Criticism should be fair, unbiased and meaningful
Often, innocent criticism crosses both the threshold of constructiveness and decency. On what underlying agenda do we subject others to criticism in the first place?
Criticism should be purposive and meaningful; at least that's what it was originally meant to be.
That meaning seems lost now, as we are ushered into a generation where we give no quarter in our opinions, and rather stubbornly persist in our perceptions of any issue.
The world has become divided into “yes” and “no”. I think it's about time we realise that “maybe” is also a valid option.
Criticism should effectively be a reflection on ourselves.
Few critics are willing to admit the virtues of any work they have set themselves on tearing apart, fearing that it may shake the very stage they preach on, that by affirming such, their resolve might waver.
Here is where the critic is so preoccupied with each individual stroke that he misses the masterpiece that is before him.
The true critic is one who highlights both the saving grace and the damning points of every work.
He or she is impartial, in attributing success and apportioning blame for failure, and as such is perhaps at the very spire of civilisation itself, having cast away all prejudice and bias.
Vern-chieh Yap
I read this in the star Citizen Blog comment, The Star, on the 14th and found it well written. I think it's a sincere and sound advice which all of us should take heed.
11 comments:
DITH, good point.
p/s: i cant find the link.
Maybe we should all look up to Simon Cowell for tips on how to crticise. Or Paul Moss, if you're more into local taste.
I suppose the best kind of crticism is the one that is emotionless.
It is always difficult to give a fair, unbiased criticism - unless you have consciously train and remind your head to rule your heart.
Perhaps then, we can succeed in having a more subdued, yet stronger fire - a quiet kind of fire that can burn for a long time.
Hmm.........
am not so sure the real meaning of criticizing but for sure, if two persons always agree with each other, one of em is so unnecessary ... err i think.
Mama Sarah- you go to thestar.com and click for opinions section
Yoshi- Since when have you become a cold heartless fella?
Pycno- Yes, tarbiyah of the mind should be an ongoing process for every muslim. We have to continuously train , teach our minds and hearts to always think well and good of others. Only then shall the subdued yet stronger fire be kept burning <===hehe, whatever that means!
Azer- Salam and welcome! An ex-Canadian bloke who composes grungchie music..:p. When 2 person always in unison, always agreeing with each other, it means that they are pure soul-mates! They are surely blessed!
Some criticise with the intention to kill; few with the noble intention to heal. The latter requires skill. I agree that we should observe us first before observing others.
BTW lately your articles are of heavy stuff. Are you writing a book?
Ku Keng, let me answer for her. "YES"
Keng- Hari dah senja ni, fikiran pon jadi mendalam dan bermakna la sedikit. Nak tulis buku tu memang teringin tapi takut orang tak nak beli. Bukan macam ada orang tu. Buku dia kat KB laku macam GPP!
Has- :-) Dah ulang cetak belum? Bila habis baca nanti nak promo. Orang kata kena rasa dulu baru canang kat orang! :p
DITH
Actually, what I was trying to say is that criticism should come from the head, not from the heart (which explains why it should be emotionless).
Err...Am I making sense here?
Hiyoshi- Maybe, :p
One thing that I often noticed these days is that people are always saying, I'm very open, you can always voice your opinions towards me, correct me if I'm wrong etc etc.
But when the time comes, the opposite usually happens. They take it as a personal attack and other problems ensue.
Like uncle keng said, criticising to heal and to actually help the person needs skill. No wonder all those communication skills books and stuff are making big businesses everywhere ;)
Post a Comment