That's not a critic. That's a fan.

crit·ic
–noun
1. a person who judges, evaluates, or criticizes
2. One who forms and expresses judgments of the merits, faults, value, or truth of a matter.

What Hrae said.

But also, art isn't measured by how many lines a poem has. Or how many brush strokes it took to create the art.

And as for your sports analogy, I think if you look at the Olympics and news coverage, stories are interesting because of the context and themes. Remember Derek Redmond?


His story is interesting and remember not because he finished first, but because of the context that he finished in.

Similarly, Kerri Strug.

I point out those bold words because they include appreciating a matter.

Stories are interesting and sportspersons are remembered, but that doesn't put the trophy in their cabinet. It's the guy who ran fastest who wins it in the end. Similarly, the painter who paints best should be decided objectively by some benchmark.

Trying to objectify art totally misses the point of art. There are no "winners" and "losers" in art...art exists for the sake of art. It uplifts the human spirit, if only in the one who creates it.

Then why bother with public displays of art?

I didn't say that it only uplifed the spirit of the creator. Public displays allow others to share in the expression of creativity.

I can't argue with you on that point. I guess I'm just not the art type, because i never really feel great when I see such displays.

But you can't just bold those words and say that's what a critic does. That's unfair. You can't be selective and only choose the words that suit your purposes. Yes, a critic does find the merit in art. But that is only a part of their job. That's like saying what a principal does is bad because all he does is discipline students.

..hrm... Hegel abstraction. :cutielove:

Just because there is a public display doesn't mean there is necessarily a "winner" and a "loser." Speeches--public displays of speech. But comparing Martin Luther King, Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech with Abraham Lincoln's "Gettysburg Address"--which is the winner and which is the loser? Or documents? Which is the winner--the Declaration of Independence or the Magna Carta?

Yes, but what I feel is that a majority of the critics will be gushing out in pleasure because of the social standing of the artist in question. they'll be pretty much "flamed" in a manner of speaking, if they differ. At the very least, they aren't taken seriously.


You really want to know my answer on this one? I think the speech that instigated a greater percentage of people towards the cause it was supporting was the better speech. I don't know which one it was in this case.

Critics usually don't care about the "social standing" of the artist. Or they shouldn't, at any rate.

And they wouldn't get flamed, they would just have people who strongly disagree with them.

But that's not measurable. And even if it were measurable, it wouldn't stand the test of time because you can't measure how many people were swayed by the Gettysburg Address today.

And you definitely can't measure documents that way.

Then I'd go with whichever cause seemed more worthy of appreciation.

And documents aren't art. They're simple statements of facts. You can't ask - Which facts are truer?