Is There a Place for the Critic in the Age of Streaming?

The short answer is: yes.

Ed Sheeran became the latest popular entertainer to launch a broadside against the institution of criticism. In an interview with Rolling Stone, he remarked: “Why do you need to read a review? Listen to it. It’s freely available! Make up your own mind. I would never read an album review and go, “I’m not gonna listen to that now.” With this blanket dismissal, Sheeran joins the ranks of other high-profile figures who, of late, have decided that in an age of streaming and easy access to art of every kind, there’s simply no need for those stodgy old critics. Why bother going to the critics, the argument goes, when you can make your own choices, without pesky interference from others?

A short time ago, Seth Rogen was similarly critical of critics, though for him it was more about hurt feelings and (speaking bluntly) a bruised ego: ““I think if most critics knew how much it hurts the people that made the things that they are writing about, they would second guess the way they write these things,” Rogen said. “It’s devastating. I know people who have never recovered from it honestly – a year, decades of being hurt by [film reviews]. It’s very personal … that’s something that people carry with them, literally, their entire lives and I get why. It fucking sucks.”

In some ways, this rising anti-critics chorus is utterly unsurprising. Artists, whether actors, musicians, or directors, pour a lot of themselves into their art and, as someone who also puts their creative work out there for the public to consume, I can understand and empathize with the desire to be praised rather than criticized. As Rogen so bluntly puts it, it does such when someone doesn’t like your work, and it particularly sucks when a particular critic says something that hits below the belt (a recent episode of Ted Lasso has a really fascinating look at this situation).

After all, there’s no question that some critics can be a bit nasty and derisive in their commentary, and I’m sure that most of them do so out of a belief that by being “edgy” they can make a name for themselves and earn the respect of their peers (if not necessarily that of the public). As a matter of personal taste, I prefer to read critics who actually engage with works of art on their own terms, rather than holding them up to some imagined standard that they can never hope to live up to. Even when I don’t like a particular film or TV show or book, I generally try to find at least one critic whose opinion is different from my own, so that I can get a sense of what others might have enjoyed that I missed.

 Speaking bluntly, though, the plain truth is this: it’s not the critic’s job to salve the bruised egos of artists, nor is there any inherent value or morality in handing out praise as if it’s candy. In part, the critic’s duty is what it’s always been: telling the public what is and isn’t worth consuming. In an era in which there’s more content than ever, there has to be at least some measure of curation, some voice(s) of authority who can help viewers sift through the ever-accumulating number of movies, TV shows, and everything else, sifting the watchable from the skippable. Very often, reading a review of something can lead you to something you might not have otherwise encountered. To take just one example, I would probably never have watched the HBO series Somebody Somewhere if I hadn’t happened to read an excellent review of it in The Washington Post. 

Nor, however, is it solely the critic’s job to tell the public what they should and shouldn’t listen to. Criticism has always been about much more than just shaping public taste; it also helps us to understand art better. It’s very easy to fall into the trap of believing that every opinion about a particular film or TV is equally valid, particularly when social media has made it so easy for everyone to sound off and for even the most inane perspectives to be taken seriously. A professional critic–that is to say, someone who has the breadth and depth of knowledge of a subject to be able to speak knowledgeably about it–is like an intellectual guide, shepherding us through the thorny thickets of understanding. We trust such people because we know that they have the expertise to speak and write with nuance and complexity, rather than just spewing out whatever sounds good or makes for a good tweet. 

And then, of course, there’s also the fact that, as Rich Juzwiak points out in Jezebel, criticism can also be pleasurable to read in its own right. Criticism, when done right and when coming from a generous spirit, can actually be fun to read, as strange as that might sound to some. I know that I, for one, love to sit with a good piece of culture commentary, marveling at this opportunity to see into the mind of someone else who loves culture as much as I do. Sometimes, if you’re lucky, you might even find a piece of criticism that is written so well that it becomes a work of art in its own right. 

Those who dismiss the critics, whether they be artists like Sheeran and Rogen or fans who are allergic to hearing their beloved objects indemnified, should take a long, hard look at their myopic approach to popular culture. This might be a particularly perilous moment for critics, with outlets constantly looking for reasons to clash their staffs and with it becoming increasingly difficult for those who write criticism to make a living from their craft, but if anything that should heighten our awareness of its cultural value. 

We can but hope that the public recognizes the cultural and social value of the critic before this figure, like so many other endangered species, shuffles off the coil into extinction.