It’s endlessly frustrating seeing artists,especially in less mainstream areas like experimental music or independent film,get slammed by critics for choices that seem totally intentional and,frankly,interesting. It frequently enough feels like critics are coming from a place of expecting a certain kind of product, a replication of established norms, rather than genuinely engaging with what the artist is *trying* to do.Is it that critics are frequently enough incentivized to be contrarian or provocative to generate clicks? Or maybe it’s simpler: a failure to appreciate the “rules” of a particular niche genre. What might seem like a flaw in a mainstream pop song – a jarring sound effect for instance – could be a purposeful stylistic choice in noise music, intended to evoke a specific feeling.
I’m curious if other people have noticed this,and what their thoughts are. How much duty do critics have to understand the artist’s intent versus judging a work on its own perceived merits? And how much does the pressure to be “objective” actually stifle genuine understanding and gratitude of artistic risk-taking?