#critique is about questioning our understanding and assumptions about something

[rathayibacter]

similar to Goodhart's Law (when a measure becomes a target, it fails as a measure), we should also have "when a critique becomes a shibboleth, it stops being critique"

[highfantasy-soul]

I get people concerned that 'viewers are seeing a hot guy and falling for his manipulation!!' but like....personally, I don't believe cops when they just tell me someone is bad without proof?

The thing about compelling antagonists is that a lot of the time, THEY HAVE A POINT!! Vader in the OG trilogy had no point. It was just black/white we want to be fascist all over the galaxy and have all the power, you want to stop us. In the prequels, Palpatine was the same: he wants power....just cause. Anakin you can make a partial argument for in that his initial intention was never just to get power for himself, but rather protect those he loved: this led to him being able to be manipulated and then making abhorrent choices like slaughtering a bunch of children.

In newer Star Wars, there's room for nuance - room for critiquing and looking into things and seeing it isn't always black/white our protagonists are perfect, the antagonist is psycho evil for the sake of being evil.

We didn't see the rebels in Star Wars Rebels, Andor, and Rogue One as evil because they were killing storm troopers - we saw that their violence was justified in fighting back against an oppressive regime that was hurting people.

When I look at Qimir, he's only killed combatants directly opposed to him. We don't know yet what his real goals are - we don't know why the Jedi 'abandoned' him. So I'm going to reserve judgement and hear him out until I get more info. You know, like you should when determining if someone is evil and needs to die? You don't just rush in guns blazing because you see a red saber and someone fighting enemy combatants?

I know a lot of people have woobified the jedi so much that even though they're a militant police force with absolute power to kill you with their laser swords, fighting back against them is somehow seen as kicking a puppy, but idk man. I'm not against violent opposition to an oppressive force. Obviously we need more info before we can say for sure if Qimir's goals need to be pushed back against, but I don't go into situations with the default view of 'the jedi must be right'.

For me, it's really interesting to see how similar Qimir's attempts to get Osha to join him are similar to how Sol got her to agree to join the jedi. Separating her from other influences: check. Giving her tests to unlock parts of herself she knows are there: check. Showing kindness and understanding of her situation: check. Offering her something she wants (with Sol it was to allow Osha to 'be her own person' rather than only the other half to her twin and the lure of other children like her (that he conveniently left out she'd never be able to have a deep relationship with due to the non-attachment rules of the Jedi) and with Qimir it was being accepted for who she was, not some sanitized version of who others wanted her to be, plus the deep relationships she craves): check.

Is Qimir pushing for Osha to join him so he can have power? Yup. Did Sol push Osha to join him so that the order could have more power? Yup. So now the real question is: power to do what?

Though the idea of the jedi is great, how they actually exert their influence isn't always good for everyone (see stamping out the witches who we, yet again, haven't seen do anything bad). When you have a huge organization that prioritizes their own view of the world above all others, it's not only 'bad' people who get caught in the crossfire. Everyone just makes the assumption that if the jedi are against you, that means you're just a psycho who wants to go around killing people with impunity and if the jedi are supporting you, that means you're automatically good - but that hasn't been shown to be the case. Lets take a look at the Separatists as seen in the Clone Wars tv show - they weren't all fascist maniacs, they just wanted to govern themselves - not to have slavery or be able to kill a bunch of people, but because they were concerned about centralizing rule too much (which turns out, they were right to be worried about that!!) Or Tales of the Jedi when we saw the Jedi turning the other way when members of the Republic were treating their citizens horribly.

Fighting against those aspects of the Republic and the Jedi doesn't automatically throw you into the 'fascist psycho mass murderer' category. Killing the Jedi you think are responsible for the slaughter of your whole culture, I don't think, puts you in that category either. And of course, there can be instances where people do bad things for what they believe are the right reasons (see: Andor and Rogue One) BUT they aren't doing it to people we've associated with 'the good guys' for so long it makes it hard to think about the situation at hand rather than reacting in a knee-jerk kind of way to protect your blorbos.

Very long winded way of saying: I'm not saying Qimir is good or bad. I haven't seen enough to say yet. No, killing Yord and Jecki isn't enough 'proof' any more than Cassian killing the injured rebel so they wouldn't be caught was 'proof' that he was bad. We need to know WHY they're taking such drastic actions before I'm comfortable making my decision on what the show is trying to say.

If you feel like that's me 'lacking critical thinking skills' because you've jumped to a conclusion that's not supported by any facts yet, fine. But I'll wait for the narrative to finish before casting judgement based on what I think is a common trope used in stories.

[funhouse-mirror-barbie]

Response to a reply that was originally on my post here. Reply below:

I appreciate your reply, and wanted to take a moment to respond—I wanted to reply here, because I don’t really like having long conversations on posts I make for a specific purpose. I also believe that your reply isn’t really relevant to the point of my post, and I deleted your original comments due to this, since this is an important topic, and I don’t want people to start arguing or discussion irrelevant things in the comments. So:

—First, thank you for explaining the context behind WHY some fans feel justified in their behavior. It is helpful to know, but in this case, the reasons people justify their behavior here really don’t matter. The entire point of my post was that if we are going to support all survivors, in ANY community, not just fandoms, we have to commit to it. We need to ACTUALLY respect ALL survivor’s opinions, even if we don’t agree with them.

