Coco Solid asks “Who criticizes who criticizes and why is it important?”
Coco Solid is a writer, artist, and musician. Her first novel is How to hang out in the turf war (penguin random house). she speaks in Auckland Book Festival On August 27 and 28.
Opinion: I honestly wonder if the institutional critic, pop culture enthusiast, and “Reporting for Duty” will last much longer. We think of this role as an elegant and distinguished person, a true authority in their field.
Surely they got their deep streaks in the mines of modernity, prints don’t give inches from the columns to the slums, do they? Don’t actually answer that.
We’ve always done that, one person is allowed to be the alpha two cents, the random selector of the final word. This person will describe what creativity he deserves for the congregation, and what art we should consider worthy of preservation. But communities are now enjoying more open source side criticism via social media.
In the dirty and honest TikTok algorithm, I watch the digital age violently override this old paradigm every single day.
It is now the norm for content creators to offer the ability to subscribe and more personalized engagement with supporters. These are strange and uncertain times, proven by the fact that even a geek like me can have a Patreon newsletter that a few (cool/rotten) subscribe to.
Have you noticed lately that celebrity worship is not up to the same level? Perhaps relativism has finally overtaken showbiz concealment, or the inequality that the “celebrity” upholds drowns out their fascination with escaping reality. But we see that the masses want more trust, democracy and communication.
The ambition economy has burned us all down (which isn’t hard to do in a pandemic let’s be real) so our divestment shouldn’t come as a surprise. Opposition voting, community-led conversations, forums, and get-togethers are nothing new, but now we need fewer and influence to see our views count. We’ll go back to this organic spin on “effect” as well. In the era of industrialization, people enjoy slow-burning and hard-earned craft story.
We now know that some of the best revolutions and moves were just a few people in a room. However, in this age, we are rightly questioning who could write and remember that history as well.
Many critics who have no real connection to particular communities are still given this blanket license to rate their work from afar. The idea of a one-size-fits-all expert seems ancient and colonial, so the constant tension over its importance is fading out for many. Is a “make or break” form that approves or denies consent still valid? Who criticizes who criticizes and why is it important?
I can’t help but think How MSG was demonized In the West by a doctor from New York invented the “Chinese Restaurant Syndrome” in 1968 in a letter to the editor. The rest is racist cooking history that has unjustly deprived me of umami for years. I also remember how much I laughed when I found out that Dr. Phil is not a licensed physician. Questionable charlatans from all walks of life can pray very seriously.
Any fan of Nicki Minaj “Barb” worthy of pink salt knows that more democratic criticism paradigms can swing on what we now call a Parocial and admit that this collective subscription doesn’t necessarily end well half the time. Some communities can literally interact with popular culture as qualified contributors.
The Dover Brothers were wrongly accused in retrospect Re-editing previous Stranger Things seasons by their fans. While Beyoncé and Lizzo removed the insults from their recent recordings after the public backlash. This could betray ideas about the value and purity of Sharia law. But it could be said, is the canon all this great? Can piracy be compared and corrected to the historical harm shown to marginalized people and strategically forgotten by the canon?
While reading and researching the first collection of live rock critic Jessica Hopper’s first set of critiques titled Stark (which was only released in 2015 and no less), I see the disturbing ways that rock historians of her time, such as Janis Joplin, wrote about it. . What is even more disturbing is that we are now learning of late great artists who were not documented by canon at all because of their race, gender, gender, and ability.
In comedy, there is an old saying that good sarcasm “sways” in the sense that a person who does not experience the true effects of social sarcasm should not make fun of a society that does. It is considered uninteresting and offers nothing unique or disruptive.
I feel good criticism is similar and a lot like comedy, you can also tell if someone is talking through experience and familiarity with what they are talking about. Would I like to hear an indigenous queer voice review the work of their direct settler-settler opponent? Yes, because that voice is not the dominant, biased, and historically resourced perspective. If the roles are reversed (and they usually are) I’m much less fortunate to learn something radically new.
Editors, curators, and designers of all dimensions must now strive to find a qualified, dedicated voice for each feed. No more indulging in the tired “voice of a generation” metaphor or pretending life isn’t an impressive market. Give audiences, consumers, and artists themselves a little extra energy by finding the right people to talk about other people’s work.