Quote:
Originally Posted by Duo Himura
But -all- critique is inherently subjective, is it not? How original you think something is depends on what you've seen before it, whether you relate to a character depends on your personal experience, etc. You can -only- filter art through your own perspectives, so trying to change your perspective to fit what you're watching isn't necessarily getting you any closer to being "right," it's just bringing you closer to the target audience, or the -expected- reaction. Who's to say that that's any more correct?
|
I would agree with you if the topic of the thread is about general critics. But the topic is talking about 'anime critics'.
So, if one thinks that he's an anime critic, he should have a good understanding of anime to actually be a good critic, especially if he's a professional. And to have a decent level of understanding he should be good at Japanese and be able to view it in a Japanese perspective and not just a completely Western perspective.
I don't think you can call someone a good critic if he doesn't even understand what he's watching or listening.
Also the topic seems to be talking about forum critics, people who criticism shows as part of discussion, which I believe are not made up of professional critics. Many of these so called 'critics' don't make fair or constructive criticism, they're simply people who find faults and make harsh judgments based on their opinions.
There are many instances where these 'critics' actually have no idea what they're watching. They find fault in homages, parodies, in-jokes and stuff, they condemn a show because of a certain point which they dislike. They complain of plot holes, going out of character, bad pacing, deux ex machina, 'trainwrecks', but they don't even seem to know what these terms are.