Here you’ll find short manifestos from our staff about what it means to review art, books, food, etc.
Madeline Laguaite
Being a critic is about more than just offering up your opinion on television, food and films.
There seems to be a misconception that critics are snooty reviewers, living just to drag the creatives. Of course, this simply isn’t true.
But compared to an investigative journalist, what could a critic possibly have to offer? It is true that critics hold a certain power — an undeniable, important power — to uncover those hole-in-the-wall restaurants and underrated indie television shows and reveal them to their audiences.
To quote a bad cliché, with great power comes great responsibility. The role of a critic is to balance the good with the bad to better inform the public and local communities. This doesn’t mean trashing local restaurants, of course — a critic’s goal isn’t to ruin someone’s livelihood. Within their reviews, critics should clearly state their point of view and defend it with evidence. They should include background reporting whenever possible.
It’s critical for these critics to not only take their jobs seriously (even if the audience sometimes doesn’t), but to also be aware of the influence and resulting ripple effect they might cause.
For example, a critic who opens the audience’s eyes to the racist undertones of a film is doing her readers a valuable service, especially if that critic’s background helps her uncover the film’s nuances. She can take a film with a large budget and A-list actors, but unveil the unrealistic or even poor writing of the script. A good critic is able to see the parts of the whole and relate them to the whole picture with relative ease and with purpose.
To sum up my thoughts, critics do hold a crucial role in this world and they shouldn’t be taken for granted. They’re the unsung heroes of the journalism community and deserve all the praise they deserve. Because at the end of the day, critics do deserve praise, just like anyone else, for the good work they do.
Morgan Frey
Before taking this course, I was convinced that reviewing arts and culture required a healthy dose of snobbery.
In my mind, critics were well-dressed monocle-d men in a dimly lit corner of a restaurant being rude to staff members who were falling over themselves to make sure everything was absolutely perfect.
Now I see, however, that there is a good bit more vulnerability to the critic than the pompous freeloader I had imagined before. The critic is someone who is willing to put out into the world their own personal tastes and ideas for the world to see in hopes that they may help someone spend their money wisely.
As someone who keeps all of her Spotify music playlists on private for fear that people will judge her music tastes, I see a sort of bravery in being a critic. The critic herself is opening herself up to criticism from business owners to everyday readers.
But the role of the critic is not to review based on her tastes alone. There is a ton of research and knowledge that has to go in to the critique as well in order for it to be as unbiased as possible. You can’t be a skilled book reviewer if you don’t read regularly to know the difference between “good” and “bad” literature. You can’t be a skilled movie reviewer if you don’t have a working knowledge of a director’s role in film.
Therefore, being a critic is all about maintaining balance. It’s a balance between being extremely vulnerable and extremely resilient; between knowing your stuff and being willing to learn even more; between fulfilling an innate desire to critique and being a benevolent public servant.
And instead of snobbery, being a critic requires you to recognize that your opinion isn’t the gospel. But it sure does feel good to share it.
Chad Davis
A good critic is someone who is aware in every situation, while maintaining their cool in order to gain an authentic experience in various settings. As a Journalism major, I have been trained and accustomed to bringing my microphone and digital camera with me every time I was assigned an essay or project. Whether interviewing someone on film, or getting a voice memo from a source, I was constantly distracted on getting the right focus for the camera or adjusting volume levels on the microphone. This lack of awareness limited my ability to think critically about the subject, and how my sources/facts would line up with my opinion/voice.
Upon the first assignment in my Critical Writing class, I found myself becoming less reliant on my camera and microphone as I opened my own two eyes and started listening more carefully to my surroundings. This particular assignment involved students presenting their reactions/opinions of a visual art piece that was shown to the class. Among my classmates, there was a wide range of theories and ideas about the subject of the artwork, all of which were reasonable interpretations given their ideas were often backed up by specific examples from the piece.
Good critics are essential to conveying experiences that may sometimes be under or misrepresented. Whether a seasoned food critic, or an undergrad Journalism student who barely recognizes the difference between curly fries and calamari, it is essential that we seek new adventures with an open mind. Everyone sees through different eyes, whether it be at a movie, or a concert. However, as we communicate our ideas through writing, and other forms of creative expression, we will realize that we share more in common with each other than originally perceived. Critical writing/thinking will continue to be a key tool for building a society of better understanding and communication.
Just remember to keep your eyes open, your ears tuned, and your mind clear (max. 2 beers for a 190 lb. guy like me) whenever in “critic mode.”
Mara Nelms
Opinions are like assholes. Everybody’s got one.
Which is why it kind of amazes me that there are people out there who get paid to give theirs — what makes those opinions special? Like, cash-money special, not “Uncle Gary’s annual holiday rant about the government drugging the water supply” special.
I believe the difference is context.
When a critic writes about a work, they should offer something to the audience that can’t be gained from experiencing the work themselves. Sometimes, that’s a warning about the content — that the quesadillas are bland, that the writing drags, that there’s a scene in the movie that could trigger an epileptic fit. Sometimes it’s background information that adds new layers to the interpretation of a piece, like knowing that the artist has spoken out about experiencing sexual assault or lost a family member to AIDs.
What should make a critic different from every other asshole out there is the determination to balance their opinions with objective facts or alternate opinions. As a person I unequivocally hate James Cameron’s “Avatar,” but as a critic I can and should acknowledge that the CGI was, at the time, groundbreaking, and that it clearly did something right to have earned a long-reigning spot as the highest-grossing movie in the world.
Critics have to acknowledge their own biases and blind spots. A white critic would be extremely remiss to complain about jokes in “Crazy Rich Asians” that don’t make sense to them because they lack the cultural context — as a critic, it’s their job to do the research to understand what’s happening even when they aren’t the intended audience.
If it still seems bonkers to you that people get paid for having assholes — sorry, opinions — rest assured you are not alone. On the flip side, it does stand to reason that if you can pay someone to have an opinion, you can pay them to shut up about it, too. Which is why I’m bringing $50 to Christmas dinner this year.
Hi, Uncle Gary.
Impressed & Expressed 