I don’t think it was your intent to actually excuse the harassment, I’m assuming you just wanted to share your thoughts and let me know the explanation for why some people react so strongly. Again, I do appreciate the sentiment, but this is pretty irrelevant to the point of my post.

—Second, I’m not sure if you’re saying that *I* claimed or alleged the entirety of the Hazbin fandom was toxic, or if you meant it was something people say in general that’s inaccurate. Either way, I never intended to imply this was the case. If I did, I apologize--I could only find one instance where it looked like I may have generalized, and corrected it.

My assumption when writing the post though, was that most people would understand that I was not stating that *every single individual* in the Hazbin fandom is a toxic bully. I think that’s a pretty extreme conclusion to jump to. That said, I probably could have made my intent clearer—I did try to specify any individuals, regardless of their opinions or if they are a fan or critic, should not be harassing people.

That said, me pointing out toxic fans and critics within a fandom is not the same as “reinforcing negative stereotypes” about a group. To my knowledge there’s no like. “Stereotypical Hazbin Fan”. At least not that I’m aware of.

I don’t know what negative stereotype I’d be reinforcing by talking about this issue? Saying “this happened in X fandom” is not the same as saying “every member of X fandom did Y”.

I’ll check again, but I really don’t think I ever said at any point “the entire Hazbin fandom is like X” or “everyone who criticizes Hazbin is Y” or anything like that. I really don’t know where you got that from, not trying to be argumentative I’m mostly just confused.

Third—So, as I’ve made clear before, questioning and dismissing SA survivors, sending death threats, bullying and harassment is absolutely unacceptable behavior from ANYONE regardless of their personal justification. That was the entire point of my original post—that there has been a history of hypocrisy among many individuals in these spaces about what it means to support all survivors of sexual assault. The point is that we need to be better about respecting ALL survivor’s opinions on this stuff, regardless of our own opinions, and that hasn’t been happening.

In the case of the individuals you mentioned, if they actually have encouraged people to bully fans of the show like you alleged, yeah, that’s absolutely unacceptable too.

But, what you said previously, about only SOME of the fans being toxic applies to fans who are more critical as well. Just because there are fans who view some people as “bad faith critics” does not make it okay for them to harass and belittle anyone who happens to critique the show. Just because there are “toxic fans” in the fandom does not make it okay for any critic to harass or bully them for what they like.

I understand these parties may THINK they are justified in this behavior. But there is no justification I can possibly think of for harassing people who disagree with your opinion on a CARTOON.

Again, I really don’t think you were saying any of this was justified, and that you do understand that when people react this way to others it’s not okay.

I replied here to address what you said, since I wasn’t sure if I was misunderstanding you or your intentions, and wanted to talk about some of the points you brought up. Thank you again and I hope you have a good day.

Final note—I’m not tagging the person who commented this on my post because, while I don’t think anyone would harass them after how clear I’ve been about my feelings on bullying over this kind of thing, I don’t want to take that chance. It’s incredibly frustrating wanting to talk about how harassment of any kind from anyone in a fandom is wrong, and then having to worry about further harassment that comes from the conversation. Idk if that makes sense. Anyway, thank you for readings

[liketwoswansinbalance]

Part II of Control vs. Apathy vs. Power Themes

(Really just another attempt at figuring out what drives Rafal part of the time, in the rare, non-ambitious contexts. As always, feel free to disagree with me!)

If anyone is intrigued by the concept of never having been born or the mind being incapable of imagining it, watch this philosophical video. It became a source of inspiration for this and...

Unrelatedly, here was an excerpt I found interesting:

"[Something is] just a symbol and yet it's real. It has real power. How? Where does meaning come from? It only exists because of our imagination. Fantasy is not a supplement to reality. It isn't some extraneous alternative. Fantasy is the only thing that makes it all work. Anything that means anything falls under Lacan's category of the symbolic. A symbol only communicates something properly if you and I agree on what it means."

Aside from the philosophy, a nameless character the video discussed also happened to remind me of the general Rafal vs. identity conflict.

Now, the following post can be considered a continuation of this post and this ask which discusses asceticism/mindset, making this post Part III of this unintended "series."

This post deals also with themes of misanthropy and apathy (similar thought process, of just not caring, delineated in the reblog here and in this ask).

I suppose you could consider the following a web-weave of some form?

I think Rafal oscillates, or more gradually alternates, between states of misanthropy (like: "What's your damage, man?") and apathy (he doesn't seem to (often) feel rage affectively and highly outwardly every time, does he? He does act on feelings though).

What of his is performative? (I've asked this question before. This time, it's in reference to the quote: "The seats are empty. The theatre is dark. Why are you still acting?") Actually, the question of who you are when the lights are off and no one's watching is always a classic, fascinating one, to me. This concept relates to this quote as well:

"Man is not what he thinks he is, he is what he hides." — André Malraux

Anyway, I just have the feeling that if he were in an apathy phase, if someone said, directly to his face, "I hate you," he would respond, for once like an unintentional "pacifist," with something approximately like: "Ok. You're unworthy of my time and I have neither the will nor the patience to deal with you. Goodbye." (This would have to discount the possibility that the person with the utterance could mean something to him, so it couldn't be the Never students as we've seen that play out with Fala's pained moment.)

