What you are about to read is the cry of a humble amateur critic. An amateur is a lover: I love to write criticism, however clumsily, and I love to read criticism, particularly of the snarky kind. But I tire of reading the same old responses to it, from the same old lamers who don't understand the concept and lash out when they see their idols get a critical kicking. Some of these responses I've received myself; others I see again and again on Usenet, message boards, and other parts of the Net, in response to criticism far better than mine. And I've decided I've had enough. The most tiresome offenders are named and shamed here, in the hope they will never be used again. Whatever criticism you're responding to, if you ever respond with any of these, you're a fucking idiot and deserve all the abuse you will get.
What would be the point? You'd be too stupid to recognise it anyway. This is the most frequently seen, most dull-witted and most easily dismissed response on the list, inevitably resorted to by the dimmest bulbs on the block, of whom there are disturbingly many. Put simply, critical faculties and other creative faculties are not necessarily related; excellence in a given field is not required to have a critical insight into that field. Or put even more simply, you don't need a Michelin Star to see the jizz on the cupcakes.
So what? What has this got to do with anything? I have constructed a critical argument, and you have responded with a straight ad hominem. We're discussing your crap, not my crap: your lame attempt at a counter-punch has hit thin air.
That's not why I'm writing, you fucking turd. I write reviews for the
same reason a dancer dances, a singer sings, or a child daubs paint on paper — for the joy of self-expression. Our shared impulse is to express ourselves artistically, with the materials at hand; and just as the sculptor plays with marble, or the painter plays with pigment, I play with other people's art, or lame attempts at it. I use other people's art as a launching point, and use it to create something uniquely my own. Persuading you, convincing you, or, heaven forbid, telling you what to like, have nothing to do with it. Why would I care what you like? What you like is obviously shit, and you're welcome to it.
A childish response, straight from the playground. What kind of mind perceives
every stance in terms of jealousies, resentments, harboured grudges? The kind of
mind that projects a bit too much, methinks. Believe it or not, not everyone is
beset by your own obsessions and insecurities; one can form an opinion
— and feel it more strongly than anything you've ever felt in your
life
— without having a personal stake in the subject. People who
denounce with a
passion often live the rest of their lives with the same passion; that they have
pissed on your darling is no guaranteed sign of a personal grievance on their
part.
Why do I review crap? Simple: for pleasure. For the sheer joy of it.
Every piece of crap you like is an immense world of delight waiting to be
explored. Crap is a driving force, crap is inspirational: nothing urges me
to set things right more than seeing them done wrong. I'm especially
pleased when the crap is so bad it makes me angry — for anger is a
pleasant sensation. To feel your bile rise and your blood boil, to feel a
rush of fury — why, it's the pleasure of being alive, of feeling
some
actual emotion instead of the constant dull fuzz of the easily contented.
Why should I deny myself such pleasures? You preach abstinence, but
that's because you're a Puritan. When
you look at criticism, you see only whines and complaints; you fail to see
the joy. Energy is eternal delight (as they say where I come from),
and to damn something with energy is a more joyous and thrilling act than
to ignore it, or say "it's nice", or fob
it off with other half-hearted compliments.
Yes, and your opinion isn't worth shit. In spite of the morass of
subjectivity you'd drag us into, there are such things as
artistic standards — common standards, shared among certain groups
of
people, people who know what they're talking about, people who express
themselves better than others. Better according to whom? According to me.
(It's all subjective, remember?) Objective standards might not exist in
the realm of art, but these inter-subjective standards fulfil their role
quite adequately. And they still allow plenty of room for argument and
opinion.
In any case, your comment is made in bad faith. You've come in the level-headed
guise of one advocating reason and common sense, but in truth your only aim is to
justify your own juvenile opinions. "If I like it, it's good" is an excuse never
to confront the flaws in the things you like, never to question your opinions, for
fear you've built your fanboy life on piss-weak foundations.
Yes, no one should ever express an opinion about anything, much less contrary
opinions, you stupid fuck. You've stepped into the middle of a argument like some
grandstanding politico, trying save the day, putting the argument to rest with
some shouted platitudes. You probably think you are quite the shotgun diplomat,
but your act convinces no one. For under your performance, as plain as day, is a
grieving, wounded fanboy, whining about the nasty people saying nasty things about
what he likes. You never pipe up like this when you see wall-to-wall gush, which
is all you want to see.
I never know what you mean by this complaint, and I suspect you don't either. Do you mean that I believe art should be restricted to an elite? In which case you're simply wrong, no matter what elite you're talking about. I don't even believe art should be restricted to the elite group of people who are good at it. As I've explained above, I love crap art. Crap art is even necessary: it makes the good art good, it drives it ever better.
Maybe you mean instead that I favour an elite, in which case I plead guilty. I openly confess I display a shameless preference for works I believe to be good, made by those I consider the best, most talented, most driven, and most perfectionistic people. I must further confess, however, that I have no idea why anyone would consider this a bad thing, or even something worth pointing out. Should I also favour things I believe to be worthless, things made by people I believe to be talentless hacks? The very idea is absurd, not to mention contradictory.
In truth, that you've used "elitist" as a swearword shows you've already entered a rearguard action. It's an admission that deep down, you know your object of devotion is a piece of crap, roundly laughed at by anyone with a sense of taste.
