#1
First of all, they aren't useless. BUT, provided the film maker, songwriter, or whatever, did what they wanted to do with what they made, what more is there to say? If the artist is happy with the finished product, that means that it is and does what they want. There are going to be people that get it, or don't.

Am I oversimplifying it? What more does a critic have to say about something that the artist is happy with? Are they supposed to just point out how it doesn't add up to what they want? But that's just them. The artist knew what he wanted and is satisfied, so that means that the piece is doing what it's supposed to do - express that artist. And that means that people are going to experience things the way the artist does (through the artwork).

So it kind of just comes down to personal taste, but not completely. What if the piece is too advanced for people to get? Or not so much advanced as different. So maybe the only true way to critique an artist is on their ability to make people connect and see things the way they do.

tl;dr, what grounds does a critic truly have to critique an artist's work, since personal taste and experiences come into play? What if the piece connects extremely well with only one person? Does that make it bad to everyone else?

Thoughts?
We're only strays.
#2
I highly doubt all artists are satisfied with everything they release.

Point in fact: Steve Harris publicly hates the way the guitars sound on Iron Maiden, says they're not heavy enough and to him it will never and can never be a classic album because of this fact, but to millions of Maiden fans across the world (critics if you will) it is a masterpiece and a classic already.
#3
I don't think artists really ever get what they quite want. Critics are all crap anyway. Rolling stones recently gave nickelback a 4/5, more then they gave a lot of actual half decent bands
Quote by John Petrucci
When it comes to practicing, I would spend about 63 hours a day
#4
You can criticise the medium and the techniques used. You can criticise the production. You cannot criticise the way in which the artist has expressed him/herself.

I think music critics are there to give recommendations, not the final word as to what to listen to and what to avoid.

They seem like pretentious bastards. I don't want some 50 year old audiophile telling me I should worship David Bowie and Radiohead. I appreciate a recommendation of good music, but I don't want any of this "Must hear before you die, because you will die soon" crap.
#5
Quote by sashki
You can criticise the medium and the techniques used. You can criticise the production. You cannot criticise the way in which the artist has expressed him/herself.


Yeah but even the medium, technique, and production can be altered if necessary to better realize the artist's expression.
We're only strays.
#6
Quote by Martyr's Prayer
Yeah but even the medium, technique, and production can be altered if necessary to better realize the artist's expression.

True.
But it's no use polishing a turd. Although with today's music scene, that seems like the only option.