“Critics are those who cannot create.” This dismissive statement attributed to Oscar Wilde is frequently repeated in popular culture; yet Wilde’s actual thoughts on criticism are far more multi-layered and nuanced. Throughout the history of thought, the institution of criticism has wrestled with the question of whether it is a sanctuary for art, a transformative complement to it, or a bureaucratic mechanism threatening its freedom. In today’s media ecosystem, where information and ideas are consumed in seconds, asking this question carries a more vital meaning than ever.
From the Birth of Authority to the Shock of Dada: A Short History of Criticism
In 18th and 19th-century Europe, the critic was the sole master of aesthetic judgment and an unquestioned authority figure. A few lines written for the Paris Salon exhibitions could either elevate a young artist’s career to the pinnacle or bury it in the dark pages of history. For instance, Charles Baudelaire’s texts on the 1845 and 1846 Paris Salons are read today not merely as exhibition reviews, but as literary and art history documents testifying to the mindset of the era and the birth pangs of modernity.
The Futurism and Dada movements that erupted at the beginning of the 20th century directly declared war on this institution of authority. As the established rules and exhibition modes of art were shaken, the figure of the “supreme critic” speaking on behalf of those rules was dethroned as well. Upon arriving in the postmodern era, criticism was dragged into an entirely new paradox: If every interpretation is equally valid and there is no single truth, what does the critic’s claim to expertise mean?
Three Main Pillars of Criticism as a Bridge
Throughout the historical process, the institution of criticism has assumed three fundamental functions sustaining artistic production:
-
Context Construction: Placing a work into the historical, cultural, and aesthetic ecosystem in which it was born. Without this touch of the critic, the viewer cannot grasp which past the work before them is settling scores with or what it is objecting to. A good critique bestows a timeless memory upon the work.
-
Aesthetic Evaluation: Revealing the fictional success or flaws of the work. This is the most controversial domain of criticism; for criteria of “success” constantly shed their skin according to time, culture, and the critic’s own intellectual positioning.
-
Construction of Public Discourse: Criticism initiates a social dialogue around the artwork. This dialogue continuously reminds society that art is not a luxury, but an indispensable part of the human experience.
From Sontag’s Objection to the Letterboxd Era: Voice of the Crowds or Disciplined Memory?
Susan Sontag, in her groundbreaking 1964 essay “Against Interpretation,” argued that criticism does more harm than good to a work. Stating that the search for content and meaning takes precedence over formal sensibility, Sontag noted that constantly “reducing a work to a meaning” consumes and kills it, making a radical call: “What art needs is not a theory of interpretation (hermeneutics), but an erotics of art (sensory experience).”
Today, this objection confronts us in a different dimension: thanks to social media and digital platforms, “everyone is a critic” now. Among Letterboxd, Goodreads, Reddit, and Instagram comments, the expert voice is increasingly hard to hear within the massive noise generated by the participating crowd. Is this the democratization of art, or a qualitative degeneration? Unquestionably both at once.
The Myth of Neutrality and Power Relations
Criticism has never been completely objective or neutral. Which works would be included in the canon and whose voices would be amplified has always been a political power struggle as much as an aesthetic one. While the Western-centric institution of criticism set the defining rules throughout the 20th century, the silence of marginalized women, queer artists, and artists subjected to colonialism demonstrated the nature of those selections.
Today, feminist critique, queer theory, and post-colonial readings have completely shattered the illusion of the “neutral critic.” The primary duty of the critic today is not to pretend to be neutral, but to make their stance, perspective, and own subjective positioning completely transparent to the reader.
Frequently Asked Questions About the Role of the Critic
Does art really need criticism to exist?
-
A work can sustain its existence without a critic; however, without criticism, it becomes difficult to understand which historical lineup that work fits into, the layers in its presentation to the audience, and what questions it triggers. Criticism is the oxygen around the work.
What is the difference of a professional critic in the digital age where “everyone produces content”?
-
The difference is the ability to offer a disciplined cultural memory and context. A Letterboxd user’s instantaneous transmission of emotion is extremely valuable; however, situating that film within cinema history, connecting the director’s stylistic evolution, and establishing its relationship with the socio-political atmosphere of the period requires a distinct accumulation of knowledge.
What does Susan Sontag’s stance “Against Interpretation” mean today?
-
Sontag opposes reducing the work immediately to a mental meaning, advocating instead for prioritizing the sensory experience it evokes. In today’s world where content is consumed rapidly, Sontag’s warning remains highly valid to protect the sensory value of our first contact with art.
NO-26 Editor’s Note
Criticism is both a dangerous blade and a vital sanctuary for art. It is dangerous because it carries the risk of trapping the work in narrow molds, creating conservative canons, and excluding the audience with an elitist language. It is necessary because, in an age where mass superficiality reigns, it protects historical memory, produces deep contexts, and keeps the public debate around art alive.
A good critic is someone who knows the power and boundaries of the pen in their hand, transparently lays out their own stance, and grasps that sometimes the best criticism is making room for the work. Sontag was right: sometimes the most accurate attitude is to sense the work without suffocating it with interpretation. However, we must not forget that some works can never be fully understood without the aesthetic weight carried by a qualified piece of written thought.
