Here’s the thing about criticism of the arts: It is all the thoughts and opinions of the person writing these reviews. When it comes to opinions, it’s important to remember that they’re often biased and only seen from one perspective, especially when it comes to criticizing the arts. It’s impossible for a critic to be absolutely objective with their opinions.
Here is one way to differentiate what critics do from others: Criticism of the arts is almost entirely a subjective experience and practice, while science and math is almost entirely an objective experience. I say this because an objective experience is rooted in truth and fact. That you can calculate and measure out something to experience it. Two scientists can look at the same equation and come up with the same results. That’s science and being objective. Art criticism, on the other hand, has no truth or facts to it. Two critics can look at the same painting and have two entirely different impressions of it. That’s just having an opinion and being subjective.
Some people like to think that there’s a science behind breaking down art and analyzing what makes them work and what doesn’t, when there never has been and there never will be. People only need to watch “Siskel & Ebert” to understand why there is no equation to truly great art. The closest thing people will find to that is the passion and heart that critics put into their work, and the passion critics have for their respective art form.