In my view, having read some (but not having made an extreme habit of reading) critical papers, the writers of these papers are not producing anything of true value (my original point).
Also, they do not do what professionals in the field could do if they so chose to and I would say that any true professional worth their job should be doing what you say critics are responsible for.
As for bias and defensiveness, I think you will find that many critics works take thier lead from the writers personal standpoint regardless of the attempts at objectivity. This is simply human nature.
Finally, you again bring in the "thumbs up/thumbs down" arguement. I don't think in such simplistics terms but I do think that everyone has the responsibilty to act as a critic in regards to everything of importance (professional or otherwise) that they partake in.
My final view point that I will end with is that critics should get on with producing something other than writing works that cover issues that should be considered by people working in that domain. People who do work in that domain should stop being halfarsed about their work and do a proper job of it.
This is what I originally thought you were talking about but you seemed to move away from it in your posts and I followed (Maybe I misinterpreted what you had written).
But once again we seem to have reached a point where I fall back to my previous argument. People actually making TV shows WILL consider these kinds of things when creating their product. People making TV shows will look at others work for inspiration and ideas as to how to improve their own work when watching other peoples work.
At the end of the day all you are saying is a critic examines the work on methodological and philosophic differences. All film makers should be doing this everyday of their lives in a professional capacity and as consumers we too should be doing this with whatever we watch lest we become drooling fools being lead by the nose by a cleverly constructed piece of film work. I just think that critics are not truly producing anything truly valid. I don't need any to think for me and I don't think film makers do either.
What pure theorists do isn't the productive goal of any other field because that would require producing something of value. A TV show has more value to it than any critique for the simple reason that someone somewhere will get some kind of pleasure from it and there is something to show for it at the end (Trust me, even awful TV - you should see some of the stuff I'll watch...)
All a critique of a show does is make a comment about the show and nothing more. Anybody working in TV will be able to pick up on any good or bad points the show offers and will use those observations in their own work to enhance it. A critic isn't the only one who can analyse a given work but is the only one to not go on to use that analysis to create future works.
I'd say that any discoveries by pure theorists would be found by those actually DO something in their respective fields if they had any true value. The rest is just chin stroking.
Slashdot Mirror
In my view, having read some (but not having made an extreme habit of reading) critical papers, the writers of these papers are not producing anything of true value (my original point).
Also, they do not do what professionals in the field could do if they so chose to and I would say that any true professional worth their job should be doing what you say critics are responsible for.
As for bias and defensiveness, I think you will find that many critics works take thier lead from the writers personal standpoint regardless of the attempts at objectivity. This is simply human nature.
Finally, you again bring in the "thumbs up/thumbs down" arguement. I don't think in such simplistics terms but I do think that everyone has the responsibilty to act as a critic in regards to everything of importance (professional or otherwise) that they partake in.
My final view point that I will end with is that critics should get on with producing something other than writing works that cover issues that should be considered by people working in that domain. People who do work in that domain should stop being halfarsed about their work and do a proper job of it.
This is what I originally thought you were talking about but you seemed to move away from it in your posts and I followed (Maybe I misinterpreted what you had written).
But once again we seem to have reached a point where I fall back to my previous argument. People actually making TV shows WILL consider these kinds of things when creating their product. People making TV shows will look at others work for inspiration and ideas as to how to improve their own work when watching other peoples work.
At the end of the day all you are saying is a critic examines the work on methodological and philosophic differences. All film makers should be doing this everyday of their lives in a professional capacity and as consumers we too should be doing this with whatever we watch lest we become drooling fools being lead by the nose by a cleverly constructed piece of film work. I just think that critics are not truly producing anything truly valid. I don't need any to think for me and I don't think film makers do either.
What pure theorists do isn't the productive goal of any other field because that would require producing something of value. A TV show has more value to it than any critique for the simple reason that someone somewhere will get some kind of pleasure from it and there is something to show for it at the end (Trust me, even awful TV - you should see some of the stuff I'll watch...)
All a critique of a show does is make a comment about the show and nothing more. Anybody working in TV will be able to pick up on any good or bad points the show offers and will use those observations in their own work to enhance it. A critic isn't the only one who can analyse a given work but is the only one to not go on to use that analysis to create future works.
I'd say that any discoveries by pure theorists would be found by those actually DO something in their respective fields if they had any true value. The rest is just chin stroking.