A Criticism of Critics

The arts industries are continuing to be dumbed down with the eternal programming of ‘talent’ shows. What are these shows doing to the arts industry? Are they actually promoting talent? Whilst the people who wish to work from the bottom to the top in their respective industry, many upstarts wish to start at the top regardless of whether they have talent or not. This makes me respect the ‘little guy’ even more – they are almost willing to clean the toilets to forge their way into the industry – some have. They work for their place and continue to work very hard – a lot for little money – but as stated, there are many superficial people who think there is only one place to start, and that is at the top. These miscreants are not the only transparent idiots that strive for a place on the TV screens, but it is also the alleged critics themselves – Simon Cowell being the genesis and the prime example.

Does he have any background in music whatsoever? He may work for a label, but he does not know what music is, he is certainly destroying what should be a great industry, as he strives to bring global talents such as the Tellytubbies to release a single. He and his fellow panel members only care about themselves – they do not know a smidgeon about anything musically. These shows are advertisements for the judges alone. Sharon Osborne – only there because she ‘starred’ in a show about her family – knows far less than Cowell. She isn’t even in the industry, so how the hell can she warrant to be a judge? Louis Walsh shows that he cannot stay away from the limelight as he goes on TV or radio to talk about a subject he knows nothing of and proceeds to get himself into trouble. His knowledge of music is questionable – it is certainly degrading to the music industry as two legalised paedophilic boy bands are in his CV. This goes to show that these judges, not just in this show, but in all ‘talent’ shows, especially that poke-a-pin-in-your-eye inducing ‘Strictly Come Dancing’ only strive to promote themselves and not the talent they allegedly seek. They do not give a shit about the ‘talent’ on display – it is purely self-promotional for the judge’s fame. They speak sensationalistically for ‘audience entertainment’. Do they actually have an honest opinion that is not there for ‘audience entertainment’? (Entertainment – a term I use extremely loosely). What voice do they actually have? Can they actually try not to think of money or the audience when they voice an opinion – as the clatter of coins in their pockets is the equivalent of the clattering of the two brain cells that they have. Do they have a voice that does not seek fame for themselves? It would be certainly interesting to see. In Ireland, can somebody please tell me who the hell Brendan O’Connor is, other than being a journalist, what is he doing on the panel of a ‘music’ show? It obviously appears that O’Connor feels that his journalistic skills are not getting enough airplay so needs to be on television on a type of show he knows absolutely nothing of.

But that is enough ‘celebrity’ TV judge bashing for the moment as I now turn my attention to restaurant critics who also wish to prostitute themselves as stars – in this I am especially talking about Tom Doorley and Paolo Tullio. I had no objection to them being restaurant critics until they decided that they were more important than the restaurants they review. Do they honestly think that they would be treated as equals when they venture into a restaurant? It is possible that they venture into a restaurant inebriated, maybe aware that their taste buds are not 100%, but their approach to their review the following day would blur into solipsism as they could have been stroppy in the restaurant. In fact, I would not be surprised if that actually happened. As they now have become celebrities and they certainly do not hide their status, it is impossible for them to receive a plate of food of equal stature to bourgeois restaurant goers – the chefs laud over them to do their best for the critics. It is certain that the bourgeois restaurant goer would not receive such attention and laudability. This was especially shown in ‘The Restaurant’ as Gerald Keane (albeit a ‘celebrity’ solicitor) made a blatant jibe against the ‘peons’ in the restaurant when he stated – ‘they’re not important, it’s the critics’ opinion I’m interested in.’ If a person ventures into a restaurant, they are to be treated with equal importance regardless of who they are. If a customer comes into a restaurant, they are a VIP, make sure that they want to come back. It doesn’t matter if they want to see the lunch menu – all the more reason to try to tempt them back.

It is time for Doorley and Tullio to hang up their newspaper critics’ boots as they have sought fame in ‘The Restaurant’ – (I have no jibe with this programme, in fact, I enjoy it a lot). As Doorley also has his Spar Wines campaign, it is not exactly as if they are unpaid if made redundant. Restaurant criticism should always remain a faceless art. The restaurant should never know who the critic is, when they come or where they are from. It should always remain a faceless art – as stated all customers are VIP’s. This brings me back to my point on TV judges, they should be equally anonymous – so move aside Cowell, Osborne et al – your opinions are neither expert or valid.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s