective analysis. An opinion??? Sure!

still disagree here.
i do not believe one needs to be an "expert" to be a critic, and hell...there are plenty of musicians, artists, chefs, etc....who are self-taught, etc....so plenty who do not "know" their art/craft thoroughly, and yet they still are amazing and excel. hell, the world-famous photographer annie liebowitz has said she knows nothing of light metering, leaves it to her staff....it's all about composition to her. henri cartier-bresson, one of THE most influentical photographers ever to live, and he let someone else do his darkroom work. countless examples of artists and the like who may have 'experience' and yet, quite limited in their scope. a critic can be very well-versed and educated in a given topic, and "experienced" in seeing/tasting/listening...whatever.....a LOT......and in a sense, could probably be more objective than someone intimately involved in the industry, or in a particular genre, etc. so sure, we simply differ in our opinions on the topic...;)

he still stands

Yep I don't think we are going to agree on this one... certainly a lot of people do rely on critics' advice and go back to the same critic because they have similar tastes.

I guess I have a general disdain for critics because it seems like - especially since the internet arrived - EVERYONE IS A G'D CRITIC!!! I wish people would stop criticizing other people's art and try to create something of their own. It also seems like people judge others too easily and form baseless opinions, then regard those opinions as the absolute truth... I guess you should keep in mind that I'm a "model agnostic" so I find very little (or zero) truth in most things I read.

Rhinocerous Surprise

To put it simply, no, they're not.

There are lots of functions for critics. The most apparent function is, like most people say, finding out about bands or movies or restaurants you might not have heard of otherwise. Or just telling you an Indy movie sucked, and shouldn't be considered part of the franchise.

Another function of critics that most people don't like to admit is reassurance: you like an album or a movie, and it's a nice feeling to see someone with "authority" (arbitrary as it may be) agree with you.

But aside from any of that, plenty of critics are just genuinely good writers who choose to write critiques, and whether their opinion is "right" or not matters less than whether they're good at expressing it. There are plenty of instances where I found a review to be more entertaining than what was reviewed. Plus, there are plenty of critics who've gone on to write novels, or screenplays, or to work in the field they've been reviewing for however long.

HeyWayne

I would agree that critics may well have performed a function in informing people of previously unknown bands, writers, artists etc in a previous age where there was no "forum" for the sharing of ideas and opinions - but we now live in a digital age where (as we are here) exchanges of views, opinions, knowledge are shared on a much wider scale, with a far greater breadth of people.

Critics are borne of an age where print was the only medium to express views and experiences with the wider public and people would read their newspaper, magazine or newsletter with very little two-way interaction.

If critics are good writers in general does the fact that they are chosing to write critiques on the works of others just indicate laziness in terms of imagination?

Damnit - now you've got me critique-ing critics!

I understand, and agree to a large extent that the writings or some critics can be entertaining - and more value in that sense that the critique itself - which to some extent illustrates my point, why bother with the critique in the first place?

Maybe my question should have been - are critics becoming less relevant in a digital age?

decides2dream

Rhinocerous Surprise wrote:

To put it simply, no, they're not.

There are lots of functions for critics. The most apparent function is, like most people say, finding out about bands or movies or restaurants you might not have heard of otherwise. Or just telling you an Indy movie sucked, and shouldn't be considered part of the franchise.

Another function of critics that most people don't like to admit is reassurance: you like an album or a movie, and it's a nice feeling to see someone with "authority" (arbitrary as it may be) agree with you.

But aside from any of that, plenty of critics are just genuinely good writers who choose to write critiques, and whether their opinion is "right" or not matters less than whether they're good at expressing it. There are plenty of instances where I found a review to be more entertaining than what was reviewed. Plus, there are plenty of critics who've gone on to write novels, or screenplays, or to work in the field they've been reviewing for however long.

great post!


and to address this:

HeyWayne wrote:

I understand, and agree to a large extent that the writings or some critics can be entertaining - and more value in that sense that the critique itself - which to some extent illustrates my point, why bother with the critique in the first place?

