Criticism is Impudence

Here, I gather some of my thoughts on criticism (in a broad sense) that perhaps you might be interested. Most of them arise from experiences I have faced over years in creative environments, which is why some actually address a real person as they echo in my mind. Some of these were actually said to someone, but some were swallowed and stayed as thoughts. Now I am vomiting it all here:

• Freedom of expression isn’t something you do alone. If you criticize, someone else can criticize your criticism. Beware of the cycle.
• People with sharp self-criticism and honest teams don’t need much outside critique; they are already doing it.
• Most external criticism misses the mark. To get it right, you should first step into their world, then you can zoom out.
• Repeating your criticism doesn’t make it stronger.
• Uninvited criticism is impudence. That’s okay, we have all been impudent. Just don’t be mad when it comes back to you. And that’s actually a great way to get honest criticism, because if you ask people, they will soften their ideas to not offend you.
• A real, independent criticism can’t be constructive alone by nature. The one who receives or witnesses criticism can convert it into something constructive, or any other form.
• The things you criticize might seem praise from the perspective of the maker.
• The thing you are criticizing in people might be the same thing that makes them really good at what they do.
• No need to idealize receiving criticism. You have the right not to listen to any feedback. No matter how much you know what you are doing, we, humans are adaptive beings, and listening can cause us to censor ourselves over time. Many of the artists we call masters today were criticized as wannabes, imitators, pretentious, misfits, and even worse before their names were known. Art history is full of humiliation and rejections. Sometimes, you should censor them before it cause you to self-censor.
• Ideally, your intentions or who you are shouldn’t matter in your criticism; what matters is what is said and in what context. Of course, if you are an unknown filmmaker from “Third World or Middle East” like me, no one listens at first, especially those from “Middle West and Far West”, till you accept your assigned underdog role. And sometimes criticism is about the critic’s own need to feel seen and valued, as I just did here by pointing stereotyped situation about myself. But yes, that’s not ideal, that’s bad criticism by me.
• Bad criticism says more about the critic than the work. On the other hand, good criticism focuses on the work. It evolves, adapts, and grows with the work. Bad criticism destroys itself; good criticism survives like natural selection.
• The best criticism isn’t said, it’s done. So most good criticism always has to be second best.
• The most dangerous and misleading criticism uses the concept of balance as a measure. It tends to make things average. But what gives something its distinctive character and makes it good is actually a deliberate combination of unbalanced features.
• If a criticism contains emotional expressions, it is suspicious. Even if someone says they hate your work, they may secretly love it, or perhaps their feelings have nothing to do with the work at all; it just reflects their own disappointments about themselves.
• Judging someone’s entire work based on one of their ideas you dislike is not criticism; it is canceling.
• Judging someone’s entire work based on one of their ideas you like is not criticism; it is favoritism.
• Films are cherry-picked from a very early stage of the screenplay, supported, promoted, and awarded with a gatekeeping mentality, and if you think you can decide what is good and what is bad only among these options, then you are not a critic, you are one of the flies buzzing around shit.
• If you criticize, the maker can respond. That’s not always intolerance; that’s sometimes a conversation.
• If you criticize, the maker might ignore it. That’s not always dismissal; that’s sometimes a focus.
• If you are only a subject-matter expert on what you criticize, then you are not really an expert as you lack dimension.
• If you use only professional frameworks for criticism, it is not criticism; it is engineering.
• If your main point is “I didn’t get it”, it is not criticism; it is “self-criticism”.
• If you shape your opinion based rumors, trends, leaks, boycotts, speculation, or public pressure you are not a critic, you are either chameleon or parrot.
• If you base your criticism on contradictions without considering scale and context, you are not a critic, you are a manipulator (I often make this mistake too, but I am not a good critic anyway).
• If people stop criticizing you or your work, it means they pity you, or underestimate you, or fear you, or ignore you, or passively favor you.
• If you think your opinions are very valuable to artists, you are wrong. Artists don’t need more criticism or advice. They have plenty of that. What they really need is money and individual support or collaboration to create their pieces without any institutional or market influence. Give them that if you can.

That’s it, now you can criticize my points (feel free, I am aware of the cycle).