Any sort of art is included, paintings, books, film you name it.
So often I hear people bitch about critics and then use one review they disagree with as a source of infallible proof that critics know nothing and should stop breathing. I really don't see where people are coming from at all.
Critics exist for a couple reasons:'
1.) They are just like the audience: they can prompt a discussion about what they took away from the piece of art, offer their insights, if they're really hands on discuss with their readers and viewers
2.) Economic reasons. If you search around long enough you can usually find a critic who's tastes are at least decently compatible with yours, and if you listened to every suggestion they had, more often than not you'd probably feel like your money was well spent. Yet people bitch when they disagree with one review or even one opinion of a composite review, as if reviewers are supposed to flawlessly cater to an individual's taste.
What do you guys think? There's a difference between listening to a critic's suggestion, and formulating your opinion solely from critics' as an appeal to 'authority', and so many people don't realize the difference.
This thread was inspired by my love of watching Siskel & Ebert reviews
