Critics Deserve the Stigmas they have Against Them (Quick Rant)

[27monster27 15,732]

I've been off and on telling myself I should make this thread since a little over a year ago. The recent situation with Halsey/Olivia/Taylor/Fantano has pushed me to make this now, and I will make this quick:

Critics 100% deserve the stigma they have in regards to the hate they receive for their reviews. People need to stop acting like critics getting hate is an attack on free speech or criticism. So many critics have been using "it's just criticism calm down" as a shield to hide their own disgusting behavior. Boxing artists into categories, telling minors that they suck at acting, telling minors that they should do drugs (yes, really), misogyny against womens sexuality, etc. When critics go through phases of receiving a lot of hate, like with Taylors album The Tortured Poets Department back in 2024, I mainly see karma working. Now, obviously not every critic is bad. Saying that would be a composition fallacy. However, there are so many that go unchecked that I have to say that critics having stigma against them is something I'm okay with.

Example Links/Pictures

Anthony Fantanos critique of Halsey having "main character syndrome" being misogynistic (Reminder that Pitchfork did this too)

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/music/articles/halsey-fires-back-critic-dismissed-151500180.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAMeLVaRFdq7c8r22TqFoXGc3IsnLVWiXv9_h07AhZWdwMlVt_7iZGZiBxIAf05hhwoOkJgnRCsrOzm5Cl9bJWGZUfdcswLK4gGk2CQhJ05_krG_mGIid3QWYfgSQq67Mh0XcYSSby8TQRqF0ad0pFUfVcXbXeEZBJ7VbSm2ts0PW

An NME critic telling a then underage Britney Spears that she shouldn't be happy and should "find solace in drugs" (again, yes, this is real)

https://web.archive.org/web/20131029201446/http://www.nme.com/reviews/britney-spears/853

Madonna and her age and how that has lead to people trying to put her in a box:

The Golden Raspberry Awards nominating minors (and waiting all the way until 2023 to stop doing so)

https://variety.com/2023/awards/news/razzies-apologize-age-limit-ryan-kiera-armstrong-1235502000/

A writer named Robin James calling out Mark Derys misogynistic rant about Lady Gaga in 2010

https://www.its-her-factory.com/2010/04/on-gender-and-misogyny-in-mark-derys-anti-gaga-argument/

[weed 78,515]

Agree and disagree, I always think of this video

Perhaps irrelevant as audience is different than specific critics but I think critics could and should exist and have an impact but we just have really terrible critics... if Giorgio Moroder became a Pitchfork reviewer I would be like preach king educate us.

and all the tabloid stuff is garbage made to make people feel better about their own lives.

[Ladle Ghoulash 50,006]

Eh, I also think the inverse has become increasingly true: that fans have become so parasocially attached to their favorite artists as proxies that they see criticism of that artist as a personal attack. I also think a lot of online culture has a tendency to pathologically moralize differences in taste and opinions, which elevates aesthetic criticism or formal criticism to not merely a subjective expression, but rather somehow a moral affront to their favorite artist or their own taste that requires them to then morally attack the critic in the same way that they feel they’ve been attacked. There are absolutely critics who say shitty things, but I actually think stan culture has created an environment where much of the audience is far more toxic than the critics (see: critics getting doxxed, death threats etc. for doing their job).

Like I genuinely don’t see how misogyny follows from Fantano’s commentary on the tone of Halsey’s album. If he finds her framing to be self-indulgent, it feels like a cop out to sidestep that critique by using a moral/identity based defense of claiming it’s misogynistic simply because Halsey’s a woman or to claim its insensitive because of the personal content of the music. I also think the prioritizing of identity or autobiographically based arguments often disallows critique of material that is deemed to be about things that, in casual conversation, would be above criticism. Would it be impolite to critique the tone of how someone discussed their experience with cancer in casual conversation? Of course. However, art isn’t casual conversation and it is as much about form and execution as it is about the autobiographical component of the story and it is entirely possible for someone to make an album about health struggles that is bad and a critic should be allowed to say that.

Maybe this is also controversial, but I don’t think it’s really necessary for critics to be nice either. I think outright cruelty should be avoided, but I think part of the bravery of being an artist is making something and knowing that people are going to potentially criticize you for it, but you do it anyway. I think it’s valuable for the culture for people to be allowed to speak freely about art and I do also think it’s valuable for an artist to also be able to develop a filter towards what is and what is not valuable criticism to them and whose opinions they value and whose they don’t. The discourse surrounding art is an incredibly dynamic and important part of culture more broadly and I don’t think audiences developing pathologically moralistic intolerance towards, in many cases, the act of criticism itself bodes well for the future of art.
 

Without criticism, artists and audiences abdicate their agency and sensibility by, in effect, surrendering to the cult of personality surrounding an artist. Conversely, by also rallying to, in some cases, silence the critic, audiences and artists also make another critical error: they give the critic too much power. Critics aren’t totalitarians of taste. Just because Fantano or Ebert says something about an album or a film doesn’t mean it’s true, it literally just means that’s what they think and they’ve created a springboard for discussion. You’re free to agree or disagree and, imo, by learning *how* to express disagreement without shutting down the conversation, I genuinely think audiences become better able to enjoy and appreciate their favorite works, not less.

Critics aren’t dictators, artists aren’t gods/goddesses. The synergy in this dynamic is the creation of works and the discussion of their role in culture and everyone of is a part of that, including the audience. 

Edited Tuesday at 10:24 AM by Ladle Ghoulash

[Hadrian 2,406]

I always liked the saying: "you have freedom of speech, not freedom from consequences for your speech."

