The Oscars recently were scrutinized for racial homogeneity of the nominations this year and therefore actors declined their invitations for the show. The Oscars according to this author are stupid anyway besides that, and should be ignored for other reasons as well. Scott believes that an Oscar is not determined by how great a film is because sometimes the best films don’t win or aren’t even nominated at all. This shows that we shouldn’t be listening to the members of the association that make the Oscar decisions, or the box office, so it is hard to determine these winners. In today’s day and age with the changing and prevalence of social media, everyone is a critic with each their own power of their words being broadcasted to the public. Technology is competing with crtics on the internet that may show you things similar to what you have just viewed, where they already know your taste and what you like.The back and forth comments are on the internet make a live conversation of opinion and thoughts on a certain issue, and therefore the internet has the power to make everyone a critic and give each person their own voice to be heard. People have the right to their own opinion and things could get messy while being a critic, because everyone likes different things, and that is where it gets complicated. It makes more sense for a critic to give a reasoning behind their opinion so you could really get a sense on why their opinion is as it is. Even if someone were to dislike a certain movie, others may love it and that is why everyone is entitled to their own opinion and deserves for their voice to be heard and be broadcasted on millions of screens. Whether you want to listen to other voices out there is your choice, but you still could have your own freedom of speech, all of us, as our own critics, as least to ourselves.

The argument laid out by A.O. Scott is moral in its message. The author is writing directly counter to his current occupation, practically laying out the framework of his occupation as a critic and what the job entails. However, his reasons are noble, and he proclaims that all humans are here to criticize. For what would our human minds be if we were not to challenge the knowledge we know and the information around us. The author continues in saying that criticism does not have to be confined to a certain group or guild and demonstrates the consequences of doing so. For example, as a critic in the film community, the author witnesses the bias of the Oscars awards first hand. When people have no cause but to just prop up their friends, they tend to do less thinking on their opinion and more calculating on whether the public will catch up to the master plan. Now we are not talking conspiracy theories here, rather plain and simple ignorance to others; paying no attention to anyone other then a friend. It seems that year after year, despite numerous deserving films, the movies and actors that always seem to win are white and repeating nominees. I am not one for affirmative action, but I do believe in equality, and fairness is not happening at the Oscars. Therefore, these critics opinions mean little to the public now, as their votes they cast are almost predictable.

It takes a principled person to dangle his position in public and ridicule it. So far as to even encourage others to do what he set out to do in the beginning, criticize. Because A.O. Scott realizes that people will no longer stand for what is being told to them, and he realizes the greatness each individual is capable of. To be human is to find problems, to evaluate, to analyze, to challenge, and to offer alternatives. All these strike the creativity of the human mind, the main initiative A.O. Scott set out to preserve when he struck his first note on his keyboard for this article.

Although there may be people who are paid to be critics of art, and of literacy, and of theatre and film, in truth, we are all critics by nature. We are all creative personalities, and we all, therefore, have a way of analyzing and judging the creative works of others. We are given a lot of information- the world is in front of us, and we are to accept it. But if we don’t filter what comes through our senses in terms of criticism, we will not be able to appreciate any of it.

I very much agree with Scott’s points about criticism. We all have to be open to be criticized by others, for criticism is a natural reaction that each of our brain’s preforms constantly. I thought it was especially interesting to hear about criticism from a person whose profession is to criticize formally that which many have seen, and criticized on their own.

I thought that it was interesting that he brought in the internet in connection to criticism. While we have always had our thoughts and opinions about everything, literally everything, around us, we usually keep them to ourselves, or at best, let the few around us know. However, with the burst of the internet, this has changed. People can now post their thoughts and feelings about pretty much anything on the internet- for all the world to see, and thus impact how they form their opinions.

I believe that we all have an inner critic- our immediate judgments and criticisms, that little voice that decides if we like this sandwich or that song. But in a world where everyone is a critic- and more importantly, where everyone is a critic with a virtual voice speaking to the world online- our personal thoughts can get easily confused and impacted by those of the ones around us, and the people that we watch their thoughts and opinions.

