>>13457747What are you waffling about?
Subjective means looking at yourself with respect to the object.
Objective means looking at the object.
If you review something subjectively then you don't review it at all, you review yourself.
You can't review something subjectively, it is literally impossible. This is basic English and (you) are the one who doesn't know what they're talking about.
Where are you getting arbitrary criteria from? A critic has criteria. You will notice that these words share the same root because criteria is an aspect of criticism. This is basic English. You don't know what you're talking about.
A critic will have aspects/criteria that they review based on. They will grade for that criteria. Same way your maths teacher grades maths and not handwriting. This is basic English. You don't understand anything.
A critic then reviews based on their area of expertise. Not preference, because whether or not fucking Walter Benjamin enjoyed something has no bearing on it's qualities - quality being a word that means an something rhat belongs to thw object; it is blue, it is round, it is film, it is clay, etc. That's what quality means. This is basic English. You don't understand anything.
A critic will score based on their criteria. When critics disagree it is based on different weighted criteria or different criteria in general from different points of view. Not preference, but objective qualities. Because the only way to review something is to review it. You don't review something by saying you like it unless you are mentally ill.
You can learn using the internet, all the information is out there. There is no excuse to be adamantly wrong online all day every day. You're a pathetic loser who doubled, tripled and quadrupled down on an argument about a subject that you don't know anything about and you did so while projecting that I know nothing about it. I studied criticism, I've worked in criticism for a decade and I've had sex, unlike you.