Potentially, the least weird non-critique I have of Rafal is that he's a stagnant character. And I don't mind it, but the inertia/general "unaliveness" in him is funny when I think about it.

He's not quite allergic to excitement because we saw a bit of his inner life and apathy, and then, in contrast, his appreciation of The Black Rabbit or the understanding(?) and stimulation it brought him, of Evil or Akgul's way of life.

And it's not that he's entirely flat without his Evil tendencies, even if a case could be made. (Counterpoint: Hook sensed something deeper, love, below the "villainous purpose" of Rafal's soul.) But, beyond that, I do think that without his ambition/Evil, he'd be relatively boring and potentially a lackadaisical shut-in? Again, I'm just reminded of his slow heart rate and the purpose Hook felt.

Question: Yet who is he without pawns as his victims and other sources of external conflict?

Potential answer: The Rafal who was or may've been content to simply not attend the Snow Ball at the start (under the assumption of there being no wager), if we were to speculate. (This is partly rhetorical, but I'm open to other takes.)

Because we see his power-hungry side, I'm tempted to say that when we replace that very hunger with control (a poor man's version of power), then we're left with more of a husk of a man, who's more likely to just want a quiet, stable, orderly, and most importantly, autonomous life—away from the School, in Gavaldon—despite the bit of ego he has, still insisting he's deserving of more, of power as well.

When we stop to think about it, his only two "hobbies" are brooding and torture... he's almost entirely defined by his post/role and can barely exist apart from it. He only holds out for six months alone, even if I suspect that with no impetus to return, he could've lasted out there in the world forever, that is, until he canonically seems to panic over his own mortality (and Rhian's) and decides to return posthaste.

Thus, the final question, parallel to the last, that remains is: who is he really when we strip away the worldly (self-imposed?) ambition?

[theblackshit]

Adrian Piper

Who, Me?

November 23, 2024 – February 9, 2025

Portikus

Frankfurt, Germany

Curated by Carina Bukuts, Liberty Adrien

Exhibition booklet is available here portikus.de

“I put work into the world for two reasons: first, because I feel compelled to; and second, as an act of communication. I have done work in which I myself am the target of communication, where there is something I can only clarify to myself by putting it outside my mind, out in the world with its own material boundaries. But the temptation is always there to take that process of self-inquiry a step further: Now that I have gotten clear about that idea or image or thing that was in my mind, what will be its relation to other minds? Will it clarify something for them, too? Will they experience it as I do, or in a completely different way? This is part of how I discover who I am, simultaneously with my discovery of who others are: the work enables us to find out what we have in common and what differentiates us from one another, through our similar or dissimilar responses to it. At this point, every work is nothing without the visitors who view it. Any work that exists in its own space implicitly invites us all into a shared space in which we experience it.” 

Adrian Piper in conversation with Christophe Cherix, 2017 (Published in Adrian Piper: A Synthesis of Intuitions, 1965-2016 (The Museum of Modern Art, New York, 2017))

For more than five decades, Adrian Piper has held a unique place in both the world of contemporary art and academia as an artist and analytical philosopher. Like hardly any other figure of our time, she has expanded the spectrum of conceptual art and minimalism as a tool for self-examination and social critique, thus significantly influencing successive generations. Throughout her career, Piper has explored a wide range of media, including collage, drawing, installation, performance, photography, sound, and video. Rather than relying on predetermined interpretations, her practice creates spaces in which viewers are confronted with their own assumptions and prejudices, thereby calling for social, personal, and collective transformations.

For her exhibition Who, Me? at Portikus, the artist has conceived two new site-specific works that draw on her ongoing exploration of the conditions of self-awareness. In the main gallery, I’m the Tree (2024) transforms the space into a sculptural installation. Responding to the architecture of the building, which usually allows for an immediate interaction with the artworks on display, Piper deliberately altered the access to the space by creating a wall that obstructs both passage and view. Only upon ascending the stairs leading to the mezzanine will the visitors be able to see a suspended dead tree held by steel wire anchored to the four top and bottom corners of the gallery and hovering above a floor entirely clad in mirrors. A walkway that extends the mezzanine around the periphery of the room (including a small ascending and descending stairway at one corner to surmount an immovable architectural barrier) , elevated four meters above the ground, allows viewers to move around the installation and observe the interplay between the reflection of the tree, the gallery’s architecture, and themselves. Instead of defining the layered meanings of the work, which Piper admits sometimes take years to fully understand, it is the title—as so often—that points to the concern at hand: the question of the self.

This is further brought to light in I’m the Screen (2024), presented in the downstairs gallery, where the entire wall surfaces have been covered in mirror panels. The installation consists of four rows of five backed chairs, facing both a screen on which an empty white square of light is projected and a podium equipped with a reading lamp. With no speaker at the podium and no slides to view, we are met with the confluence of our mirrored image, the elements arranged in space, and the reflection of the Main River, whose flowing waters seem to enter through the windows. Much like the intentionally unresolved state of suspense in I’m the Tree, Piper invites viewers to ponder their own presence within the intricate layers that shape our experiences of self, others, and the here and now.