There are many purposes for critique; whether it is to express personal opinion or for improvement of the subject on trial, it is important to be critical. To critique is to question and to question is to improve through debate and a change in perspective. Anyone and everyone who has an opinion can do so, and has. What we think, feel, like or dislike as humans is valid, and can be shared or disputed amongst our peers of similar or of different interest. A.O. Scott, author of “Everybody’s A Critic. And That’s How It Should Be.” shows through multiple examples how critical our world is, and both the positive and negative effects it has on society.

What I liked most about this article was the confused voice through which Scott described his own opinion about “critic.” He goes back and forth, speaking of both the necessity and of the detriment that comes from people being critical. His first argument is against the “Oscars,” where he questions whether or not one singular group of people can determine the “best of the best” for movies. Obviously, everyone has their own preferences and oftentimes the movies that are considered the greatest of all time are not even nominated. Is this fair? But he then goes on to admit, even his own opinion, then, is insignificant. How can we measure the worth of someone’s opinion if all of ours are bias and of little matter? And even then, what is the harm in a bit of criticism?

“To be a critic is to be a soldier in this fight, a defender of the life of art and a champion of the art of living.” When we stop bringing our criticisms to the table is when we stop comparing ideas between individuals, and we stop creative minds. Although criticism often has a negative connotation, it is a valuable aspect of thought and development and, in simplest forms, of just interactions between humans.

Emily Weiss

02.10.2016

In the New York Times Article, “Everybody’s a Critic. And That’s How It Should Be,” A. O. Scott contemplates about how everyone has the ability to criticize and create dialogue about the things they experience throughout their lives. It’s kind of ironic to see a professional movie critic preaching that anyone is capable of doing his job without any preparation or experience. Scott believes that in our society, people have become too accustomed to just accepting other people’s opinions without applying much of their own thought or analysis to them. Two big factors that could have resulted this atmosphere of conformity could be social media and and our compulsive consumerism. Its about time for individuals to finally take matters into their own hands by taking some time out of their day and using it to formulate opinions based on their own creativity and interests.

I found it interesting how Scott mentioned that “on the Internet, everyone is a critic — a Yelp-fueled takedown artist, an Amazon scholar, a cheerleader empowered by social media to Like and to Share.” I completely agree with his concept that online anyone could be a critic; since being a critic means to simple state your stance/opinion of something. Although social media could lead to people mindlessly reading other peoples words and accepting them as their own, I see it as the perfect place to facilitate brainstorming and the creation of ideas. As Scott discussed in his article, it’s important for people to make informed and substantiated critique; not just spew the first thoughts that come to mind. With the help of social media and many other online websites we could all make our voices heard, but let’s make them count.

The variety of art and talent in today’s society has risen and it’s easily criticized by many. The article “Everyone’s a Critic. And that’s How it Should Be” written by A.O Scott states the different ideas of criticism now a days. Scott starts by speaking of the well known awards ceremony “The Oscars”. His idea of the Oscars is not quite positive since he writes in his article the amount of unfair nominations, stating: “The best film in any given year is almost guaranteed to be one that didn’t win or one that wasn’t nominated”. I completely agree with Scott in this argument due to the non rewarded work that Leonardo DiCaprio has done for years among a lot of other films or actors. On the other hand Scott also states the fact that everyone has a different perspective of things, as well as different criticism. We won’t all agree on a specific idea, but we have the freedom to speak our mind.

A.O Scott mentions the amount of control social media has achieved over the past few years. This generation revolves around the “trend” created by the internet. He worries about people caring more about what the reviews written online on a movie, product or even a person are in order to get an idea on how to proceed. This is making Scotts job as a critic less meaningful and more competitive. On the contrary, all of these online reviews are made by a segmented market group which would bring the audience closest to their desired decision. At the end of the day this is the best way to obtain your ideas.

Scott mentions how “the days of the all powerful critics are over” (2) because of social media and sadly this is a true statement. Times have changed, and we have to learn to adapt and find different ways to keep up and stay on top of our game.

