Originally posted by Capo de La Cosa Nostra:
A film, for example, can only bore if the critic’s attention span does not lend itself to the narrative’s maintaining of momentum. But it is the post-structuralist critic’s duty to pretentiousness never to admit this; never to admit it was due to the shortcomings of his own attention span, and instead degrades the film as boring. This is not so much a problem as a nuisance, where a few lines would sufficiently elaborate upon his opinion as to why the film was boring and thus validate his argument. As it is, the critique is discardable. In essence, boring is itself a boring word, and thus the critic using it runs the risk of being valued as little as the film he’s reviewing. To quote T.S. Eliot, “criticism is as inevitable as breathing”. Whether consciously or not, we play critics at just about everything. Thus, it is normal for us to rate and value on a subjective scale the critics themselves.

Somebody without interest in the complexities of criticism and the existential ponderings that come with it (indeed, those who find such essays boring!) may claim that art falls into two categories for them: that which they like, and that which they don’t like. They are not wrong in this philosophy. It is, at least, personal and honest. But then, to go by liking and disliking is to consume art in inconsistent measures, open to much outside influence which would inform the viewer’s outcome. A film viewing experience, for example, can be easily destroyed if, say, the print is shabby or the sound is muffled or friends ruin it by talking throughout. The critic’s reaction would understandably be a negative one; but is this a reaction to the film, or the circumstances in which it was consumed? The more honest critic will admit it is the latter, while the one with the lesser understanding of criticism would claim their opinion was of the film. Either way, the reviews are invalid, for both referred to something other than the actual film, or piece of art, or whatever.