Jace Bartet: Thoughts on pop culture critiquing

The most valuable thing I learned this semester in Valerie Boyd's Criticial Writing class is just exactly who I am to judge the creative works of others: I am a consumer of those works, nothing more and nothing less. There need not be further justification for the individual critic in his or her role. The critic does have a responsibility to exhibit a certain degree of knowledge and understanding about the subject at hand, but anyone's opinion is as valid as they are willing to make it through the tools of the craft of writing.

Criticism taken to its utlimate logical conclusion would be called sociology, because it is not enough to simply have an opinion. The reasons for that opinion must be explored, and it is in doing so that the critic provides for himself a sovereign authority. Failure to explore reasons for opinions results in weak and circular reasoning, the sorts of which so often allow people to become quagmired in dogmatic thinking and personal stagnation.

At the heart of this matter of "the role of the critic" in a pop culture construct is the lack of many people to ask the question "why?" often enough, both of themselves and of others. It is a question that can probably not have a conclusive answer at its deepest level, but the excercise of merely asking promotes new avenues of thought and exciting variations on doing the things that have always been done. When the critic asks why, this question means not only "why?" but also "where are we now?" and "where are we going next?" It is about holding people accountable for their thoughts and actions. For this reason, the question must always be asked, and the critic will always be a viable component of our cultural construct so long as society wishes to expand its horizons and its limits.