FYI - I am not a "critic."
My job isn’t to judge the value of art. My job is to try and get >you< closer to what >you< would think about that art.
If you engage my commentary and can get >around< my opinion, then I’ve done my job.
If I can get around my >own< opinion and express what I >observe< rather than let my own tastes dictate, then I’ve done an even better job.
I don’t always succeed, but that’s my job description as I see it.
Yes, opinions and criticisms make their way into my commentary, but it’s not my place to assign an objective value to someone else’s creation.
I have zero interest in serving as a tastemaker or cultural gatekeeper or someone who inscribes the official version of history on the stone temple of our collective memory.
With all due respect to my peers, I view those intentions as low-vibrational and even malicious. To constrict another person’s creation by imposing one’s judgment on it is, in my view, an act of brutality and control motivated by a profound disregard for the act of creation.
There are many >amazing< writers who cover music. I'm a fan of several who straight-up do figure-8s around me when it comes to the grace and flow of their prose. And I do believe that the majority of people who go into media as commentators on music and art do so out of a profound love for the subject they cover.
That said, I've never identified as one of them. My intentions come from a completely different place, and I think that anyone who's in the business of offering armchair opinions on the accomplishments of others needs to always be respectful and empathetic. I don't see enough of that in my field.
Moreover, in an era defined by an obsession with supposed power imbalances, I think we need to re-evaluate who in fact has the power over whom when we employ an entire class of specialists to wield so much power over other people’s art, not to mention their story.
Critics, of course, will tell you that society needs schooltearcher-ly figures with red pens in hand. I think that’s nonsense. Of course, those who would insert themselves into a process where they don’t belong will push hard to justify their role as “necessary.” You don’t have to believe them, and we should all reconsider whether anyone should be paid to act as an arbiter of taste.
Critics, as far as I’m concerned, are people who have taken it upon themselves to manage the connection between art and the audience. That is simply not my place. Your response to a film, a piece of music, a book, etc. belongs to >you< not to me, and the experience you have in your own space is sacred. I do not believe I or any self-ordained ministers of culture have any place in your experience any more than the clerical classes of previous civilizations have had the right to administrate the individual’s connection to the divine.
For me to dictate how you should feel about a work of art is an intrusion on both you and the artist’s creation.
I think art - and the unfolding of music history in particular - is too infinite for us all to settle on some kind of collectively-shared consensus.
I prefer an account of music history and cultural history that encourages freedom from a single narrative, one that fosters an increased sense of exploration, as well as an acceptance of the idea that what takes place on the social landscape is too intricate and complex to be collapsed into >one< story.
Each individual moves through that story differently, so the “story” takes on infinite forms as it manifests uniquely within every individual’s experience.
At our best, my peers and I might think of ourselves as curators. I am nothing more than the person at the ice cream shop handing you little spoons so you can try different flavors. What you like - the flavor you decide to take home - is between you and your taste buds.
You do not need me to understand art or place it in context for you.