Critics often must stand against tide

THE role of the critic —  be it art, film, architecture, food -- is to inform the often ill- or misinformed of what is art, what is design, what has cultural, spiritual and intellectual significance (“Critical Tightrope,” by Patrick Goldstein, Feb. 4).

However, in this era of grade inflation, poor use of the English language (with our president leading the charge) and disdain for intelligence, the critic is perhaps swimming against the tide.

Think about it: If one relied solely on “the People’s Choice,” then McDonald’s is the finest restaurant anywhere, Thomas Kincaid is the most significant and revered painter alive (or dead, for that matter), Wal-Mart represents the paramount of the retail experience, there can be no better city than Las Vegas, the mini-mall must be the pinnacle of architecture and obesity depicts the new model of fitness.

Carter C. Bravmann

Los Angeles

*

GOLDSTEIN forgot to mention the main difference between entertainment critics and the rest of us. The critic is paid, often quite well, to watch free movies or listen to free music. The consumer, on the other hand, has to reach into his pocket and pay an exorbitant price to attend a film or concert, or to buy a CD. The critic is the only one who can afford to have adventurous tastes.

Jim Dawson

Hollywood