It is my belief that the critic has multiple functions and roles in society, as well as responsibilities. The more general understanding of the role of a critic would be implied…to criticize. I feel that is not entirely accurate, nor is it the most relevant way to interpret the need for this role, not only in analyzing literature, but in a culturally significant aspect as well. The critic should analyze, interpret, reveal, look, listen, and use all of their senses along with reason to inform and educate others or even if for the sole purpose of educating themselves.
Most dictionaries would define a critic as being a person who expresses an unfavorable opinion of something or as a person who judges the merits of literary, artistic, or musical works. While these definitions serve to be true, they do not encompass the entirety or the importance of the critic. A critic should examine and evaluate all of the elements of a culture in detail in order to present ideas with a varying lens of the culture in seeing it from all possible and relative perspectives. It is significant that a critic take views from as many perspectives as possible because it creates a newer medium for which others can gain insight. Using this approach also allows for the critic to avoid creating a bias perspective in which they may deter the masses from seeing the truth that lies within a concept. A critic should not analyze in vein, but rather envelope the purpose of mutual understanding-whether in terms of agreement or disagreement, acceptance of denial. Further, these are the responsibilities that a critic is accountable for in interpreting certain experiences.
What makes one critic relevant or more relevant than another? What qualifies someone to openly criticize anything? Does it come down to education, wealth, status, or is anyone qualified to be a critic? In my understanding, if someone is going to criticize anything, whether it be art, literature, music, tradition, etc…. they should have viewed the subject from different stances, so that their understanding can translate to the general public-from the most common of people to the most elite. Criticisms open an avenue for discussion, controversy, and diverse understanding. A critic should present material to a culture in a way that they may not have seen it before-to show them something new that they had not perhaps even considered.
The role of the critic is often misused and misinterpreted as being one that only holds relevance in dissecting a particular piece of media or as someone holding some sort of authority voicing an opinion that may be the only “right” one. I feel strongly that the critic has a duty to the public to be wise and thorough in their review of information before voicing a particular stance as their interpretations may influence one person or many people in a way that they may not have anticipated. They also have the responsibility to be able to support their ideas in presentation, voice, and to also have answers for those who will ask the inevitable multitude of questions. A critic has the power to influence the people, and being given this power by the people, they should be mindful of their power to create, destroy, or dispute any ideology they are attempting to represent or refute.
No comments:
Post a Comment