criticism at a crossroads

If it can be created, it should be criticized.

Some creations are good, and some creations are bad. The purpose of criticism is to honestly address what works and what does not. If an idea is good, it will withstand criticism.Therefore, creation and criticism need one another.

(If the populace is cleverly deceived, then a good idea will be perceived as a bad one.)

The risk of bad critique is never enough to stop the creator from creating. (It can even be a reason for creating, in the case of modern art.)

Without creation, there are no ideas, no inventions, no progress. Likewise, without honest criticism bad inventions will maim children, and bad ideas will starve them.

An honest critic will never receive the praise that a good idea or a grand invention will receive. For the most part, it just isn’t brave to hold an inconsequential opinion on a good creation.

Moreover, criticizing real power can be dangerous. That is why it is only courageous to hold and voice an unpopular opinion when there is imminent harm from touchy creators. This is known as martyrdom and reserved for activists.

Civilians should critique one another’s ideas and inventions and behavior as candidly and tactfully and frequently as possible. A conversation for its own sake among dissenting opinions is worthless if it is not honest. Celebrating a neutered conversation is as meaningless as celebrating a choice for its own sake.

For a civilian critic to be taken seriously, they have to have good reasons for their differing point of view. Good reasons come from truth. Truth can come in a number of forms, from the position of a hoodwinked consumer who purchased a faulty product, to a defector from a cult or a regime.

The reason so much mediocre shit exists is because the creator’s greed clouds the intellectual judgement of a brain-dead populace; industries collude with its critics.

Honest creation relies on honest criticism. They need one another to stay honest.