When was the last time you read a really scorching arts review in an ordinary newspaper? I don't mean just vitriolic, I mean one that was thoroughly exciting because it cast an entirely new light on something. You like this, you don't like that, who cares? Nobody really, not unless you say why. An unadorned "boo" is no better than an unadorned "yay." It's the why that creates the hotly beating heart of good criticism. Splashing the vitriol around is attractive to certain writers but the vitriol is like Angostura bitters, you can't drink it on its own; it requires the gin of explanation and conjecture, the ice cubes of levity, and then you have a Pink Gin, which is an excellent cocktail?—never mind all that, what I mean is that the bald declaration that something is "terrible" (or "towering") is the opposite of discerning, it's cheap as can be.When you consider some of the profound inanity of today's newspapers, this is an even more astute observation than you may have originally thought.
A compendium of perspicacious reportage and a weblog about all things pertaining to politics, news and intergalactic agriculture; weblog of Alistair Murray.
George Bernard Shaw and the end of criticism
THE END OF CRITICISM: Maria Bustillos uses the work of George Bernard Shaw to illustrate the lack of valuable criticism in today's art and literary spheres. Money quote: