There is the desire, when the hour draws late, to substitute
cheap material for what would have been a well-formed piece. There is the
consideration, also, for what should take place among critics and their
criticism. The extreme is to either accept uncritically all that is available
or to dismiss everything for one’s own prejudice. The quality of a piece of
work should shine in the critic’s praise and their condemning words are for the
badly formed dross. I don’t have the rules for this though and am not about to
give them. I will however speak of the
importance of its significance.
An individual person who describes writing/film/music will
use a certain register to portray/analyze/represent a targeted work using the
language of criticism. This discourse condenses the experience of media and
seeks to show why it fits or is out of place. Sorting out the good from the bad
takes place among judgments, which are formed to press qualities that one looks
for in the first place. So that their
audience has an idea of the said work, the critic presents these judgments. But
beyond the art is also the political/social/economic shapes formed by citizens
and consumers at large.
It is at this point that I would stop saying ‘criticism’ and
would prefer ‘commenting’ from commentators of social systems. The same ideas
can definitely be applied by advancing certain shapes of social organization
over other preferences. This distinction is to distinguish from one form of what
these people look at over another. So this is just to understand the field but
what could be said in particular? Just that these shapes of criticism depend on the medium, so significance extracted from a social context or a textual surrounding
will lose if it is without those places where it can breathe, walk, and be.