A.O. Scott discusses in his article, “Everybody’s a Critic. And That’s How It Should Be” about modern day way criticism on different aspects of life such as movies, art, etc. After reading this article, Scott describes to me why he is a critic and why most people in modern society are critics. Scott starts off the article by criticizing how the recent Academy Award nominations are criticized by others as being racist. He later goes on and even says that he himself is a critic and compare criticism with democracy. He says “Like every other form of democracy, criticism is a messy, contentious business, in which the rules are as much in dispute as the outcomes and the philosophical foundations are fragile if not vaporous”. Scott later goes on to argue that we should not be afraid of critics and we should not let them cloud our judgement or that we should not let the fear of criticism dictate what we do in our lives. Scott also goes on to clash out against the recent controversy concerning the Academy Award nominations. 

I agree with many of the points that A.O. Scott made throughout this article. I believe that the main point that Scott was trying to convey was that criticism is a natural idea that comes across in many modern day societies and it is almost always inevitable. In the article Scott is trying to convey that message an individual should not be afraid of being criticized because at the end of the day we are free to think in whichever way we choose. Scott stands firm behind this belief when he criticizes the Academy Awards and asks what qualifies them to critique a movie. I completely agree with Scott because often times many people are fixated upon the approval of others, they become lost and obsessed by seeking their approval. I believe that, especially in our modern day society many people use social media in order to convey their message, another point brought up by Scott.

In his article, “Everybody’s a Critic. And That’s How It Should Be.”, A.O. Scott makes the point simply suggested in his title. Just like we all have the unique abilities to create art, we also have the abilities, or as Scott even says “obligation”, to judge it all. So though we may all in some way be artists, we too are all critics. While he starts out somewhat mocking the idea of criticism/praise (when he mentions the Oscars), he ultimately defends the concept of critics, and their benefits to our society.

I was particularly interested when he wrote, “…the rise of social media has had the thrilling, confusing effect of making the conversation literal”. It made be begin to think of the internet’s role in our ability to critique. Though I agree that everyone is entitled to their opinion and should be critical of certain things (food, entertainment, and the like), I find that the internet has “blown-up” the amount of critic-based websites, almost like an “inflation” of critique and advice. What I mean by that is, with the advent of technology, we are now able to access so much information. But with all this information, guidance, advice, or as Scott puts it, “some useful counsel to readers”– is it actually conducive to our abilities to formulate our own ideas and opinions? Just because “legions of Facebook friends” can affirm the “wisdom of your choice”, does that mean that that choice is actually a good one for you? For some, it might be. I find that the influx of information is overwhelming. Having said that, I will still check Yelp or Rotten Tomatoes for ratings on certain places just to get a SENSE of the general public’s feelings towards that, for example, restaurant or movie. But is that information accurate and helpful in addressing all my personal needs and wants? Not always. I just think it’s important to use critiques wisely; to appreciate the voice of others, without overcoming your own personal opinions.

A.O. Scott, in his article “Everybody’s a Critic. And That’s How It Should Be,” lays out the case fro the role of the critic in modern society.  Scott himself is a film critic, but he speaks more generally about the arts.

Scott sees art and the aesthetic life as playing a very important role in society.  He criticizes our tendency to push art off to the side of our lives and essentially saying that it’s not that important.
With art thus occupying a central role in society, Scott then asserts that the obligation of each citizen is to participate in the criticism and conversation about that art.  He correctly points out how humans are the only species with the ability to create or appreciate art, and that we should not let that ability go to waste.

People have for a long time acted as critics, but this role was reserved for a select few, including film critics like Scott himself and organizations like the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.  In our modern world however, this role is being democratized, in large part thanks to the internet.  People can now air their opinions with ease to a perceptive audience, and engage with each other about art and their preferences about it.

I agree with Scott that conversations about art, and the aesthetic life in general, are very important to the moral and spiritual well-being of a society.  I’m not sure, however, of the efficacy of these conversations.  The ancient maxim goes: “Of tastes there is no disputing.”  It is beneficial not so much to come to any sort of agreement on artistic idea during our conversations, but rather the conversation itself is what benefits us.

