Is the critic always right?

I understand that some critics actually know what they're talking about and you should probably listen to them. But what about the other critics? I realize you can't please everyone, but you have an audience to think about.

Hypothetical situation: Say someone tells me to change the color of a lady's dress from pink to blue because they just think it'll look better. I say, "Okay, I'll think about it." Later, when I'm working on the drawing and think about the critic's suggestion, I think about changing the dress to blue, but ultimately decide that pink would look better. Then, I take the picture into critique again and the person who told me to change the color of the dress has a problem with the fact that I didn't take their suggestion. Is it because I was wrong to not take their suggestion? Was I being selfish for putting my judgement over that of this particular audience?

Or even if the critic does know what they are talking about, but you think about their suggestion (I mean, give it a good few minutes of thought and sketch it out or write it out, don't just think for five seconds and chuck the idea) and decide it isn't right for you. Should you ignore that and automatically assume they are right? Is it considered disrespectful to not take an the suggestions of an someone considered to be an expert in the community? This doesn't apply to things like, "Your anatomy is off" or "Your characterization needs work." Those are non-negotiable; if you suck at technical things like anatomy and characterization, you need to fix it. I mean things like whether a character should be male or female, or whether or not you should superimpose text to explain a picture.

Basically, if you listen to a critic and calmly disagree or just say, "Okay, I'll think about it," then decide not to use their suggestions, is it considered selfish? I realize it's important to "stay true to your art" and all that, but art is kind of a social activity, and you do have to consider the audience.

(This was too general for the art and writing subforums, and I didn't think it was serious enough to go in On-Topic Conversations. If it's in the wrong place, tell me what I can do to fix it.)

A serious critic who knows his stuff should always be taken into account.

A critic's job, in my opinion, is to raise your awareness of issues, not tell you how to write/draw your work. If they tell you that the dress should be blue, they're giving you a heads up that pink might not be the best color, which you would have otherwise missed. It's up to the creator to decide whether the issues are valid, and if so whether changes should be made. Naturally, a more expert critic will notice more issues and know which ones are more valid, as well as be able to suggest changes to resolve them.

'Course critics aren't always right. Art is subjective, after all.

If you can reason why you chose one thing over another then I think that's what's most important. If you're taking time to study both options, then you're clearly evaluating them anyway. Critics can't always be right.

Um...no.

Critics give highly educated opinions on subject matter they're studying. They know what they're talking about. But it's still an opinion.

As others have said, it should be taken into account, but by no means followed to the letter.

Then there are those times you have two critics give you two different opinions.

Or those times when the critic actually is just being a douche or whining because they have no attention span. It happens, and the professional field is no different.

In other words: shit be relative, yo...

Moving on.

edited 8th Feb '12 4:00:41 PM by Ekuran

What if two critics criticize each other then?

But seriously, obviously no critic is always right. But if a recognized authority in a field suggests an improvement, one should definitely consider it seriously — and if they decide to ignore it, they'd better have a reasoned argument for that.

Now, here I'm talking mostly about technical works, I suppose that in art there is more leeway; but the basic idea stands, I think.

edited 9th Feb '12 1:06:57 AM by Carciofus

When someone gives constructive criticism, heed it. With respect and thought.

If a critic says, "This character needs more exposition.", think about it. Is it necessary?
If a critic says, "This sentence right here doesn't flow", think about it. Is it necessary?
If a critic says, "This work makes no sense", think about it. Is it necessary?

To understand what is necessary, one must think about the audience and the artist themselves. This is no easy task. As you read more criticism, you begin to evaluate your own work with a different lens: namely, the critics' and the audience's perspective. Look at everything in different perspectives; it helps. Or maybe you work better if you are narrow-minded. Stanley Kubrick had that vibe and he was successful as an artist; Lars Von Trier is the true definition of an unconventional director, trying to piss off everyone in this planet with works like Antichrist. The choice is yours.

There is no right answer when it comes to looking at criticism (I assume it is coherent and reasonable). It's up to the artist's choice. Anyone familiar with David Lynch will know this guy does thinks the audience and critics are a nice afterthought. Most conceptual artists have the same attitude. Maybe conceptual art is wrong in your eyes. However, it's the choice the artist used. We, the audience and the critics, can only judge with whatever we have. Everything is up to the artist.

To the budding artists: regard constructive criticism with the utmost respect. Don't follow them if it's hampering artistry. It's really up to you, not someone else.

edited 9th Feb '12 1:37:29 AM by Trollkastel

It really depends on if the critic is experienced in fields like this. If the critic gives you a suggestion that seems to work for you, then feel free to use their suggestions for your work. However, if the critic is suggesting something that goes against your work, then you don't have to heed them. Not all critics are right about everything and it ultimately comes down to you to decide what works and what doesn't work for you.