Building on previous pieces by the artist, in which she addresses or directly engages viewers, our reactions become integral to the experience of her exhibition at Portikus. According to philosopher Immanuel Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason (1781), a work central to Piper’s artistic as well as scholarly practice, the self is a transcendental condition that we can’t observe or know in the same way as an object. Instead, it functions as a precondition for experience itself, a unifying force that enables us to connect various representations into a subjective grasp of reality. In Who, Me?, the mirrored environments do not reveal an ‘objectified’ self; rather, the installations encourage a deeper reflection on the relationship between self-cognition and external conditions. The title of the exhibition plays on the familiar expression often used to feign innocence or deflect blame, prompting viewers to confront their own role and responsibility in issues from which they might seek to distance themselves.

Adrian Piper (b. 1948 in New York City, USA) is an artist and philosopher who has been living in Berlin, Germany, since 2005. Piper graduated from the School of Visual Arts, New York, in 1969. Her studies in philosophy took place at the City College of New York and at Harvard University, where she received an M.A. in 1977 and a Ph.D. in 1981 under the supervision of John Rawls. Piper taught philosophy at the universities of Georgetown, Harvard, Michigan, Stanford, and UC San Diego. Recent solo museum exhibitions took place at PAC Padiglione d’Arte Contemporanea, Milan (2024), MoMA, New York (2018), Hammer Museum, Los Angeles (2018), Hamburger Bahnhof, Berlin (2017), CPH Kunsthal, Copenhagen (2006), and MACBA Barcelona (2004). Piper has received numerous prizes for her oeuvre, including the Golden Lion at the Venice Biennale (2015), the Käthe Kollwitz Prize from the Berlin Academy of Arts (2018), and the Goslar Kaiserring (2021).

Curated by Liberty Adrien & Carina Bukuts

[madeline68]

Alternate History - Motherland: Fort Salem

What is the koinos kosmos (common world) and mutually assumed knowledge the series shares with viewers? 

Motherland: Fort Salem is a show in which the Salem Witch trials ended with a negotiation of peace in exchange for witches serving in the military, known as the Salem Accords. In the present, society is matriarchal, especially for witches, and witches are conscripted to serve in the military against supernatural terrorist threats and other witch armies. The series assumes viewers have some amount of knowledge about the Salem Witch trials. It also expects knowledge on the development of America and the military industrial complex. 

How does the series depict cultural hybridity through the alerted history’s role in reflecting and reshaping cultural assumptions? 

The show uses witches as an “other” in place of normal cultural differences. This can be seen through how they are shown as biologically different. Witches in this world have an extra set of vocal cords and different ear bones, which is what allows them to engage in magic. This highlights how, although they are human, they are still fundamentally different. 

How does the series depict the power of understanding world-creation? 

The choice to focus on the military-industrial complex reflects the creator’s ability to understand how our world, and alternate ones develop. An understanding of American history makes it clear that no one with the level of power witches have would be allowed to roam free. If they weren’t killed in the witch trials, they would have to either be in hiding or serving the country in some manner. This creates the central “villains” of the show, The Scree. The Scree are witch terrorists who use their ability to kill hundreds in attacks. This is specifically done in protest of the witch draft. Despite the ethical differences, there can be clear links drawn between the witch draft and the American military. Even though the military does not have a draft anymore, many people end up having to serve due to financial hardships, which is a focus of many military critiques.  

In what ways do formulations of the past, present, and future engage with prospective realities of what might have been and what might be in the series’ alerted history? 

In the show, magic is performed by singing, hence why the vocal and auditory parts of witches are different from regular humans. This engages with historical mythology of sirens and mermaids. It suggests that song is inherently dangerous, as it serves towards manipulation, particularly when it comes from something that looks human, but is not. In the same way, although witches are human, their internal body parts separate them. 

How do multiple realities or contemplations of multiple realities merge with questions of authenticity? 

The question of authenticity within Motherland is explained by the choice of characters. The three main characters each demonstrate a different perspective on the military draft on witches. Raelle is a reluctant enlistee whose mother was worked to death by the military. Abigail comes from a long line of military witches. Tally enlists because she believes it is her duty to. These three varying backgrounds fit with the various reasons people enlist in the army in our world.

@theuncannyprofessoro

[edwad]

i think that you still harbor sympathies for the production-oriented vision of communism despite what you may think. for example "i want free shit" is considered vulgar but "i hate my job" i'm going to guess isn't. you mentioned something about middle class consumption habits but my critique is aimed precisely in support of the poorer parts of society that can't afford much and need to resort to shoplifting etc. (1)

and yet when someone critiques capitalist production, nobody frames *that* as extending our "middle class" production habits into the future forever. furthermore you tend to make a big fuss about how every organism supposedly needs to work in order to eat but this isn't true for social species. every organism does need to eat though. finally i'm not projecting commodities into the future, just products. you can consume products with no exchange-value (2)

you're really making some assumptions and putting words in my mouth. i never said "i want free shit" is vulgar, but it isn't meaningfully anti-capitalist. i'd say the exact same for "i hate my job" which might as well be the justification for getting a new job rather than saying anything about the system. and LOTS of anti-capitalists question the feasibility of extending middle class consumption habits into the future forever. this is a repeated point from ecosocialists everywhere. i don't make a fuss about how every [individual?] organism needs to work in order to eat, although i do think that food doesn't just naturally grow toward our mouths (and i suppose you wouldn't disagree). also i never said anything about commodities in the first place. so i have no idea where you're getting any of this, although you are definitely extending the categories of political economy forward in a way which i think has implications you don't seem to understand. and none of your arguments here are capable of making a case which doesn't collapse into social democracy, which is the chief challenge to overcome.

