ghostfacekiller39 
"[@tehwatever":](/forums/generals/topics/general-anime-thread?post_id=5056047#post_5056047
)
Yeah. I'd agree. It's usually rooted in a desire to be authoritative on the subject, but is typically indicative of just...not actually being authoritative on the subject due to just not really seeming to grasp how human perspective shapes how we interact with art/media. Ebert is often considered a good critic because he was willing to explore his ideas, experienced with the medium he was working with, and articulate. Not because he was the critical equivalent of a scientist speaking in terms of natural law.
Nobody should have to sit here and say shit they like is bad because it doesn't meet some psuedo-objective metric. If they liked it, exploring what elements made them like it and trying to understand why they're weighting those elements more heavily than any perceived negatives is infinitely more valuable to the discussion.
Those who shape critical discourse embrace subjectivity. Those who follow apply another person's subjectivity as fact.
Sunny Day Realtor
Yeah. I'd agree. It's usually rooted in a desire to be authoritative on the subject, but is typically indicative of just...not actually being authoritative on the subject due to just not really seeming to grasp how human perspective shapes how we interact with art/media. Ebert is often considered a good critic because he was willing to explore his ideas, experienced with the medium he was working with, and articulate. Not because he was the critical equivalent of a scientist speaking in terms of natural law.
Nobody should have to sit here and say shit they like is bad because it doesn't meet some psuedo-objective metric. If they liked it, exploring what elements made them like it and trying to understand why they're weighting those elements more heavily than any perceived negatives is infinitely more valuable to the discussion.
Those who shape critical discourse embrace subjectivity. Those who follow apply another person's subjectivity as fact.