Vikki Flawith has an interesting take on criticism on her blog, The Shy Singer-Songwriter. In her article, entitled the 'honesty" movement is laziness (referencing this article at Esquire) she says:
There is a huge difference between criticism (this sucks) and critique (okay, here's a place to start, there's some good elements in what you've done here, I'm going to zero in on a couple of things I think would really help).
For the purposes of this post, and therefore, for the moment, setting aside the field of literary criticism and related "criticisms," I'm going to accept her distinction, because I think she's got a good point. There's a real personal element to writing a song. When someone sits down to write a song (really any artistic endeavor), it's more than just a writing project. It's a baring of the soul. A songwriter, and I think especially a singer who is writing her own song, deserves a little respect and acknowledgment. Not everything everyone writes is going to be a hit song, and that goes double and triple for a beginning songwriter. All the same, there's really nothing to be gained by comments like "that sucks" or worse, "You're terrible." That kind of language only serves to bolster the ego of the critic and feed his sense of power, and to belittle the writer.
Still, we as a culture seem to like to watch people get torn apart. Very Roman Empire of us. I have never watched a single episode of American Idol because I've seen Simon Cowell in the ads for the show. He's brutal. And this is not to say that (at least judging by what the Fox network runs as previews) there aren't some pretty poor singers that seem to make it to the on-camera audition. My question is, how/why do they get there in the first place? The casual observer might come to the conclusion that some of the early contestants are allowed on the show just so Cowell can rip into them and humiliate them. And apparently the public loves it, because the show is still on the air in what I think is it's 8th season.
Vikki goes on to say:
Criticism is disguised as honesty because it takes no time or consideration to be a critic. Criticism denies the process of being a creative person and growing over time. Criticism is lazy because it's so easy to just say 'you suck' and 'haven't got a hope.' Criticism says "what you are now is all you will ever be". Criticism says, 'what's the point of striving to be more than who you are today?'
I think she has a point. Although cruelty and humiliation apparently make for great television, honesty without compassion makes for a pretty poor judge of art.
What a great viewpoint by Vikki. Her example of American Idol is spot on...and in all honesty, you would never be treated with such disrespect in an audition in reality and if you were, what kind of beastly production/show is that going to be to be a part of...for me not one worth my time.
Posted by: TC | February 25, 2009 at 09:39 AM
Well, just to be clear, Vikki's thoughts are the block quotes in green. The rest of the post are my musings based upon what she wrote. So it's actually my example of American Idol, not hers. So thanks! If you follow the links in the first paragraph, you can go and read Vikki's article in it's entirely.
Posted by: Morry | February 25, 2009 at 10:18 AM
Stuff you haven't eaten just proves you haven't eaten it.
Posted by: heardy | April 06, 2010 at 11:43 AM
Rather interesting. Has few times re-read for this purpose to remember. Thanks for interesting article. Braxton .
Posted by: insicpymn | August 18, 2010 at 01:16 PM