Not to defend any of these fans or the fragile artist, but I just realized how weird it is that there’s people whose whole job is to tell others what they think about art. Like it takes longer to consume their thoughts than it does to look at the art yourself and form your own conclusions (at least when we’re talking about pictures).
People are paid to review all kinds of things. If you want to just look and say “pretty picture good” or “pop song easy” or “wild movie fun”, nothing is stopping you. These things keep selling because they’re easily consumed by masses. This applies to the most boring cars in the world being popular, the most invasive home cameras being the most popular, or the least-indexed or least-respecting social media being popular. Facebook, Reddit, Ring doorbell, Toyota Camry, and photo-realistic art all get hammered by critics within their fields, but they’re all super popular by comparison to other options.
So why is that important? Because without more experience, you rely on professional reviews to guide you to the smaller details. You may not know who influenced an artist to include significant blue tones or large aggressive strokes, what sites can provide community with less invasive policies, what sites aren’t singular entities, what cars are just as reliable but bring excitement, or what camera systems haven’t divulge your stream to authorities and data analytics groups.
Critics are paid to be experts in their fields. This parasocial trend highlights how average reviewers (social media commenters, Amazon customers) don’t (or shouldn’t) carry the same weight on your decision process for a product you value. You don’t have to look for them and listen to them if you’re not concerned about the nuances of the product. But I’m sure you find professional reviews for something
Don’t display your art to the world if you’re not strong enough to take criticism
And apparently don’t display your art criticism to the world if you aren’t strong enough to get harassed? What a time to be alive
Not to defend any of these fans or the fragile artist, but I just realized how weird it is that there’s people whose whole job is to tell others what they think about art. Like it takes longer to consume their thoughts than it does to look at the art yourself and form your own conclusions (at least when we’re talking about pictures).
People are paid to review all kinds of things. If you want to just look and say “pretty picture good” or “pop song easy” or “wild movie fun”, nothing is stopping you. These things keep selling because they’re easily consumed by masses. This applies to the most boring cars in the world being popular, the most invasive home cameras being the most popular, or the least-indexed or least-respecting social media being popular. Facebook, Reddit, Ring doorbell, Toyota Camry, and photo-realistic art all get hammered by critics within their fields, but they’re all super popular by comparison to other options.
So why is that important? Because without more experience, you rely on professional reviews to guide you to the smaller details. You may not know who influenced an artist to include significant blue tones or large aggressive strokes, what sites can provide community with less invasive policies, what sites aren’t singular entities, what cars are just as reliable but bring excitement, or what camera systems haven’t divulge your stream to authorities and data analytics groups.
Critics are paid to be experts in their fields. This parasocial trend highlights how average reviewers (social media commenters, Amazon customers) don’t (or shouldn’t) carry the same weight on your decision process for a product you value. You don’t have to look for them and listen to them if you’re not concerned about the nuances of the product. But I’m sure you find professional reviews for something