Critics for established venues are vetted by editors; they usually demonstrate a certain objectivity; and they come with known backgrounds and specialized knowledge.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
Critics have their purposes, and they're supposed to do what they do, but sometimes they get a little carried away with what they think someone should have done, rather than concerning themselves with what they did.
I think critics are very useful. But I think that they, in a way, betray their position when they stop people looking for themselves.
Critics have a responsibility to put things in a cultural and sociological or political context. That is important.
Critics are not creators. They rarely write great novels, invent new technologies, or come up with a great business idea.
Critics have a job to do. I understand that. It's not just to criticize. They're trying to interpret art for the public.
Have you ever noticed how most critics disagree with the public? That should tell you a lot about critics.
Critics at their best are independent voices; people take seriously their responsibility to see as many things as they can see, put them in the widest possible perspective, educate their readers. I really do think of myself as a teacher.
Reviewers are usually people who would have been, poets, historians, biographer, if they could. They have tried their talents at one thing or another and have failed; therefore they turn critic.
Critics try to pin so many different inaccuracies on me and my music; they look at the complicated things and try to simplify them. They think they can nail your whole life down just by knowing the bare bones of your history in partaking in 10 minutes of conversation.
Critics should be looked at simply as commentators.
No opposing quotes found.