Art needs criticism. Criticism that helps the artist see his work from the outside in. The criticism that helps the viewer approach the work. Criticism that gives rise to discussion questioning revision question marks. However in order for criticism to work correctly a relationship of trust and appreciation is required. From the student to the teacherjudge. From the viewer to the theoreticianjudge. From the artist to his peerjudge. From friend to friendjudge. The good intention and sincerity of the judge are also assumed. Finally a minimum level of consensus between the judge and the recipient is assumed on basic of both art and life. If any of these are absent the criticism in the simplest case falls into the void.
Criticism can be done in two ways. Live or impersonal. In the first case the critic e-commerce photo editing addresses the recipient through life and their eyes communicate in the second when the already imprinted speech intervenes the criticism is a blind message a bottle in the waves. The first is blessed. The second ungrateful. Both possibly necessary and probably useful. The recipient of criticism whether the creator himself or the viewer commits a great mistake when he looks for a reviewer who agrees with his work or his views in advance. Such a narcissistic approach satisfies the ego but does not promote critical thinking. He also makes mistakes when arguing with the judge.
This act is competitive and not constructive. You either discuss with the judge or you withdraw. Otherwise the scheme is distorted because we simultaneously have two critical intentions that negate each other. The judge commits a great error if he wants to be liked. It's his own narcissistic side. He errs if he imposes his criticism on someone who has not asked for it or if he is dominated by insincerity or empathy. It is wrong if it hurts beyond the inevitable distress it may cause. But he also errs if he does not become cruel when he diagnoses excessive arrogance and obvious purposes beyond creation.