Decided to bring this up

Whenever one person judges negatively the work of another, must there be a correlation between his judgement and the obligation for him to actually make something to prove his judgment?

Nowadays I started wondering if it was correct for someone to simply judge things negatively without showing the minimum interest of actually change them following the given evaluation. Basically, whenever a person tells the other that anything he did is bad or whatever because of tot, should there be an obligation, for the one who judges, to prove his point by actually doing something that follows his judgment, so that his negative evaluation can be considered a proper one, or it simply does not revolve around this and falls under the category of personal tastes?

Practical example: X writes a book, while Y reads it. After finishing it, Y goes to X and tells him his book is horrible, because he thinks the plot was not well done. Now, does Y need to be a writer to make his judgment a proper one (meaning that if he isn't a writer he cannot judge X), since if Y can make a story that has a well done plot he proves he had all the rights to judge X or it can simply be dismissed as a "it's your opinion, do what you want"?

Ever heard of "The customer is always right"? It applies to this one. Normally, what most people make or do, other than to satisfy their own wants/desires, is to show it to a group of audience, general or specific. It doesn't matter if your audience is an expert in your field or has 0 knowledge, if the majority of them find it bad, then it's simply bad. There is such a thing as an obligation to prove your own judgement but that's only if you have knowledge on the same field and we call these C&C.

That's why before an animator would release something to the public, normally they have 2 parties. The first party are animators, who would give out criticism's regarding aspects and fundamentals of animation to help you improve your output objectively. The second party is the general audience. People who have little knowledge and care on the how's or why and care more on the fun aspect of it. In this context where you need to deliver what you say if you criticize, if everyone needed an obligation to prove their judgement, self reviews would be nonexistent.

So, my answer to your question is yes and no. Yes, there's a correlation between creating constructive, objective criticism, since you need to know the fundamentals of that area to be able to give out C&C and No, because the general audience can say whatever they want about your work, because they have the right to. It's up to you to listen to any of the two but straight up rejecting them wouldn't make you an open minded person, yeah?

The point you made is valid: the problem is that I should have been more clear

Negative judgements carry a "it should have been" construction: what belongs to the general audience as you intended is the opinion (or at least I think)

As you said, the general audience has any right to express their impression about a work. However, this counts not as a judgment, but as stating one's own opinion, since it stops to the likeness level (and here we have the correlations of "not like=bad"/"like=good")

The problem that I'm trying to bring up is whenever the audience, or whoever comes, judges negatively a work not by following their personal tastes and keeping their own opinion in check, but by labelling the work as bad because of its peculiar features and going over the likeness level. Basically, you could consider my question in this way as well: is it right/correct that someone from the general audience, when judging, goes over the simple "I like it//I do not like it" and tries to address the work in a more critical way, however also impliying an evaluation of the work which brings a judgement, by the one who judges, about how the work should have been?

Quote from DiPi

The point you made is valid: the problem is that I should have been more clear

Negative judgements carry a "it should have been" construction: what belongs to the general audience as you intended is the opinion (or at least I think)

As you said, the general audience has any right to express their impression about a work. However, this counts not as a judgment, but as stating one's own opinion, since it stops to the likeness level (and here we have the correlations of "not like=bad"/"like=good")

The problem that I'm trying to bring up is whenever the audience, or whoever comes, judges negatively a work not by following their personal tastes and keeping their own opinion in check, but by labelling the work as bad because of its peculiar features and going over the likeness level. Basically, you could consider my question in this way as well: is it right/correct that someone from the general audience, when judging, goes over the simple "I like it//I do not like it" and tries to address the work in a more critical way, however also impliying an evaluation of the work which brings a judgement, by the one who judges, about how the work should have been?

In that case, who are we to say they are wrong or right?

In the first place, if they label it bad or good based on their own tastes and preferences, then it's entirely subjective. It's up to the creator to use their opinions to change/modify their work or not. If the majority of the general audience says it's bad, it could either be they have crap taste or it's most likely bad. I think the latter is more likely to happen. So, my answer is, it solely depends on the person being criticized by the general audience if whether they're right or wrong.

Quote from Zero

In that case, who are we to say they are wrong or right?

In the first place, if they label it bad or good based on their own tastes and preferences, then it's entirely subjective. It's up to the creator to use their opinions to change/modify their work or not. If the majority of the general audience says it's bad, it could either be they have crap taste or it's most likely bad. I think the latter is more likely to happen. So, my answer is, it solely depends on the person being criticized by the general audience if whether they're right or wrong.