No you don't, asshole. "Constructive criticism" is surely the worst
mass hallucination since consumer capitalism, or the resurrection of our
Lord, or the Democratic Party. For one, it's inimical to the purposes of
criticism as art. I'll say it again: the point of criticism is not to
improve you, but to express me. And each time I digress to offer
you helpful suggestions, encouraging remarks and other pep-talk, I am not
truly expressing myself. I'm merely being polite, nice, even a bit condescending
—
in other words, I'm being aesthetically repulsive. Like it or not,
criticism is art, not altruism, and those two things are not the same.
What's more, constructive criticism is entirely useless, a wasted
effort. All good artists have two things in common. The first is
talent.
Talent is all-or-nothing entity: either you have it, or you don't. People
without talent, once they're past school age, won't ever get it, and no
amount of prodding and encouragement will make a damn bit of difference.
The best they can ever achieve is an approximation of hack fluency, and
who wants to encourage more of that? Better for everyone if it's nipped in
the bud. People who have talent, on the other hand, know it; they also
know what to take from feedback, and if they need to take anything.
There is no need to take a "constructive" attitude with talented
artists — if anything, they find such an attitude more offensive.
As H.L.
Mencken said: "I do not object to being denounced, but I can't abide being
schoolmastered, especially by men I regard as imbeciles."
The constructive critic is a crow who takes it upon himself to educate the
eagle; one who tries to force his own limitations on those who can soar
far higher, unencumbered.
The second, and more important, attribute shared by all artists is
drive: the drive to create, the artistic impulse. In a real artist,
this
is strong enough that it won't be put off by a few insults. If anything, a
critical savaging will drive him even more, make him even more convinced
of his art. An artist is one who must create art, constantly,
unstoppably: anyone who packs it in after suffering a bit of criticism,
however harsh, is simply not an artist. His retreat from the art world
is no loss at all.
Wrong. Something clearly fucked up during
your aesthetic development, and you've emerged with a country schoolmarm's
ideal of beauty and proportion. Not to worry, I'll explain again slowly.
There is no artistic imperative to balance one's criticism. The only
motivation for "balance" is the opposite of art: politeness, courtesy
towards the artist and his fans. Such courtesy is an offence against
self-expression, calling on the critic to compromise himself so as to
appease the proprieties and sensibilities of a few fanboys, who are
all idiots anyway. The "balanced" critic is inevitably writing in chains,
restricted to a formula: his reviews reek of insincerity and hackery,
showing the severe strains of digging for faint praise.
Die. Seriously, just kill yourself. You won't
even notice. You're dead inside already.
Your main problem, I suspect, is not that I take things too
seriously — after all, you have no idea how much or little time I
spend on this — but that I take them seriously at all. What you
find offensive is that I consider the crap you like to be a subject of
some importance and interest, that I apply certain critical standards to
it, that I look at it in a context slightly wider than your lifetime's
collection of navel lint....
In which case, you're damned right I take things seriously, you
slack-jawed waste of space. Let me tell you a secret: the only people
who ever did anything good, did it seriously. In particular, the only people who were ever entertaining took their entertainment seriously. The best comedians are always dead serious about comedy, studying it in depth, constantly exploring comic ideas, tirelessly working to improve their art —
in fact, only serious people are ever funny. The real humourless bores are the slackers, the laid-back, the shallow, the trivial: people who spend their lives on their arses, sucking candy, swallowing the shit that's fed to them.
Serious people take an active interest and joy in the world; they
participate in it, they strive to improve it, through their actions,
through their art, through their presence. When serious people do things,
they try to do them well; they don't settle for mediocrity in themselves,
or in others. Unserious people — people like you — are the
opposite: they settle for ignorance, they're content with crap, they're
happy to be second-rate, and get second-rate treatment in return. Serious
people make a serious contribution to the world, while you and other
slackers contribute nothing but an ever-rising pile of human effluent.
Who cares? That's no defence for being shit. If anything, it's a greater crime
than being genuinely bad; people who knowingly, willingly, in full possession of
their artistic faculties, spray shit at people, deserve to be sprayed back
with worse shit still.
This is true, by definition — of the words "opinion" and
"fact". I know
what they mean, you know, we all know. Your platitude has contributed exactly this to the discussion: nothing. Now, fuck off.
And you can fuck off too, you pretentious prick.
2. "I'm not so impressed with your art either."
3. "I don't need someone to tell me what to like."
4. "You're just jealous."/"X stole your girlfriend."/"You're a bitter failed writer."
5. "Why do you review things you hate? If you don't like it, ignore it."
6. "Art is subjective. If I like it, it's good. It's all a matter of opinion."
7. "Some people like it, some don't. PEOPLE HAVE DIFFERENT OPINIONS. THERE ARE GOOD THINGS AND BAD THINGS ABOUT EVERYTHING. END OF STORY. I wish everyone would shut up!"
8. "You're being elitist."
9. "What's constructive about mockery? You need to be more constructive with your criticism."
10. "You need to balance your opinion. Mention the good points as well as the bad."
11. "Gee, tell me how you really feel."
12. "You take things too seriously... lighten up. It's just entertainment...."
13. "But it's not meant to be good, it's self-mocking, it's aware of how bad it is...."
14. "YOUR OPINION IS NOT FACT."
15. "De gustibus non est disputandum."
