Quote:
Originally Posted by vincent_richter
We're talking about the sense of entitlement that dictates that one party must acknowledge every comment another party makes because, dammit, it's my First Amendment right to be heard! It's absolutely devastating to the morale of anyone with an ounce of artistic integrity, and it needs to stop.
|
There's a huge difference between "THIS ARTIST SUCKS, I'M GOING TO TELL THEM WHAT THEY'RE DOING WRONG BECAUSE FUCK THEM!!!" and "Oh man, I really want to like this, but there's just this one personal dealbreaker...maybe the artist could fix that?". The key difference is that if the artist plays their cards right, they could easily turn the latter commenter into a consumer.
I agree with you that an artist shouldn't be forced to accept all criticism. Caring too much about destructive criticism is abysmal to an artist's morale. However, I feel as though an artist should acknowledge all CONSTRUCTIVE criticism. Because most of the time, constructive criticism is about making things better for greater enjoyment. However, artists that follow your mindset like to use the block functions of the internet to create a magic criticism-free bubble, entirely void of progress or self-improvement because they think that anyone who tells them there's something wrong with their work is just a stupid hater who wants them to die.
Now, I'm not saying an artist has to USE all constructive criticism. Someone writing a gritty detective story shouldn't listen to critics who want it to be a lighthearted romantic comedy starring a pansexual overweight black woman. But an artist should still acknowledge all criticism and think about if it would improve their work. The same way viewers should be critical of the media they enjoy, artists should be critical of the media they create. However, sometimes it's really hard to notice a flaw with something until someone else points it out to you. Hence, critics.
TL;DR: Not all criticism is valid but that doesn't mean all criticism is invalid.