The critic’s job is to articulate their unique personal reaction to something in a way that an audience finds useful. The “something” in this case can be virtually anything created or designed by humans: media texts such films, albums, and books; or cultural experiences like restaurants, theatrical performances and exhibitions.

Though it’s true that anyone can be a critic, that doesn’t mean that everyone is a critic by default. Engaging in criticism is a deliberate act, an attempt by the critic to understand and analyse culture from their own unique perspective. What defines a “unique perspective” is open to interpretation too: some critics use their knowledge and familiarity with their chosen subject to stake a claim to expertise; others use their identity and life experience to provide a unique voice to their audience. Ultimately, if a person is able to inform and entertain an audience while analysing and reacting to cultural artefacts, they can rightfully claim to be a critic.

An audience is crucial to the practice of criticism, because if a critic is not writing for an audience (real or imagined), they are not writing criticism but a personal journal. A critic is only a critic if they present their unique perspective to an audience, large or small.

Just as there are many different types of critics, and many different ways to engage in criticism, there are many different ways audiences value criticism, too. Some people use criticism as a kind of consumer guide, telling them which movies or books are worth their time, while others see criticism as an art form of its own. This has shifted over time, as the avenues for traditional criticism have dwindled and the internet has opened up new possibilities. Today there are far fewer opportunities for critics to engage in the traditional profession of criticism (being published in print, and paid for their work), but there are virtually infinite opportunities to engage in the practice of criticism. What’s important is that the critic finds their audience, whomever that may be.

When deciding who their audience is, and what their voice is, the critic needs to consider a number of factors – these were outlined to us by Alexandra Heller-Nicholas, and I think they beautifully summarise the most important things for critics to understand in their own work:

Taste: by itself, taste – saying “this is good” or “this is bad” – is not criticism. It says nothing about the art but plenty about the critic. Taste can be used to inform criticism, but must only be used as a jumping-off point for the analysis, contextualisation and evaluation of the art.

Privilege and bias: especially today, it is important for the critic to consider who they are and why they should be the person to criticise something. This is central to the idea that each person’s perspective is “unique” – what makes the critic’s point-of-view their own also gives them privileges and biases that must be kept in check.

Context and opinion: critics are responsible for providing an opinion – their opinion – on art, but their audience also expects them to place art in a wider context, to compare it to what has come before.

In this context, I found it incredibly interesting to read A.O. Scott’s Better Living Through Criticism throughout the semester. Scott is a prominent, traditional, white, male film critic, one of the few afforded the privilege of engaging in the profession of criticism – and at one of the world’s most prestigious print newspapers, the New York Times. His form of criticism is something I aspire to, but one which is virtually impossible for anyone but a very select few to achieve, and which is slowly becoming less and less culturally relevant. Scott contends that criticism is art and art is criticism – that just as criticism needs art in order to have a subject matter to criticise, art is valued and given cultural meaning by criticism. Art, by its very nature of responding to and reflecting the culture in which it was created, is a form of criticism. This is something that hasn’t changed with criticism’s shift from traditional to new-media forms – art and criticism are still engaged in a conversation with one another, thousands of years old and showing no sign of ceasing, even if the A.O. Scotts of the world are diminishing in influence and importance.

Criticism has been moving into new frontiers for decades, and this has been accelerating with the internet changing the face of the media and communication. Not only are there an ever-expanding number of new forms of media to be criticised, there are new platforms and formats for critics to practice their craft: curation, recaps and video essays are just three such formats.

One area that has become particularly fertile ground for criticism is the personal essay. Since art and culture is often so closely tied to personal identity, critics are increasingly mining their own life experiences to inform their unique perspective. Though traditional critics might argue that personal essays are too subjective, and do not attempt to objectively assess or evaluate a particular work of art, audiences clearly find value in them. It’s important to note, though, that even in this flurry of new platforms and outlets, the rules still apply: the critic should have wide cultural or personal experience, good taste, they should consider their privilege and bias, and always write with an audience in mind.