While you enjoy that contradiction, let me elaborate. To say 'should' is not just to suggest that there is an ideal, platonic reality, in which the object under consideration exists in a pure, perfected form. It is to insist that this reality is appreciable by the critical eye.
This reality is imaginary. It is a film in the mind of the beholder and, as such, not subject to the friction of existing. 'There is no hair in the lens of the mind's camera.
The role of the critic is to observe, and comment on the observation, not to speculate on a possible, better performance and offer advice.
Nor is there an 'audience'. The critic may comment on an audience's response, but cannot explain why that response happened.
For example: 'the audience laughed' is acceptable. 'The audience found it witty' is not.
The critic writes of their own experience, not on behalf of anyone else. There are those who agree with my assessments, those who do not. While I like the first group, both opinions are valid and there is no reason to assume that anyone is wrong.
There is nothing wrong with an artist commenting on another artist's work. However, this opinion is not the same as a critical opinion: artists and critics have different subjectivities.
The artist observes a work and thinks: if I had the same budget and the same intention and the same resources... I would create the work that exists in my head. Refer to rule one for the problems inherent within this approach.
It can be fun to hear what artists think of each other, especially if that opinion is preceded by the words 'this is off the record, right?'
It just happens that their medium is critique, which roves across forms and disguises itself as journalism or reportage.
See rule three for a dialectic tension.
But, like shit, they have to be done. However, the individual who spends time talking about either subject is unwelcome in polite society, and they are both unlikely to provide an answer in matters of purpose or value.
This manifesto begins on the assumption that meaning is developed through a dialectical process.
While no political implications are intended, the model of dialect is adapted from a simplified model of Hegel. However, it harks back to Plato's dialogues, with less emphasis on how cool and correct Socrates is.
It assumes that all partners in the process have an equal worth.
Criticism
Criticism is the system whereby a work of art is subjected to analysis by an observer outside of the work's production.
This observer can be a specialist - with knowledge of the genre - or an audience member with no prior experience.
The value of their analysis is not determined by the outcome (that is, the review in the most common cases), but as a subjective opinion that encourages further discussion.
As things stand, criticism is presumed to be a branch of journalism or academia.
It has recognised outcomes - the monograph, the book, the review, the feature.
Criticism is going to change as a result of the dialogue with artists.
It's about time, too.
Rules of Engagement
There is a need for absolute honesty and generosity in this process. While honesty is no excuse for being unkind, generosity might be a good reason to end the dialogue.
All partners in the dialogue are recognised as human beings and artists. They are also expressions of a deeper personality and circumstance.
The intention of the dialogue ought to be remembered throughout the discussion.
In the spirit of the Jesuit's entreaty, all participants are challenged to search for the good in other participants opinions.
Intentions
There are no necessary outcomes to the process, except the process itself.
The primary intention is to expand the dialogue between critic and artist.
A secondary intention is to expand the hermeneutic spiral surrounding performance.
A minor intention is to redefine the status, role and process of criticism.
A minor intention is to develop dramaturgical thinking within the arts.
Participants
The participants are makers of art and critics.
The critic is defined as an observer who is not connected in the making of the work under discussion.
A note on Critics
For the purposes of this process, 'the critic' is not a specialist. However, the critic must acknowledge any aspects of their subjectivity that may filter their interpretation of the work under consideration.
