Critic's Manifesto: Amanda Mull

On the surface, a critic exists to tell readers if something is good or bad. Simple. There are characteristics that either make a movie, a performance and a meal successful or unsuccessful, and it's a critic's job to evaluate the finished product and share their findings with the public.

But, as with most things, it's never that simple.

Sure, critics are charged with deciding what's good and what's bad. But if that's all a critic did, he or she would probably toil in obscurity forever. The best critics are able to take a work and explain why or how it fits into culture. Whether or not a piece of art is good may be interesting, absolutely, but not nearly so interesting as what a particular piece of art may say about the culture that created it.

The job of a critic is to help us understand how art, food, and entertainment in general fit into our lives and reflect on our tastes, ideals, and views as a society. A critic's purpose is not just to tell you that "Shot at Love with Tila Tequila" is a terrible television catastrophe; most people could figure that out on their own after 30 seconds of viewing. Instead, a critic should tell you why it's interesting that the show is back for a second season, despite the fact that everyone that has ever encountered it agrees that it's terrible.

Whether something is good or not is almost besides the point.