Many people would think that criticism is always bad, and that it always accentuates the negatives, but that is not really so.
Perhaps this misunderstanding stems from the fact that criticism is usually defined as the “expression of disapproval of someone or something based on perceived faults or mistakes.”
From that perspective, the synonyms of criticism are censure, condemnation, denunciation and disapproval.
There is, however, another definition that is more positive, and that is the other meaning that criticism is the “analysis of and judgment of the merits and faults of a literary or artistic work.” It is in this latter category that literary criticism belongs to, and by some stretch of the imagination, it also includes food criticism.
It is in this context that I could claim that I was a student of the late Dr. Doreen Fernandez, one of the leading literary critics of our time who was also a food critic.
It was too long ago but I still remember what Dr. Fernandez taught me and my classmates, that criticism is the skill that enables an observer to tell the difference between good and bad works and between what is right and what is wrong.
Yes, it was too long ago but if I remember it correctly, it was also her who taught us that in order to be a good writer; we have to be able to see what others could not see, because otherwise we could not really write well if our powers of observation are merely within the ordinary. It goes without saying that while in the process of doing such observations, we should already be able to tell what is good and what is bad, and also what is right and what is wrong.
That said, it should be made clear that criticism should not merely focus on what is bad and what is wrong, it should also dwell on what is good and what is right.
Having made my point clear, I could now say that “constructive criticism” is actually an oxymoron, because criticism is a supposedly neutral activity that should neither be constructive nor destructive.
On the more realistic side, however, I am aware that there are many people who would criticize for the sole purpose of destroying something or someone in which case that could qualify as “destructive criticism”, even if there is no such a thing.
For whatever it is worth, these “false critics” should have decency of saying what how something or someone could become, good after demolishing something or someone as being bad. In layman terms, that would be so noisy talking about what the social problems are, without even offering a single solution to these problem.
That is like saying that a person in authority is doing something wrong, without saying what should be the right thing that he should be doing. (To be continued/PN)