[grandhotelabyss]

I've read the Baffler review, the competing LARB reviews, and the Nation interview, and even after all that, I still barely understand what Anna Kornbluh means by "immediacy." From your previous answer, I know you haven't read the book, but can you help us morons understand what she means? You have such a good way of explaining art and ideas (not that art can be "explained") that open up possibilities of thought for the budding belle-lettrist. (I should probably just read it myself...)

Thank you! I think she means that in a host of domains from communications technology to economic transactions to artistic styles to modes of philosophy there were more barriers or relays a thought had to cross on its way to materialization in the world. This allowed thought a greater purchase, in the form of critical distance, upon what the world really is.

Here's a thought: "I would like to make an economic transaction." You once had to go to bank and talk to someone to withdraw cash; then you had to go to a machine to get cash, and now you don't need cash at all but can just tap your card or use your phone to pay for something. In terms of communication, your feed is constantly refreshing on your screen as you're in instant contact with people all around the world. (How would you, specifically, have asked me, specifically, a question like this 30 years ago?) In the world of art, we no longer value novels, for example, that are complex verbal artifacts densely recording a complete fictional heterocosm, but instead we have speed-written records of the author's personal life. Not to mention streaming TV directly reflecting present conditions as we binge-watch them without critical reflection, etc.

As a Marxist, she's probably interested in the way these developments are an intensified form of ideology qua false consciousness, concealing from us in the blur of the world's increasing speed the material economic and political facts subtending these trends: the labor exploited, the forests cleared, the minerals mined in hellish conditions to bring the high and low bourgeoisie of the imperial core its immediate pleasures. When thought was slower and more "mediated" through real experiences—when we held cash in our hand, when we had to sit through the complexities of a Balzac or even a Pynchon novel if we wanted to be entertained—then even this cosseted bourgeoisie found it harder to deny, harder to avoid comprehending and criticizing, the blood and fire the world of capital is actually made of.

That's the best spin I can put on it. I didn't read the whole book, so I'm making assumptions about where she's coming from theoretically and politically. I agree with some of her critiques on an aesthetic level—I don't love Knausgård or Maggie Nelson either—but, as I said on Substack, I think she's observing an autonomous cultural dialectic, as well as paying too much attention to meaningless pop culture and fashionable pseudo-intellectual nonsense ("climate grief," please), and not really peering into the essence of the current economic order, which, as today's bad review in Compact suggests, she doesn't even really grasp. I don't either, but then I don't pretend to. Plus, her own prose style, as several reviewers pointed out and as anyone might notice, abjures the formal corollary of mediated thought in the Marxist critical theory tradition, i.e., Jameson's Anglicizing of the magisterial world-digesting architectonic sentences of Kant and Hegel and Adorno, and instead itself indulges in a certain vulgar and staccato burble.

[spacedkitty]

the definitions amongst the disparate leftist groups seem intentionally setup to cause semantic debates masquerading as ideological debates

the issue is that anti-civ wants to talk about and critique very specific things and one of the main words used to talk about those things is a specific usage of the word civilization.

many leftists just want to prevent anyone from ever thinking about these things or taking anti-civ seriously in the first place which is why they'll often describe anti-civ as primitivist or eco-fash or use some other thought terminating accusation.

this is also why its very common for leftists who do end up talking about anti-civ use entirely different and often useless definitions of civilization. one of the common claims is that civilization means anything humans have ever done... but what exactly is the purpose of that definition? how does it help you talk about or communicate something? its not helpful with talking about anything because its only purpose is to make it harder for people to understand what an anti-civ critique is trying to say. its actually very similar to capitalists saying that capitalism is anytime humans exchange anything so capitalism has always and will always exist.

unfortunately semantic debates are more memeable on the internet so why bother with a difficult ideological debate that might require introspection, questioning of assumptions, and making difficult decisions about where your priorities are.

I worry that this is a sentiment I've seen expressed by almost every group of leftists I've encountered on the internet, each with their own set of terminology/definitions that they state the other groups dismiss out of hand as some form of conspiracy to suppress their particular brand of leftist views.

I don't think any of these groups are wrong exactly, I just worry that perhaps the problem becomes one of insularity. I see why the definition being used is used in this case, because it helps to conceptualize of civilization in this manner when dealing with the particular critiques specific to anti-civ. However, without that context, it's extremely hard to parse and looks far closer to "well, like, society is evil and we should live in mud-huts" than makes sense, and in a world full of fascists, well, I've encountered a few people that truly seem to think that's the right approach..

Without context it is easy to see idiocy in the arguments of others if you are primed to do so (which our present society does an excellent job of).

