This is a question that’s bothered me since the first day of my media degree. Not necessarily in a bad way; it’s pestered me, like a small, adorable, irritating child. Something I struggle with (and talk about ad nauseam) is the fact that I don’t want to be a filmmaker in a degree that is heavily skewed towards that craft. I chose Media over PR or journalism or even an Arts degree because I wanted to get my hands dirty. I wanted to be up to my elbows in making — which I’m not very good at, as I’ve said. But I felt like I needed to understand the practice to be a better communicator. I still do.

This is where I start to feel awkward. How can I, then, feel like I have the right to criticise my peers’ work when I’m not really, actively engaged in it like they are? But, on the other hand, how can I not? My ultimate goal is to be in cultural management, getting the good shit out to the public. I need to be able to assess what that good shit actually looks like.

It’s something I don’t have an answer to. I think it’s the critic’s curse (more realistically: the low-level creative grant approver’s curse). I sit there and judge, thinking simultaneously: “how dare I” and “but I’m right”.

Maybe the only way to avoid hypocrisy is to critique work based on its ability to communicate: a message, an emotion, an atmosphere, a colour. If I can engage with the work (or not engage at all, if that’s the point) then I can at least assess it against a criteria that’s fair, since I’m also assessed on my ability to clearly communicate. I mean, I don’t pretend to be the kind of expert who has to deal with anything scarier and more specific; I love her and want desperately to be her, but Margaret Pomeranz I am not (yet). For now, I’ll make my peace with that.