In “Everybody’s a Critic. And That’s How It Should Be,” A.O. Scott argues that humans need to utilize their minds to think and offer criticism on works of art to create dialogue between polarized opinions (i.e. open-mindedness and skepticism; creativity and conformity) and steer clear of passivity encouraged by consumer culture. Scott establishes his career as a critic as more than just a person spewing random opinions, but as a person whose profession it is to be an artist and empower art and creativity and allow both of those things to be valued and picked apart. I found this article to be very well written and compelling in that we, as spectators, have an ability to “recognize and respond to the creativity of others,” and therefore, have an obligation to do so.

I frequently find myself annoyed with those who never choose to take a side of any argument. (I obviously don’t mean a dramatic, miniscule fight between friends and a person doesn’t want to get involved.) When I say that, I refer to relevant and important issues that require in-depth research for opinions to be formed. I believe it is crucial to form individual opinions and approaching data and theories head-on with skepticism. Saying that, I do not mean that one should regard everything one hears as a lie; I mean that one should study and analyze information accordingly to make an autonomous decision. I agree with Scott in that it is crucial to create conversation between opposite views in offering criticism of the arts and entertainment. Approaching controversial topics, art, music, film and photography indifferently is, quite frankly, boring. I contend that his hinders the progression of future creativity. We are lucky in that we are able to express our various opinions and ideas, and have them valued (some more so than others) by others.

“Everybody’s a Critic. And That’s How It Should Be.” by A.O  Scott mentions right in the title what exactly his primary argument is about. While reading through the article it becomes clear what exactly his views are on criticism and why he believes that everyone is a critic. Scott begins his article by mentioning the Oscars and his own background as a critic to give himself credibility to speak on the topic. Scott begins his article by mentioning the Oscars and wonders how the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Science have such authority to choose the winners. He questions why people trust their judgement to pick what they believe to be the best films of the past year. In his article he joins the legions of people and critics who are denouncing the Oscars as being white. Scott is also disappointed that critics aren’t held in such high regard anymore and compares critics to high priests in the past who aren’t held in such high regards anymore.

I believe what Scott was trying to get across in his article is that criticism and critique are natural. It seems as though Scott was trying to defend both his position as a critic and also encouraging people to not be afraid of critiquing others and being critiqued themselves. I agree with Scott that people should be more aware of what they like and not just following the masses as was the case with the Oscars. It looks as though people this year have realized that the Oscars are unfair and biased. Just because a film wins film of the year at the Oscars doesn’t mean that it will be your favorite film or one that you even like at all. I think it’s important to be able to express yourself and your opinion and that includes criticizing films and watching what you like to watch regardless of if it’s an award winner or not. I do agree with Scott that social media has a large impact on society and what people are likely to emulate and crave in their own life. I think it is good to be open to ideas as well as criticism, but I also think it is just as important to never lose sight of what you believe to be important and not conform to societal ideals.

Scott’s piece essentially breaks down what it’s like to be a “critic” in this day and age.  Just as the title states, everyone should be a critic, and that’s how it really should be.  That would be just too easy if it were the case. Being critic himself, he finds seems to find it rather amusing that people are so open to having other’s think for them.  Year in and year out, people look at the Oscars as some sort of be-all and end-all of being successful in the film industry.  People hardly ever look past what is handed to them and assume that everyone who takes part in deciding what is to be deemed “good” or “bad” as being the definitive way to judge something.

He goes deeper by saying how this era makes it harder to think on your own.  With all the opinions that now present themselves more than ever, we fail to utilize our “fundamental human attribute.”  Something that separates us from all other living things is now being diluted by the ever-growing use of social media and reliance on ratings.  Many of these sites like Yelp would not even exist had it not been for the demand for other people’s opinions.  A role that was once relegated to select individuals is now open to everyone through many platforms.  Yet, many people still choose to not think on their own, not cater to their own tastes, or realize that there is so much more than just formulating a “personal” opinion based on many others.  Everyone’s way of thinking is something that is unique to themselves, a way for people to differentiate themselves, and yet everyone is so willing to let others do the thinking for them.  Perhaps it is just as he says, being a critic is a soldier, and some people just don’t have the soldier within them.

