|
>>
|
No. 437
ID: 253add
I'll take the case!
I concede that criticism as an art form does not seek to improve the original work. However, I feel that you're getting too bogged down in semantics; while literary (or whatever) criticism has purpose that is to help express and define the original work, constructive criticism is widely acknowledged to be a whole different animal. While the terminology may be regrettably similar, constructive and literary criticism are two different things. One is not supposed to be taken to be the other.
Criticism as an art, too, has its limits. Most obviously, it seeks to make an interpretation of a work despite being necessarily and invisibly contextualized by the critic's experiences, tastes, education, and so on. While brave for making their personal connection public, criticism does not mean truth.
The meat of your post, the argument that constructive criticism is "a wasted effort," is absurd. Positing that talent is an all-or-nothing affair flies in the face of any kind of sense. Perhaps, and I only concede this for the sake of argument, the truly great artists have a talent that cannot be replicated. Even so, not everyone who produces art is among the rarefied few. Someone can be great without being a master; they could be good, entertaining, or thought-provoking, without being extraordinarily talented, but still want and need advice on their work.
Besides, there are plenty of great artists who had their work edited, and edited, and edited again by others, because they gain something from an outside perspective.
You also seem to misunderstand exactly what constructive criticism entails ("prodding and encouragement"). Constructive criticism is not encouragement; ideally, it is an honest assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of someone's work and suggestions for improvement. Coddling is not constructive.
|