In Reply to: what makes any critic a fricken expert? posted by BJordan on February 8, 2007 at 18:53:28:
clear several hurdles. First off, someone must be paying to read their opinions or their work would be terminated. Second, an editor must have decided at some point that the critic has strong opinions, well bolstered by logic, and that he can express them clearly and entertainingly. In order for the critic to be taken seriously, he must have encyclopediac knowlege of film and formal film criticism.
Last, of course, is whether or not the person has a more elusive quality: taste. It is what distinguishes a connoisseur in many fields.
If I read you correctly, your objections to critics equally could apply to pretty much any artist: hell, anyone is qualified to throw paint upon a canvas, film his "vision," or cook up a fancy meal.
Yes, I mean what I am implying, tacitly. Film criticism, like all serious criticism of the arts, may be elevated to art itself.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- A person who publishes his opinions and gets paid for it has to - tinear 04:38:15 02/09/07 (2)
- Yikes! Thast criteria would make Tom Nousaine and Howard Ferstler ::gag:: experts. - Analog Scott 08:44:26 02/11/07 (0)
- I agree with what you are saying and that is my point.... - BJordan 19:09:27 02/09/07 (0)