Objective Criticism Quotes

It's never the same relationship. I see my job as filling in the blanks. Whatever it is that the artist lacks in the process of making a record, I'm supposed to fill that in. And sometimes it's a lot of stuff and I have to hector them about working on the material and that sort of thing. Sometimes you have an artist that's really fairly self-sufficient; they just need another ear to offer some objective criticism, but otherwise pretty much know what they're doing. It varies a lot.

The more feedback you give to people, the better it is, as long as the feedback is objective and not critical.

When I founded the party in 1966, I had just turned 24.And each year, no, not each year, each day I live I've gained new experiences. Now the criticism is not to say the party did not play a positive part in those times, but, in order to be objective, we did not accomplish the things we set out to accomplish.

The opposition may have the right to doubt every thing, but for myself, I call on opposition to practice its role within limits of objectively, responsibility and country interests.

Saying that a great genius is mad, while at the same time recognizing his artistic worth, is like saying that he had rheumatism or suffered from diabetes. Madness, in fact, is a medical term that can claim no more notice from the objective critic than he grants the charge of heresy raised by the theologian, or the charge of immorality raised by the police.

It's always nice to have people love you, but I'd just like to be judged fairly.

I don't mind anybody coming after me as long as they're coming with facts.

I've always said that an art critic can put aside politics around art.

Everyone has a right to an opinion. I can arrive in England and express my opinion. If criticism were ferocious and without intellectual objectivity they should show me the way to their airport. It is important to have an opinion and not be afraid to express it, knowing there will be criticism.

Never judge your own writing. You're not fit to do so.

I was an awful critic. I operated on the assumption that there was an absolute scale of values against which art could be measured. I didn't trust my own subjective responses.

The idea of some kind of objectively constant, universal literary value is seductive. It feels real. It feels like a stone cold fact that In Search of Lost Time, by Marcel Proust, is better than A Shore Thing, by Snooki. And it may be; Snooki definitely has more one-star reviews on Amazon. But if literary value is real, no one seems to be able to locate it or define it very well. We're increasingly adrift in a grey void of aesthetic relativism.

A critic has no right to the narrowness which is the frequent prerogative of the creative artist.

All good criticism should be judged the way art is. You shouldn't read it the way you read history or science.

Its [the anthropological method] power to make us understand the roots from which our civilization has sprung, that it impresses us with the relative value of all forms of culture, and thus serves as a check to an exaggerated valuation of the standpoint of our own period, which we are only too liable to consider the ultimate goal of human evolution, thus depriving ourselves of the benefits to be gained from the teachings of other cultures and hindering an objective criticism of our own work.

You never want to sound bitter about critics, because they're entitled to do their job, too, but I place much more trust in a person who I can look in the eye and someone who I know I share some kind of taste with - so my friends, for instance. For me, a critic is unknown and therefore irrelevant.

People look at the same passage, and one person will say this is the best thing he's ever read, and another person will say it's absolutely idiotic. I mean, there's no way to reconcile those two things. You just have to forget the whole business of what people are saying.

I don't say, 'Francis Ford Coppola, what a wonderful Italian-American director.' I judge him based on his film, his craft, his art. That's the way I feel I should be dealt with in this industry.

The critic should describe, and not prescribe.

People believe that criticism should be objective, whatever that means, but I really don't understand what people mean by that. I guess if you're doing sonata-allegro procedure analysis, you can be objective for a page or two. But in pop? Really hard.

If you are looking for smart judging based on merit, skip the Academy Awards next year and pay attention to the Independent Spirit Awards.

Music should be judged on what you hear, not what you think you might hear.

Any government that has a sincere desire for reform and progress should understand the benefit of objective and constructive criticism.

I'm not changing any of my opinions or what I'm saying about a product in a video based on my relationship with the company… When they release a product, my job is to be honest and deliver what people want to see and what people need to hear.

I get angry at a principle, not a person.