Trying to get you closer to what I mean, let's try to put it in this way: does a music critic need to be a musician himself so that he may criticize others?

Absolutely not. The ability to constructively criticize something is a completely different set of skills and knowledge than creating whatever is the subject of criticism. Roger Ebert didn't need to become a filmmaker to understand what makes a movie good or bad.

That said there's a line between constructive criticism and talking out of your ass. If you're clueless about music you can still give a genuine evaluation of how the music makes you feel as a casual listener which in and of itself can be constructive because your personal feelings are within your scope of knowledge. But I wouldn't take specific technical criticism from someone who clearly knows nothing about music production. Just the same, you can be an animator and still have god awful taste in animation and give people criticism/advice that's blatantly wrong or even harmful. As long as they're being honest and speaking within the scope of their knowledge anyone can offer helpful criticism.

Thanks for the answers, guess I got it now (Exile basically wrapped this up (unless somebody pops up now))
Kinda short-lived

I imagine, in my own opinion, that there typically wouldn't be a defined right or wrong for this situation if it isn't referring to this as a expectation for ideal behavior.

From what I believe, people do things like this that connect with something they want or want to happen, through multiple steps or pretty much just directly, so criticizing a work for that reason, even without a true explanation, would seem alright from the critic's view and most likely a variety of things from the creator's view. If a critic had something to gain from the creator by doing this, possibly involving, for example, the creator being forced into making a new product to fit that specific critic's desired effect or giving the critic a discount of some sort. This may or may not be the right thing to do for themselves in the critic's case, but it is done with the intention and possibility of benefiting the critic in this situation, probably not the creator, or at least not with the creator's benefit in mind.

This can go the other way as well, since, in the creator's typical opinion in the face of being criticized, if a critic's argument that is downgrading their product isn't backed up by evidence because there isn't any, than the creator of course likely wants the critic to be required to specify their argument with supporting data or experience, because they know they will benefit as the creator thanks to the critic losing the validity of their argument.

If you're just lining this up with right to free speech and whatnot, then it's pretty much already summarized above, I don't exactly need to express much opinion on that because it's just a right of sorts in certain places. It's just a guide imposed on people in order for the greater benefit of society, at least in common opinion in most of those areas, that is.

Overall, my opinion would be that there is no right and wrong to this situation because each party will likely do what will indirectly fit to their mindset's goals the most. By that fancy-ish word jumble, I am trying to imply that there is no "should" in this situation because you are either the critic, the creator, or the "other" in this setup. The "other" simply being neither the critic nor the creator. So with the "other" being out of the picture due to this being a moment of exchange between the critic and the writer, apparently, there is no right and wrong because both parties want what is most likely directly/indirectly following what satisfies their desires the most.

Would you call haggling a "bad" or "good" thing? Specifically, would you call haggling with no real argument a "bad" or "good" thing? While not the exact same thing as your example with books obviously, it can easily fall under the same opinionated view if the parties are set in the same way. If it is solely between the critic and the creator, there is no right or wrong. That is my opinion.

Now, funny bit, if you were to add the "other" to this situation, probably in the form of "others" at this point, then you are changing it to how society views this in addition to the creator and the critic. However, with society as a factor, the same still applies unless you are bringing ideals/religion/whatnot into this, in which case it's just an opinion. Like this one, :D. The critic could downgrade the product with no experience or evidence to back up their argument on the subject, and if they get portions of society (maybe they want a majority) on their side, great, but all they really need is their desired result of their argument to happen. This result can be pretty much almost anything. In fact, being a critic being seen as doing something "wrong" can actually be a desired result of the critic in certain situations where being seen as "wrong" would satisfy their desires at the time.

The same applies to the creator in the sense that they may want certain limitations or requirements to the critic's downgrade of their product, such as being backed up by information. This is all, like the critic's intentions, at least indirectly intended by the creator for what the creator desires in this case.

If you are asking if people "have the right" to be a critic with the inadequate or simply non experience, and/or with no supporting evidence/information/whatnot, then the question is likely an answer-less one if you want a universal truth. This is simply because right and wrong are used as a means for people to govern actions of themselves and/or others. In my opinion, this isn't even one bit universally applied to anyone because there is no real "right" or "wrong" to begin with, in my opinion.

So, yes, I think critic's downgrade should always be required, in the sense of an official opinion of a product in society where it would be more beneficial to society as a whole, to have supporting information and/or experience on that matter, only because this benefits society overall, and through it, likely me.

^ Bit of sarcasm here, you probably get what I'm implying.

Gosh this opinion stuff is exciting, too bad I was too late to answer what you wanted to know with my own.