Although I don’t agree with all of AO Scott’s positions, I do agree with his primary argument, that everybody’s potentially a critic. Some would argue that in order to be a critic, you have to be intellectual. Sure being intelligent and having facts gives you more ground when you critique. But just because someone may be less intelligent and lack the facts does not take away her right to critique. To critique is to have an opinion and everyone is entitled to this right. There are some companies (film production in particular) do not like to be critiqued, because they fear it will mess with their profits. I think critical reviews are essential to society, as it keeps different aspects in check. Film productions would not make a cheap movie because they fear critics. Restaurants try to maintain clean sanitation so critics won’t expose them. Politicians abstain from spreading propaganda in fear of journalists writing stories. Critique serves not to just inform consumers but to keep aspects of society in check.

I realize that the public can be swayed through reviews, but this is not always the case. Reviews are simply the opinions of others and everyone has varying ideas. The bottom line is that movie reviews are not always the same as your reviews. It’s the mission of art to free our minds, and the task of criticism to figure out what to do with that freedom. I absolutely agree with when AO Scott said “That everyone is a critic means that we are each capable of thinking against our own prejudices, …We need to put our remarkable minds to use and to pay our own experience the honor of taking it seriously.” Critiquing others does not only support other bi giving feedback, it also supports ourselves. It allows us to think critically and create further intellectual thoughts. Critique is a great way to stimulate and challenge our minds.

The article, Everybody’s a Critic. And That’s How It Should Be by A.O Scott states that everyone is a critic and as the title reads, he wants it to be that way. He mentions that as a society we like to defend our own thoughts and don’t really want people to mock them; “we are protective of our pleasures, and resent it when anyone tries to mock or mess with them” (3).  Scott explains that even though there are critics who try to change your mind or way of thinking, sometimes its better to go with your own thoughts.

He used the Oscars as an example. In the article he said that we should ignore the peer pressure of going to see a movie just because one critic wasn’t too please with what he saw. I agree with Scott that everyone is different but we all have one thing in common and that’s being a critic. But he goes further than just saying we should protect our ideas and to think “beyond the horizon of our own conventional wisdom” (4). I agree that we should use our minds more seriously. He made a connection of a critic to a solider. As a solider they are serious and they defend their “life” and “art of living”. He couldn’t have said it more clearly.  In my opinion I think what A.O Scott wants us to do is to be a serious critic.

“Everybody’s a Critic. And That’s How It Should Be” is not as much thought-provoking as it is ironic. A critic explaining why his job could easily be performed by anyone who is capable of forming an opinion seems a little strange. Why would anyone in their right mind discredit their own work? In my humble non-professional opinion, A. O. Scott may have gone a little too far to make a point.

However, I agree with him on the Oscars. Not exactly because I think that celebrities are not reliable judges, but because of this generation’s overuse of social media. We rely too heavily on others’ opinions, and not because it is so much easier to communicate, but because the number of likes on a picture holds any sort of significance. We are all blessed with our unique tastes and opinions and we tend to forget it. Scott reminds us that before Facebook, the only conversations we had with ourselves were in our heads. Now every thought and opinion is out on the internet for everyone to see.

It is true that everyone is a critic. In my opinion, critics are not popular unless they attract an audience by expressing their thoughts in an entertaining way. Why would anyone read a three-page review if it didn’t grab their attention? It is the way that someone is able to reach and appeal to an audience that makes him or her a critic. “This movie sucked” would definitely not be enough for an average person to care enough to keep reading. It is the art of expressing one’s opinion that makes him or her a good critic.

The recent outrage over Oscars nominees and winners has fueled many to publicly denounce the Oscars as White Only. A.O. Scott joins the crowd as one of the many critics to question the authority the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Science has to decide which movie, which actors/actresses, and other staff members is the best. A.O. Scott dismays over the fact that critics no longer hold the important position it once held that was similar to a high priest in the past. A.O. Scott is alarmed at the fact that consumers passively accept what is being fed to us by production companies. Scott argues that it is not enough to have a broad opinion: “It’s all good!”, “I like that”, or “It wasn’t really my cup of tea” (3). Scott demands the attention of the reader by bluntly stating “Listen to me!” (3).

