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.
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.