Often I see people get absorbed into a particular brand of leftism and begin denouncing the others after having furious debates using words that seem to mean different things to the different parties. Sometimes when they encounter something to change their perspective they will jump to another brand with a similar fervor and go on to denounce the former brand with the same fervor they defended it with, now using different definitions.

I still have a great deal to learn, but it always feels difficult to do so when often genuine questions are treated with hostility and a dogmatic approach to a group's views. Which I guess I understand, given the frequency of trolls (from all sides of the political spectrum, let's be honest) attempting to waste people's time with frivolous bullshit.

I find myself looking into anti-civ and finding it compatible in many ways with my understandings of socialism and anarchism, and wondering why it felt so hostile and absurd when first I encountered it. Similar to the feelings I had when first learning of communism, socialism and anarchism.

Many leftists just want to prevent anyone from ever thinking about these things or taking anti-civ seriously

I honestly don't agree with you here. I know there are some who do, but I think the vast majority have gotten into confusing debates that mimicked impassible ideological differences and wrote it off, particularly when discussing with others in their movement.

A common problem I've encountered (particularly in online leftist circles) is one of defending ivory tower knowledge over conversational understanding, which makes understanding other groups significantly harder. If your go-to response to criticism or misunderstanding of your movement is "go read this tome" you open no doors to communication, only offering a silo of separate knowledge and perspective.

In summary, I don't think most leftists are opposed to understanding anti-civ, I think we are just primed by society and other leftist movements to see anti-civ perspectives, without the proper context, as reactionary and regressive. A view I think most leftist groups see in one another.

I hope things could possibly be shifted with better grassroots communication and like, maybe something as silly seeming as leftist dictionaries, but that remains to be seen (by me at least).

[knowldege]

Top Tips for Success on the LNAT

The LNAT is intended to evaluate your intellectual abilities rather than your knowledge of a certain subject. However, students are strongly encouraged to practice and prepare for the exam. It is vital to understand how to prepare for the LNAT. LNAT coaching is also suggested for preparation. There are several ways to prepare for the exam, and reading our top five LNAT tips is a good place to start. Instead of panicking, keep reading to empower yourself with the LNAT preparation strategies you'll need to ace the exam.

1. Understanding the Exam and Preparing for LNAT

It goes without saying that if you want to know how to prepare for LNAT, the types of questions that may be asked, and the timeframes of each subject, you must first understand how the test is constructed.  The exam is quite easy, with a multiple-choice component followed by an essay section. It's also worth noting that the LNAT is used differently at different universities.

2. 'It's Not What You Say, It's How You Say It,'

This recommendation is for the LNAT essay portion. It is a section in which you must respond to a question with an opinionated and well-argued response. Your essay could be about anything, from a philosophical idea to something that is currently in the news.

If you're unfamiliar with a subject, don't be scared to make assumptions. You may make assumptions as long as you inform the reader of your objectives. According to the LNAT website, an essay based on assumptions can be just as strong as one based on facts. Keep in mind that you are not yet a legal expert. You cannot be expected to be knowledgeable on everything from criminal trials to international law. What you must show is your point of view, persuasiveness, conciseness, and flair.

3. Practise is the key

The LNAT practice tests serve well as sample papers. Many publications contain practice questions but keep in mind that they may not be an accurate reflection of what you'll see on the exam. LNAT prep varies from other sorts of test preparation in that you will need specialists to help you prepare for the topic. GoToUniversity's LNAT trainers are among the most skilled and knowledgeable in the industry, having over ten years of experience preparing students with their LNAT classes for their LNAT tests.

4. Learn to Think Critically

You'll be given some reading material to read, and the questions will be based on your understanding of it. You will require critical thinking skills because the authors of this material are providing their own arguments.

Through critical thinking, you will be able to assess and critique an argument. If you can identify the basic argument, justifications, counter-arguments, counter-assertions, assumptions, and fallacies, you will be extremely valuable.

You can improve your critical thinking skills by reading newspapers and critical thinking textbooks. If none of these are available, you can look for fallacies and assumptions on the internet.

5. Keep Calm and Motivated

Keeping focused and relaxed is an important part of learning how to prepare for LNAT. This applies to both the preparation and the exam. As previously stated, the LNAT is a difficult exam; nonetheless, you must remain motivated and endure.

It's OK to be nervous, but don't panic if you get stuck. Panicking will only lead to you forgetting important information for a question and so losing marks.

That brings us to the end of the top five LNAT hints. Hopefully, you found this information useful and feel more prepared for the exam. Best wishes!

[geschiedenisish]

I'm gonna be the controversial person here...

When people say "I can make this" and people get upset saying "abstract and modern art haters are sooo snobby". I feel like that is a more concrete version of the discussion; "This piece of art isn't art." "No! That piece of art IS art." Or even more precisely a discussion around the question "Is this piece art?" with two possible answers "Yes" and "No".

Instead of arguing against the arguments of the people above me. I wanna answer the question starting from scratch.

To determine the answer to the question "Is this a piece of art?" we first need to determine what a piece of art is. Better known as the question "what is/what things are art?"

