What is the role of the critic in society?

A common observation is that one shouldn’t criticize another unless they are capable of doing that
which they criticize. I’ve never understood that point of view.

Just because I’m not capable of playing the guitar doesn’t mean that I can’t distinguish between good and bad guitar playing. This point of
view may be regarded in light of the truly bad criticism so prevalent among movie critics today, but genuine criticism has proven to be a
very valuable component in the evolution of literature.

Early in his career Matthew Arnold was himself a very popular admired poet. Later in his life, however, he turned his considerable talent
toward literary criticism as well as social criticism. In his seminal work on the subject, The Function of Criticism at the Present Time,
Matthew Arnold posits the idea that criticism is an endeavor that is not dependent upon any creative art form, but rather enjoys an intrinsic
value in itself. The value of criticism lies in bringing joy to the writer of it as well as playing a prominent role in ensuring that the best ideas
reach society.

Matthew Arnold echoes the thoughts of the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle’s views of poetrywhen he declares that the ultimate function
of humankind lies in exercising its creative power. Arnold therefore is able to link criticism with creative power in his essay, ultimately
asserting that writing criticism actually produces in its practitioner a sense of ecstatic creative joy very similar to that enjoyed by the person
who engages in creative writing.

Matthew Arnold goes on to equate the emotional experience of writing criticism with the emotional experience of creative writing in order
to undermine the typical rap against criticism that it serves no purpose, or is just the sour grapes expression of one who criticizes something
that he can’t do as well himself.
Throughout the essay, Matthew Arnold very carefully delineates the personal function of criticism, but he also leaps from the personal to
the universal in his argument that one of the functions of criticism is to

propagate the best ideas so that they trickle down to the masses. According to Arnold, truly great liteature and thinking springs forth from
an epoch of great ideas, and these epochs are manifested when the great ideas reach the masses.

The critic’s part in this process requires that he disinterestedly recognize greatness in writing and use his critical powers to impart this
greatness to the common man. In turn, the common man will be so influenced by the great ideas that his creative juices reach a boil.

In other words, the reason that periods of great creativity and periods of dormant creativity seems to come in irregular intervals can be
traced just as much to the critic who recognizes creative greatness and brings it to the public’s attention as it can to the creator of the great
work. Examples of what Matthew Arnold is talking about can be illustrated in recent times when periods of lackluster creativity in movies or
music have been kickstarted by exciting new talent brought to the attention of the masses by critical success rather than commecial success.

To further define what he’s talking about consider whether you would ever have heard the music of such relatively commercially
unsuccessful artists as U2 or REM, or such filmmakers as Martin Scorsese or Quentin Tarantino if critical acclaim had not extended their
careers long enough to achieve commercial success. Now consider the influence of these bands and filmmakers and how the music and film
industry would be vastly different if they’d never made it big.

Instead of merely laying out a blueprint for criticism, Arnold attempts to prove that criticism in and of itself has several vital functions and
should be regarded as art form that is at least as significant as any creative art form.