Criticism and Critics

Although traditions of American journalism typically command impartiality, some journalists are specifically read and valued for the subjective judgments they offer. These are the critics or interpreters of the American cultural landscape. Criticism comes from the Greek root kritikos or the Latin criticus, terms referring to a person able to make a sound judgment. In journalism particularly, the term refers to the discussion, usually in print, characterizing and appraising a cultural or artistic work. As they describe and analyze the object, critics provide their readers with information, opinion, guidance, and entertainment. They are full- or part-time employees who make a living out of their informed judgment.

Critics specialize in the fields they write about. These mainly include art, theater (drama), literature (or books more generally), music, film, media, and food (restaurants). With the rise of computers and graphic software, the critics' repertoire has also come to comprise digital art. Academics often refer to critics as “arts journalists.”

Roland Wolseley, author of an early text on journalistic literary criticism, distinguished critical pieces from feature stories about arts or artists, news reports of arts shows, star gossip, and mere discussions of the book world. He explained that critical writing specifically focuses on the artistic work and is intended to serve as a judicious guide and shape public taste. Other journalistic forms on the arts merely inform or entertain. Critics bring authoritative experience and knowledge into the criticism they write. A 2007 study on the self-image of critics suggests that they view their passion about their field—usually undesirable in journalism—as one of their most distinctive characteristics.

Although people usually refer to criticism and opinion review interchangeably, veteran reviewer Campbell Titchener distinguishes between the two. He explains that both parties usually work in a print medium but reviewers do not focus on a specific art form and commonly offer an overnight reaction to a cultural performance. Critics, on the other hand, specialize in a specific field and offer a studied and contextual evaluation of their topic of concern over time. Their work sometimes appears days or weeks after the concert, exhibit, or play in [Page 376]question. In brief, reviewing is only one aspect of a critic's occupation.

Finally, arts journalists also differ from academic critics who appraise cultural objects in a journal or book. As Wolseley explains, the latter do not write for a mass public and hence may use technical language that general audiences likely do not understand. Their judgment is rarely concerned with a specific object or event, concentrating on literary, artistic, or cultural tendencies in general. Critics, on the other hand, write for a mass audience and usually address individual cultural events or performances.

Critics and scholars of criticism share a common understanding of how to write a sound critical text. They explain that high-quality criticism deconstructs the art works or performances, revealing their various layers to readers. Such criticism is intended to provide an informed and disciplined opinion that remains respectful, even when negative. Criticism also features astute comparisons that place the object or performance in context and demonstrate a thorough knowledge of the object, its creator, and the general field. Criticism creates a dialogue that assigns art or performance a historical context. Through theoretical knowledge and considerable experience in critical appraisals, critical writing exhibits its author's (and the reader's) acquaintance with, and appreciation of, arts in general. Finally, criticism takes into consideration its target audience, the extent of its exposure, and the boundaries of its sensitivities.

...