Maybe my question should have been - are critics becoming less relevant in a digital age?

um, why bother? i think we all gave a whole host of reasons to 'bother.' why do you discuss ANYthing? to glean information, to entertain, to inform, to share opinions, to recommend.warn, etc, etc.

as to becoming 'less relevant' i don't see why. just b/c any joe can now post his opinion on anything all over the internet means nothing to me. you said as much in a sense earlier...that you think critics can't criticize b/c they are uneducated and/or inexperienced (which i already disagreed with)....but given this, why in the world why i 'value' just anyone's opinion, when i know nothing of them, their background, interests, etc, etc? a critic from the times let's say, i will at least know he or she has met some education/expeirence requirements, can write (that's a biggie for me in reading, thus why i read very little 'average viewer reviews, most are dreck!) knows how to critique, etc. if you find no value in it, fair enough...but apparently a fair few still do, very much so, and i don't see critics disappearing anytime soon as it seems the media is quite fond of them still. they do serve a purpose for many of us. only difference in this digital age is now i can go on yahoo movies, click on a film title i am interested in, and have access, all at once, to about a dozen newspaper critic's reviews all of the movie i am interested in.


btw - why must one be 'lazy in imagination' simply b/c they choose to be critics? i just don't see it. what i see is a passion on a topic, along with the ability to write, a flair for observation, etc. that's like the old saying 'those who can, do...those who can't, teach.' while sure, that may be true for some, but honestly it is quite insulting to those who teach, and really....is quite untrue in many ways. (and i don't just say that as a former teacher). seriously, why must one have to *do*....some are simply content with appreciating, observing, perhaps 'doing' some on their own...it's not all or nothing....and none of it is necessarily 'lazy' nor unimaginative.

Rhinocerous Surprise

HeyWayne wrote:

I would agree that critics may well have performed a function in informing people of previously unknown bands, writers, artists etc in a previous age where there was no "forum" for the sharing of ideas and opinions - but we now live in a digital age where (as we are here) exchanges of views, opinions, knowledge are shared on a much wider scale, with a far greater breadth of people.

Critics are borne of an age where print was the only medium to express views and experiences with the wider public and people would read their newspaper, magazine or newsletter with very little two-way interaction.

Okay - so now the critics can engage in more two-way interaction. If anything, the critics becoming more approachable and open is a good thing. If you disagree with Ebert, e-mail him; if you disagree with a music review, post a comment. Depending on the critic, you might get a response. If not, at least there's been an exchange of views.

HeyWayne wrote:

If critics are good writers in general does the fact that they are chosing to write critiques on the works of others just indicate laziness in terms of imagination?

Of course it doesn't. Critiques aren't inherently imaginative or unimaginative, just like novels or screenplays can be brilliantly inventive or blandly derivative. It depends on the person writing it. Just read good critics.

HeyWayne wrote:

Damnit - now you've got me critique-ing critics!

I understand, and agree to a large extent that the writings or some critics can be entertaining - and more value in that sense that the critique itself - which to some extent illustrates my point, why bother with the critique in the first place?

Maybe my question should have been - are critics becoming less relevant in a digital age?

Less relevant, perhaps, but significantly more interesting. I think most critics - at least, any critic worth their salt - are happy enough for the internet to allow more of a dialogue to take place. Their opinions aren't sacrosanct - but the important thing is that a lot of critics do have a certain amount of experience and expertise in their chosen field. It doesn't make them infallible, but it usually means their opinion has a good degree of substantive thought behind it. I'd much prefer to read a good critic point out the flaws of a video game, or the subtext of a movie, than read an entire thread full of fanboys and trolls flaming back and forth.

As an example of a writer perfectly suited to writing critiques: Charlie Brooker's Screen Burn Column.