-
This entirely misses the point of cultural criticism... the critic is NOT an audience avatar. It isn't their job to funnel the Opinion of the Majority. I mean, not only would that be boring, but it strips the job of it's most important role - placing culture in context... jbarro/1481724584789426179On twitter.com
♻️ 4 Retweets
❤️ 31 Favorites
Mood -5 🙁
-
This is why the idea of Teen Vogue covering politics, or Kotaku writing about the politics of games makes people angry... b/c they think criticism is supposed to be a mirror. But who wants to read a mirror and what would be its value? There are polls and Nielsen ratings for thatPermalink On twitter.com
❤️ 10 Favorites
Mood -5 🙁
-
But the critics job is not to be a mirror. Cultural criticism is inherently persuasive work. There is no such thing as a "neutral" review. Even 'writing to the majority' wouldn't be neutral. The majority often fkin sucks and people would rightfully disagree with such a criticPermalink On twitter.com
❤️ 8 Favorites
Mood -10 🙁
-
So it is a *fundamental* misunderstanding--not to mention insulting to your audience, who consume more media than ever--to assume that a critic writing about a film through the filter of JKR being canceled is 'in a filter bubble'. That's the OPPOSITE of what is going on.Permalink On twitter.com
❤️ 3 Favorites
Mood -4 🙁
-
A good critic write persuasively. They're not in a filter bubble blind to reality, they're taking a stance and trying to convince the reader to take it as well. That's not weird or bad... that's their inherent function. They aren't in bubbles, they're *breaking* them.Permalink On twitter.com
❤️ 2 Favorites
Mood 0
-
Yeah, the author is right... most people don't have any idea what is in the Build Back Better Act, but it's not the role of journalists to soothe their inaction or ignorance w/matching ignorance. One does not hold up a mirror to ignorance as a journalist. The point is to inform.Permalink On twitter.com
❤️ 4 Favorites
Mood -2 🙁
-
And this is also the role of the critic! One does not hold up a mirror to the ignorance, bad taste or inability to understand the context of art of the reader. That would be bad. One attempts to persuade, educate and place art in context. That is the whole point.Permalink On twitter.com
❤️ 4 Favorites
Mood -12 🙁
-
If the cultural critic's job was not to *be critical* beyond normal consumption then there would be no culture section, no reviews page, it would just be a stock-page-like listing of ticket sales. No one actually wants that, because that would be how culture stagnates.Permalink On twitter.com
♻️ 1 Retweets
❤️ 2 Favorites
Mood -3 🙁
-
No one builds good art on metrics. That's part of the critic's role as well. In challenging culture they force it to shift and grow. Artists and critics work as parts of the same system, not in isolation. Disagreeing with the readers' reality is the point of art criticism.Permalink On twitter.com
♻️ 2 Retweets
❤️ 4 Favorites
Mood -2 🙁
-
It is sadly and frustratingly common that people don't know that. And I don't know if the author realizes this, but that specific inclination, to ask critics to hold up a mirror instead of Do The Work, is inextricably tied to the forces of conservatism...Permalink On twitter.com
❤️ 5 Favorites
Mood -4 🙁
-
Whether the author realizes it or not, their criticism is the criticism of the alt-r*ght*r, the g*merg*ter, the gaudy Tr*mpist. Because these forces want culture that only reflects them because that is a *mechanism of power*. And a good critic should know better than to listen.Permalink On twitter.com
❤️ 3 Favorites
Mood 0