[Ladle Ghoulash 50,006]

Just now, Hadrian said:

I always liked the saying: "you have freedom of speech, not freedom from consequences for your speech."

I agree, but that goes both ways for both artist and critic, imo: you have freedom of speech and expression, but not freedom from the consequences or perceptions of that speech or expression.

[JoeCool 887]

49 minutes ago, Ladle Ghoulash said:

Eh, I also think the inverse has become increasingly true: that fans have become so parasocially attached to their favorite artists as proxies that they see criticism of that artist as a personal attack. I also think a lot of online culture has a tendency to pathologically moralize differences in taste and opinions, which elevates aesthetic criticism or formal criticism to not merely a subjective expression, but rather somehow a moral affront to their favorite artist or their own taste that requires them to then morally attack the critic in the same way that they feel they’ve been attacked. There are absolutely critics who say shitty things, but I actually think stan culture has created an environment where much of the audience is far more toxic than the critics (see: critics getting doxxed, death threats etc. for doing their job).

Like I genuinely don’t see how misogyny follows from Fantano’s commentary on the tone of Halsey’s album. If he finds her framing to be self-indulgent, it feels like a cop out to sidestep that critique by using a moral/identity based defense of claiming it’s misogynistic simply because Halsey’s a woman or to claim its insensitive because of the personal content of the music. I also think the prioritizing of identity or autobiographically based arguments often disallows critique of material that is deemed to be about things that, in casual conversation, would be above criticism. Would it be impolite to critique the tone of how someone discussed their experience with cancer in casual conversation? Of course. However, art isn’t casual conversation and it is as much about form and execution as it is about the autobiographical component of the story and it is entirely possible for someone to make an album about health struggles that is bad and a critic should be allowed to say that.

Maybe this is also controversial, but I don’t think it’s really necessary for critics to be nice either. I think outright cruelty should be avoided, but I think part of the bravery of being an artist is making something and knowing that people are going to potentially criticize you for it, but you do it anyway. I think it’s valuable for the culture for people to be allowed to speak freely about art and I do also think it’s valuable for an artist to also be able to develop a filter towards what is and what is not valuable criticism to them and whose opinions they value and whose they don’t. The discourse surrounding art is an incredibly dynamic and important part of culture more broadly and I don’t think audiences developing pathologically moralistic intolerance towards, in many cases, the act of criticism itself bodes well for the future of art.
 

Without criticism, artists and audiences abdicate their agency and sensibility by, in effect, surrendering to the cult of personality surrounding an artist. Conversely, by also rallying to, in some cases, silence the critic, audiences and artists also make another critical error: they give the critic too much power. Critics aren’t totalitarians of taste. Just because Fantano or Ebert says something about an album or a film doesn’t mean it’s true, it literally just means that’s what they think and they’ve created a springboard for discussion. You’re free to agree or disagree and, imo, by learning *how* to express disagreement without shutting down the conversation, I genuinely think audiences become better able to enjoy and appreciate their favorite works, not less.

Critics aren’t dictators, artists aren’t gods/goddesses. The synergy in this dynamic is the creation of works and the discussion of its role in culture and everyone of is a part of that, including the audience. 

There's always certain things that go too far imo.  I'm not Sarah Jessica parker's biggest fan in the world but all the horse face jokes about her appearance to me seemed widely inappropriate.  Or yeah even then making fun of Madonna at 35 for acting supposedly older than her age on The Girlie Tour is cringe to look at today.  

 

Still yeah online and in your face culture seems to make everyone just a wee bit oversensitive these days.  

[Bronco 23,373]

I mean, there's no career critic that I can name who's contributed anything of value to society. 

The entire schtick is telling artists how they could do better while never doing anything themselves. 

Any form of art critic, is just a role created by the rich to let their intellectually stunted children feel important when stood next to the older brother who inherited the family company. 

[StrawberryBlond 15,462]

I say this is a woman myself - we're way too quick to deem criticism towards us as sexism. This isn't helping women as it gives credence to the concept that women want special treatment and expect to be worshiped. So, let's start there.

Critics used to be far harsher towards women. Until Beyonce started her surprise releases, the only women who would routinely get positive reviews were indie alternative women and Taylor Swift. Now, critical acclaim scores of 80 and higher are being tossed out like it's Christmas. So, it's odd to make such a complaint when female artists are at the pinnacle of critical respect. Have they got used to it so much that any review that isn't glowing is viewed as hateful? What's also unusual is that most critics give positive reviews across the board, especially in the realm of album reviewing. As someone who did amateur album reviewing for years, I can confirm that most albums are below average. Most artists make a choice few bangers and then the rest is filler. I'm lucky to get more than a handful of below average albums per year. Most of my reviews were negative and it bemused me that so many professional critics basically liked everything. My only conclusion is that a lot of them are being paid and/or being told what to say by the publication they're hired by. It's that element that put me off ever pursuing it professionally as I simply did not want to be told what to write or accept bribes.

This isn't to say that I support full-on hate, of course. Critics shouldn't ever be deliberately unkind to artists because of gender, race, age, beliefs or any other factor that has nothing to do with their music. As someone who has never let my feelings about artists influence my judgement of their music, it hurt deeply whenever anyone tried to say that I was being biased against them in some way. Sometimes, it's not that deep, we just don't like the music. 

[TheARTPOPball 1,538]

You can have whatever preferences/opinions you want but it doesn’t automatically mean those opinions come from good places. 
 

on the other side of the coin, we shouldn’t shield certain groups of people from critiques. If ur gonna be an asshole, be one to everyone.