Critics are beings that do not receive the appreciation of others. They are seen to be people that simply spoil the fun of your favorite media. That is how I see Scott. Does it need to be said that movies these days are simply recycled plots? By seeing how all the movie plots are being recycled, the film industry seems to be going green more than any other. Scott doesn’t need to be Captain America. The Oscars has never been too fair. Yet, people pay an enormous amount of attention to it. Scott demands that we be our own artists, our own critics. I already am. That’s why I don’t watch movies that don’t interest me, and watch movies that really do. Shouldn’t we be able to enjoy whatever art however we like? Who is Scott to be our judge, a contradiction of what he is trying to persuade us to do?

Critic – is the first person who’s trying, seeing something before all others. His mind should be free of emotions, open-minded and ready to write from his own point, clear and honest. But how the opinion of the one can be the general opinion about something for others? Just a simple example, I’m not a big fan of coconuts, so what, everybody should feel the same about coconuts? Hell no, they can enjoy this beautiful tropical fruit. What I understood from this article is that we all our own critics, and it is only our final decision about something. I really liked when A. O. Scott mention Rotten Tomatoes, because I like to watch movies and very often my personal opinion is completely different from the reports of “Critics” and “Users”. Of course I am taking some time and looking at the reviews of people if I’m planning to get the table in the restaurant or order a food online, but I trust more regular people then critic’s reviews only because restaurants are aware that “these” guy can destroy their place just with one bad article about the food or service, and they do anything to make him feel special.

I really liked when author encourage us to be our own critics when he was saying:

“Enough of that! It’s the mission of art to free our minds, and the task of criticism to figure out what to do with that freedom. That everyone is a critic means that we are each capable of thinking against our own prejudices, of balancing skepticism with open-mindedness, of sharpening our dulled and glutted senses and battling the intellectual inertia that surrounds us. We need to put our remarkable minds to use and to pay our own experience the honor of taking it seriously.”

He is trying to open our eyes and start living our own life without the help of anybody from outside. It is very deep, because, nowadays people are hiring other people to help them figure out what to buy and what to wear (professional shopper), what to say, how to act, where to go and so on. People loosing they own opinion in many aspects of their own life. Another thing that still blows my mind is that people are spending all their money in an attempt to keep up with fashion trends. They do not care how comfortable or useful the cloth they wear is, they just want to be up to date no matter if tomorrow is going to be a completely new attire.

I really like this article and my personal opinion, I respect the people who have their own opinion about thing in their life’s but at the same time do not put it on top of others, and feel bad about those who lost themselves in the mob of voices.

In the article “Everybody’s a Critic. And That’s How It Should Be,” A.O. Scott’s main argument is that everyone is and should be a critic. Being a critic is not easy at all. Most people view critics as the ones who likes to “step” on artists’ works. However, they are actually the ones who has personal opinions/recommendations, which then turns into persuasive arguments. If there were no criticisms and whatever movies come out, everyone is satisfying with, then there will be no improvements. Criticism is great because it makes you to want to do better than before and to prove to the critics that they are wrong.

Students like me and you are also critics. Things that we write on this blog are commented by our fellow classmates. They are the one who are critiquing our works. A.O. Scott view a critic not only just an occupation, but something that everyone should be. It is a skill to have, to question other people’s works. Sharing ideas can lead better results in a movie, drama, article, performance, or play. While reading this piece, it reminds me of my philosophy class. We learn to be open-minded and accept different perspectives of an idea. We do not have to agree on everything that our classmate say, but at least be respectful and listen.

I like how the author emphasize that a critic’s primary job is to think. I totally agree with him because even if you want to criticize someone’s work, you have to have a good response. If your response is poor, no one will buy it. This might be why some critics are looked upon as snobs. We have brains for reasons, and their missions is to think. Scott said it nicely in one sentence “We have the ability to judge what we made, to argue about why we are moved, mystified, delighted or bored by any of it”. We all have our own thoughts and opinions, so let’s share them like the critics!