Very worth reading. He's a bit harsh on criticism in general -- not all of it comes from the nasty, dark place that he ascribes it to -- but I agree with him completely about the issue of authenticity. One thing I've learned from doing interviews over the years is that even the people you think are cynical in-it-for-the-money types are, more often than not, every bit as sincere as the guy with the guitar in the coffee shop. Even if that's not always easy to remember.

I tend to agree. I think that he makes the easy mistake that many artists do when criticising critics. His suggestion that you shouldn't "criticise a film until you've made one" etc., carries an assumption that only artists are capapble of meaningfully interpreting art. If art was made primarily for consumption by artists, this might be true. But it isn't, so it isn't.

He also forgets a much more pragmatic reason for media gatekeepers: Not everyone is capable of making $12,000 from one article for Time. Most consumers have limited entertainment budgets, so -- as he admits himself -- they reduce. Critics are just a part of that equation.

That said, his larger anti-snobbery point is well-aimed, well-spake and more than relevant to the working ethos of more than a few critics I could name.