Marika Rose makes a fantastic point in the tweet pictured. Of course I must point out that this tweet is taken out of context and is, in fact, part of a larger twitter thread which was about the nature and role of academic criticism. I thought, however, that this particular tweet summed up Marika’s point quite well, i.e. criticism and critique, can both be valuable, and valuable in completely different ways.

I wrote a post not long ago about the difference between criticizing and critiquing. To sum up briefly, one of the important distinctions between the two methods that I try to remember is that criticism comes from a place of negativity and it’s intent is to tear down or destroy. Critique comes from a place of positivity, it’s intention is to build up or edify.

I do think, like Marika, that criticism (tearing down from a place of anger or hostility) can be useful and is very much needed. Our world needs critics, people who act as prosecutors if you will. A prosecutor, in the legal sense, is a person who attacks without necessarily thinking too much about the person or persons they’re attacking. Their job is to put someone in jail, period. What happens to that person after the hearing is over is not really the prosecutor’s business.

To further make the point of why criticism is necessary, consider this: if a person is being tried for murder, would we want to critique their horrific actions, i.e. analyze how they “did the deed” in order to make their murdering process better? Of course not. Some things deserve straight-up criticism with no suggestions offered for how to improve upon it. Some things–like a dangerous, condemned building–need to be demolished and torn down. Trying to fix a building that has a faulty foundation is futile; it’s better to start from scratch.

Of course, this raises the obvious question: How do we know which things deserve to be demolished? Someone has to make that decision, right?

Another important point I made in my last post about Critiquing vs Criticizing is that critiquing should ultimately be objective, that is, values and feelings should ideally be laid aside in order to obtain a larger goal or purpose. While, on the other hand, a critic cannot help but be subjective. The critic puts herself in an vulnerable place, because the nature of criticizing implies that the critic must make at least some value judgements. The critic is, therefore, forced to share what they hold to be personally sacred or valuable, whether they like it or not. The critic, in the end, must lay their cards on the table, and this is why it’s so easy for criticism to be dismissed with some simple throw away psychoanalysis:

“Oh this critic obviously has issues with such and such…” Or “it’s plain to see that this critic has hostility toward the Church,” etc, etc, etc…

Again, due to the nature of criticism, most criticism cannot help but be entangled with the critics subjective reality. But the weakness of criticism is also it’s strength. For instance, consider that often times cries of the oppressed can be powerful motivation for change. In my experience, nothing moves people to action more than an ethos soaked, poetic lament or a critical, spirit filled speech.

So, in summation:

• Critiquing and Criticizing are both useful methods of analysis and they’re useful in different ways
• Benefits of Critiquing: objective, helpful, positive, constructive, tends not to be personal, less chance of being dismissed out of hand by recipient
• Weaknesses of Critique: tends not to be personal & may allow for one to avoid facing tough issues
• Benefits of Criticism: Can be a powerful impetus for change, can often be artistic and poetic, subjective
• Weaknesses of Criticism: is often negative, destructive/deconstructive, subjective & easily dismissed by recipient

The conclusion I came to in my last post is still valid here, I think. Which method is chosen (critiquing or criticizing) inevitably will tell people something about the motivation behind it. In the case of art for instance, it’s difficult to separate the artist from the art (which is typically a self expression), and so is the case, I imagine, with the critic.

Tags:artcriticismcritiqueMarika RoseobjectivityPeter Rollinsphilosophysubjectivity