This question is answered most easily by searching for the border. I think we can all agree Assumption of the Virgin Mary by Rubens is art. So is The Starry Night by Van Gogh. But Blue Monochrome, the painting above? I think the fact that a discussion about this is being held shows this is a "border case". And so is most of modern art. Going further I think something like the art for the game Cuphead is not considered art as in "art that belongs in a museum". Maybe art in the sense that it is drawings, but not art worth hanging in a museum. People wouldn't say "Cuphead has such beautifull artwork" saying it belongs in a museum. But when people say that about Assumption of the Virgin Mary by Rubens, they do mean it belongs in a museum because of how beautiful it is.

Ok, so now we know what does and does not belong in museums, what about the modern art? Why do we have a discussion about it? Well.... I'd argue something is considered art when it hangs in a museum. The exception is art made for religious buildings or rich individuals. Art in the public square is more decoration or like "a statue", but not really A R T.

But now the obvious question becomes, WHEN SHOULD something hang in a museum? Well, this is where we run into the "is-ought" problem. What belongs in a museum is not what IS in our museums. And what belongs in a museum is entirely arbitrary. It's just a way of categorizing things, but it is how we determine what is art and what isn't. Banksy is street art, it's not high art museum worthy. Nor is lofi art on Youtube. But the paintings from the cathedral of Antwerp are high art, if my old art teacher is to be believed.

I wanna conclude by saying the following. Blue Monochrome is in MoMA, one of the most prestigious art museums of NYC. Who decide it deserved to be there? Who decided that abstract and modern art haters are sooo snobby? Who decided that creating an entirely new pigment is worth being praised for in MoMA?

Abstract and modern art haters aren't just being snobby when they ask why we must all praise a completely monochrome painting for no reason because it hangs in MoMA. Abstract and modern art haters aren't just being snobby when they ask why we must all praise modern art that looks like anyone could have made it. Why would only the art critique of connaisseurs be valid? The cultural elite who understand the value of le pièce? What is invalid about the art interpretation of the layman or the modern art hater?

I've tried to remain objective and neutral in my philosophical little essay about art. But I must say the posts above do make my elitist bell go off. The idea that only the opinions or interpretations of the "cultured" are valid, the ones who "actually understand (modern) art", does remind me of a time in which the difference between "the cultured" and "the uncultured" was still visible to the naked eye. And I think we shouldn't perpetuate such an idea.

ALL.INTERPRETATIONS.OF.ART.ARE.VALID.NO.EXCEPTIONS.

abstract and modern art haters are sooo snobby like klein literally Created an entirely new pigment and then painted a canvas in a way where the brush strokes wouldn't be visible. the insinuation that people with no skill could reproduce that is so annoying because unless you are skilled at color mixing and painting you definitely couldn’t lmao

[maestro-elsau-67]

Read this: Here’s a creative dialogue between a AREA 51 and Maestro Elsau - A Detailed Explanation:

Let's analyze and explain this dialogue point by point, as if I were a professor guiding you through the subtext, character psychology, and conceptual framework involved.

Overview:

This dialogue is an allegorical and coded conversation between a character named Maestro Elsau and an enigmatic entity called AREA 51. While the dialogue appears casual, it's deeply layered with themes of identity reconstruction, misperception, withdrawal from public scrutiny, and creative reinvention.

Let’s now examine it line-by-line:

1. AREA 51: "Are they aware of the truth?"

Interpretation:

AREA 51 serves as a metaphorical interlocutor, possibly representing an inner circle, intelligence agency, or even Elsau’s subconscious self or confidants.

The question is deliberately vague—"they" implies the general public, or more specifically, individuals who have misperceived Maestro Elsau.

"The truth" references something central and concealed—presumably his actual racial identity, creative intentions, or the reality behind his public persona.

Academic Analysis:

This question frames the entire dialogue as a discussion of secrecy, misrecognition, and the limits of public understanding.

There's a tension between what is known privately and what has been falsely assumed publicly.

2. Maestro Elsau: "No, they are not. And I would advise silence on the matter—for now."

Interpretation:

Elsau confirms that the public remains unaware of his true identity or circumstances.

His call for discretion ("I would advise silence") suggests that he's choosing strategic withdrawal rather than confrontation at this moment.

Academic Analysis:

Here we see self-preservation through silence, a common theme in autobiographical and confessional literature.

It reflects the philosophy of “strategic invisibility” or controlled authorship—choosing when and how one's truth is revealed.

3. AREA 51: "They believed you were white?"

Interpretation:

A direct inquiry about a major theme: racial misidentification.

This reveals the core misunderstanding that shaped past public perception.

Academic Analysis:

The phrase acknowledges how public perception is shaped not by truth, but by assumption.

It also alludes to the phenomenon of white default projection—in which ambiguous or anonymous creators are presumed to be white unless otherwise stated.

4. Maestro Elsau: "Indeed, they did. A profound misperception—one rooted more in projection than in reality. A delusion, frankly."

Interpretation:

Elsau confirms the misidentification and names it for what it is: a delusion.

He highlights that this false belief says more about the viewers' expectations than about his own reality.

Academic Analysis:

This is a critique of epistemic injustice—a term used in philosophy to describe when individuals are wronged specifically in their capacity as knowers.

Elsau was misperceived not because he misled, but because others filled in blanks with their own biases.