If I had to listen to critics all the time, I wouldn't have gotten the chance to see Ratchet & Clank (2016) when it was in theaters, which I personally enjoyed, and even own on Blu-Ray.

So uh...maybe trust your own gut instead?

Sometimes you have to listen to your heart. I find it difficult when these critics are so reputable that backlash only fuels them.

Plus there's plenty of movies out there that they gave low scores to, but I personally enjoyed, like Pixels.

Angry Joe liked Suicide Squad while his cohosts rolled their eyes at his positivity. I Hate Everything highlighted this moment in his review of the movie and framed Joe as an idiot throughout.

Analysis and negativity are necessary as a critic but I don’t think harassment is.

Edited by ChicoTheParakeet on Apr 8th 2024 at 2:45:20 PM

Never forget that almost all critics also have their own biases, and some critics can let that cloud their judgement/permeate through their criticism.

For example: Yahtzee despises anime and thinks anybody who likes it is a pedophile/Basement Dweller/all-around idiot unworthy of respect, which he’ll gladly remind his viewers of anytime he plays a game with that type of aesthetic. But just because he thinks that doesn’t mean you have to agree with that and stop liking anime or refrain from using that aesthetic for your own work. (And in his defense, it didn’t stop him from thinking that Persona 5 is a great game, IIRC)

And some ”critics” are also just jerks loaded with bad-faith arguments who use the guise of honesty as an excuse to be assholes.

Ultimately, critics are not gods or people who set ”laws” that everybody who has ever created anything must follow. Criticism is about people sharing their opinions - Truly objective criticism is very rare. Listening to criticism is about sorting out the critiques/advice that works best for your project. What makes sense? What doesn’t? Is the critic biased, and do they let their biases take over? Is somebody just blatantly being an asshole and don’t actually care what you do as long as they make you feel bad?

It’s not always easy to do, but it’s a skill you learn as you go.

That, too. A ”critic” who spews insults at anybody who doesn’t share their opinion isn’t sharing criticism - They’re either just a snooty asshole who thinks their tastes are ”better” and thus gives them a ”right” to look down their nose on others, or a bully who just wants to make people feel bad.

Edited by MagmaTeaMerry on Apr 9th 2024 at 12:43:42 PM

I think critics can give you a general idea of whether a work is worth checking out or not, but if you end up enjoying something that was negatively received by reviewers, no one can tell you that you're not allowed to enjoy it. Ultimately, you have to decide for yourself which shows/films/etc. work for you and which don't; suddenly deciding that you hate something just because you're rattled by what some reviewer said isn't being critical, it's just being too cowardly to have your own opinion. And in my case, if a critic is outright insulting people for not sharing their opinions, then I just write them off as a credible voice entirely.

Edited by ArgoTheBlank on Apr 9th 2024 at 4:38:13 PM

Musical Hell panned Pete's Dragon (1977) and Dear Evan Hansen, but I enjoyed them. So…

Edited by Kahran042 on Apr 9th 2024 at 11:31:42 AM

A critic's opinion isn't worth anymore inherently than any other person's opinion. The only advantages to a critic's opinion is that they often find it easier to express what they disliked (instead of just saying 'It was bad') and are (usually, certainly not always) less likely to hate a work for racist, sexist etc. reasons so their views are more likely to be valid (as in genuine criticism) in that way. Conversely, many critics have biases from having their job be watching and critiquing movies (often leading to 'higher standards', though obviously what counts as high standard will still vary from critic to critic) and have been known to dismiss certain works for arguably snobbish reasons, though of course that isn't unique to critics, doesn't apply to all critics and there's nothing wrong with disliking works from those genre, just that that inherent dislike can reduce the value of their opinion to you as a writer.

The benefit of a critic is that they can sometimes make you think: "Yeah, that is a good idea" or "I hadn't noticed that" or "so this is why people didn't like x". They often express their views more clearly and in more depth than the average person. However their views aren't objective truths and if you disagree that's fine.

Edited by king15 on Apr 9th 2024 at 3:31:19 PM

Also. A lot of online critics are entertainers first and foremost. They exaggerated their opinions and play characters and joke about minor stuff because they do it for comedy, not just to give a review of something. There's no reason to hold what they say as inherently more meaningful, especially since in this day and age anyone can hop on camera and review something.

If critics were always right, Vindicated by History wouldn't exist as a trope.

The difference is that critics are paid to review...right?

Are they? In several media, critics are paid to advertise.