Let me tell you why you suck. And all of you art, movie, music and etcritics can get in an orderly line as well.
If you want a tl;dr version: YOU SUCK BECAUSE YOU CANNOT BE OBJECTIVE AND THEREFORE YOUR OPINION MEANS NOTHING.
But sure, you want a longer version because you want arguments. Fine!
Let’s say you’re an aspiring art critic. You see Mona Lisa for the first time in your life. Your breath is taken away, that painting is absolutely the most precious thing you’ve ever seen. You write poetry about it. You base your thesis on her mysteriouser and mysteriouser smile (cried Alice). And then, somebody shows you a completely new painting. Suddenly, Mona Lisa looks like a cheap whore. With no eyebrows. But your thesis is already out. So what do you do? Write a new one? Patch the previous one up? Or admit that your taste changed and Mona Lisa was great until you saw this better thing.
Let’s say you’re a food critic. And, for example, your mother died 5 days ago, and you go into a restaurant to review their food because you need to keep on living. They serve your favourite dish. They bring it to your table, you taste it and it’s NOTHING LIKE YOUR MOTHER USED TO MAKE IT. How dare they? SHE DIED! I know, this is a bit far-fetched, but guess what - things like that happen. They don’t even have to be so extreme.
You begin your career as a food critic. You visit 100 restaurants and give your opinions. 300 restaurants and rate them. You then visit your 5000th restaurant and rate it. Can you objectively say that your rating of the first 100 is still as valid? Do you even remember them? Can you compare the first meal you ate with your 5000th meal? Did your taste change? Which one was better? Oh, I guess you should revisit all of the restaurants and rate them again. But by then you’ll have 10000 ratings and be really fucked.
Let’s say you’re an X critic! Unless there is an idea of a perfect X somewhere out there, in the Platonic wild, you have NOTHING to base your reviews on. Except your own taste. Which sucks because it’s not mine.
People are obsessed with showing how unique of a snowflake they are, but we still have people who are supposedly qualified to tell other people what’s OBJECTIVELY good and what’s not. This restaurant overcooks their pasta? Well, what if I LIKE OVERCOOKED PASTA? Maybe that’s the best restaurant in the world for me? Your rating of 3/10 means nothing.
I mean, fine, it’s a job and you get to travel and taste stuff and pretend that you know what you’re doing and somebody will realize that you have a similar taste to theirs and follow your ratings because you’re compatible. BUT STOP ACTING LIKE IT’S AN OBJECTIVE FACT AND THAT YOU’RE AN EXPERT EATER (or whatever). No, one meal is not objectively better than the other, unless one is poisonous and rat infested and the other is sprinkled with tears of an angel and heals cancer.
I give critics 1 objective measure out of 10. I also apologize for the high amount of CAPS. But it was the right thing to do.