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.