As in other areas, the non-specialist bows down to the opinion of critics as to who is a good or bad artist. I have to disagree. Or, at least, why doesn't he m

As in other areas, the non-specialist bows down to the opinion of critics as to who is a good or bad artist. I have to disagree. Or, at least, why doesn't he mention the much larger group of people who haven't the humility to bow down to the opinion of a critic in the first place? This is as far as they get: "a piece of art is good when I say it is. If you say it is good and I don't agree with you -- and if you happen to have credentials that make your opinion weighted -- then you are an arrogant bastard. But if you have a different opinion than me, and you don't have credentials, stop trying to force your opinion on me. Don't you know everyone is entitled to their opinion?" Cringe when someone calls Twilight good or art. They will say it is good because they think it is, and Thus! That is perfectly sufficient for them. Push the subject further, then you become an asshole and why cant you understand everyone's opinion is "valid." I like the word valid. I really do. But uttered by the laymen is contrary to the word's essence. Everyone has to start somewhere, and reading the works of critics is of the best ways to start. It will take humility to go over something 10 times until you're in tune with the critic. Criticism is analysis and a bunch of other things. You need examples of good taste and good criticism if you wish to evolve your artistic inclinations.