2025-05-15

Criticism was once the field of writing that I would have delved into if my art critic era didn't die out when I was aiming to work and network within the local art scene. Long story short, it didn't end well after experiencing some disillusionments. However, I have attempted to cultivate a perception towards critical examination of art in general that I feel that I also have a critical view about the current state of criticism today at large.

Online "discourses," especially those that are being promulgated on X or Twitter, are slowly declining in a sense that a discourse now stands as a thinkpiece that does not invite any form of conversation. It does not offer any meta-awareness of the kind of critique it stands for and even masquerading as a "commentary" for an essentially visceral reaction towards an issue. While I still encounter threads that amass into a type of conversation, social media does kind of offer a megaphone to those who want to speak but are unprepared to be heard by the public. The sort of "virality" it offers to the common man is an unrelenting force that they cannot handle. Precisely because the cost of virality is fame and fame eats off one's sense of self to the point that it fuels narcissism and pushes the correct buttons to raise alarms to defend oneself without the capability to respond and handle the wave of public scrutiny that follows. The traditional practice is either double-down or release an apology. There is no in-between because every comment will be considered as an attack from all sides. There is nowhere to hide from the public eye that is the internet.

Everyone is not ready to handle the consequences of being seen and those who crave it often crave it for the wrong reasons. Posting for clout and the unpredictable virality of half-baked ideas posted online come at a cost of a day's fame and engagement. What happens next depends on the strength of one's sense of self.

At this point, every engagement, every attempt at a serious conversation about a certain topic will always be met by how we look at social media as the new marketplace. A short snarky remark here and there, sarcasm being thrown out of nowhere, and unsolicited pieces of advice lay below every single post of origin. It does not nurture fruitful discussions nor does it encourage everyone to stop, think, and compose one's own thoughts and emotions before responding. We are operating on emotionally induced feedback loop of visceral reactions that garner more views, which is why rage-baiting has been all too popular of a trend because it is the one that exploits human emotion for monetary gains. There is no truth being contained in these spaces.

So any attempt at a critique, or however the poster may frame their post, it can never amount to a seriousness of an essay or a treatise, especially if the platform thrives in recency bias and relevance. The best-formed ideas will never be able to catch up on the recency of a developing story. To get the whole picture, we need a timeline, the happening, and the aftermath. A critique that focuses only on one of these things are incredibly myopic and incomplete. This is also why ad hominem attacks are good engagement because of the immediate visceral reaction it throws at the readers. It is a quick jab. Nothing else. But it is enough to catch someone off-guard and catch their attention.

Why are we doing this to ourselves?