Regular Guy reviews movies for WXRT.
Neil Cumpston reviews
300 for Aint It Cool News (
Very NSFW).
Both of these are instances of criticism with two additional, arguably even alternative, functions to what we might call "mainstream criticism." That is, these reviews consciously construct a character separate from the reviewer's personality and they function as entertainment in their own right.
But. They still are works of criticism, right? Similarly,
Dan Neil is a wonderful critic and has been honored with a Pulitzer Prize. I read his columns as often as I can. What's the problem? He's a car critic. I don't know anything about cars, I don't particularly care about them, and I'm not looking to buy one. His reviews are really for me just essays, entertainment. Could a literary critic review them? Could a critic review
Chris Jones' reviews? I suppose that I have, actually,
done that, but obviously not in a serious way.
As a reminder, I like to think of art as a skill developed beyond any practical use. Can art function as a guide to art?
...Yes...
And what can these artful reviews teach us about criticism in the mainstream?