Friday, March 17, 2017
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.