5. AREA 51: "What is our course of action going forward?"

Interpretation:

This question signals a turning point: What now? Should the truth be revealed? Should a campaign of clarification be launched?

Academic Analysis:

It introduces the theme of tactical response to misrecognition—whether to educate, confront, or disengage.

It could be compared to the classic retreat of the artist-intellectual into exile or silence after misrepresentation.

6. Maestro Elsau: "As for myself, I intend to devote the next twenty-four months to writing..."

Interpretation:

Elsau is stepping away from any public battle or clarification.

Instead, he commits to a disciplined creative path—writing over two years.

Academic Analysis:

This is a deliberate act of redirection and reclamation.

Rather than dwelling on identity disputes, Elsau will create a new body of work—letting his new literary voice speak for itself.

7. AREA 51: "Understood. We shall return to read your reflections in 2026. Farewell, Angelo—or rather, Maestro Elsau..."

Interpretation:

AREA 51 acknowledges the plan and shows support.

The shift from “Angelo” to “Maestro Elsau” is symbolic—it’s a name change that reflects transformation, growth, or even protection.

Academic Analysis:

The naming shift echoes themes in literary tradition, where the adoption of a new name marks rebirth, autonomy, or subversion.

It also reflects the right to narrate oneself, to control one's own mythos.

8. Maestro Elsau: "Please—It's Maestro, not Angelo. I’m in the process of forging a new creative identity..."

Interpretation:

He insists on his new name, signaling seriousness about the transition.

He frames this shift as part of a deeper creative rebirth.

Academic Analysis:

Names are acts of self-determination. This insistence parallels real-world cases where artists reject imposed labels and reclaim their narrative.

"Forging a new identity" is an act of resistance against externally imposed expectations.

Conclusion:

This dialogue is ultimately about:

Correcting a historical and social misunderstanding, especially around race.

Reclaiming authorship in both literal and metaphorical terms.

Rejecting the gaze of celebrity culture and passive spectatorship, choosing instead the quiet authority of literary creation.

Announcing a temporary disappearance as a means of healing, reinvention, and introspective productivity.

Final Thoughts for Students:

This short text teaches us about the power of silence, identity, and names. It reminds us that not all battles are fought publicly and that writing itself can be a form of quiet revolution. Maestro Elsau’s decision to retreat, rebrand, and write is not an act of surrender—but of authorship reclaimed.

[giu2024]

Japanese artist Mari Katayama was born in 1987 and creates deeply personal and reflective paintings which question disability, identity, and body image. Katayama was born with congenital tibial hemimelia, when she was born without bones in her tibia, and bilateral amputation at a very young age. This experience made its mark on her work, offered up through the media of self-portrait, sewn-by-hand sculptures, and photographs that challenge the complexities of disability in a society that disregards those that do not conform to "normality."

Mari Katayama works usually with fabric, thread, and prosthetics to build her sculptures skeleton. and afyer she stitches them together by hand, often incorporating her own body into the work. Her sculptures are represented through photography, where she records the intimate relationship between the objects she builds and her own existence.

One of the most famous project of Katayama is the "High Heel Project" that she began in 2011. Through this project, she creates one-of-a-kind prosthetic legs that allow her to walk in high heels—a phenomenon commonly perceived as being representative of femininity and cuteness. It began as a remark she overheard in a college performance at a jazz club, where a customer told her that a woman who wore no high heels was not a woman by any means. The remark led Katayama to challenge the social assumptions made about women and disabled women especially, and to reclaim her power with the prosthetics. In wearing high heels, she not just appropriates feminity on her own terms, but also undoes disability representations and constructions about what it takes to be feminine.

Katayama's body of work is greater than "High Heel Project." She uses a wide range of materials—her own body, attire, and other common objects—to produce sculptures and photographs that critique the problem of personal identity and public image. She believes art must be founded on personal experience, and her work incites debate regarding the body and the way it is viewed in society.

on a interview for her exhibition at the Tate Modern is been ask what role beauty pley in our society and she say "I am interested in people’s common obsession with artificially created beauty, which is something that changes with the times. Yet, there is a type of beauty that

exists regardless of time and place. I want to make things which are universally

beautiful and accessible to everyone." and i think in art and esthetic the word beauty is really subjective not objective and is need to be for everyone to appreciated and exposed to variegated public.

Her artwork has been displayed in the "Performer and Participant" event of Tate Modern in 2023, and she left her mark in contemporary art. Through her life and body of work, Katayama's creation are breaking conventions and opening avenues for better understanding of disability, identity, and human condition.

References:

Katayama, M. (2022). High Heel Project. Retrieved from marikatayama.com

Tate Modern. Mari Katayama: Art Should Be For Everyone. Retrieved from tate.org.uk

[gemsofthegalaxy]

tbh i'm kinda tired of people using the word fanfiction as an adjective or as a presumed synonym for "tropey"/"using popular tropes found in fanfic that focuses on shipping characters". fanfic does have specific tropes and conventions that have become super popular, but it's ultimately not a genre of story, it's it's own artistic media defined by being transformative of at least one source material that is, under current intellectual property laws, owned by someone else.

just because fanfiction usually involves conventions ie., being about a romantic pairing that may or may not have gotten together in the source material, does not mean that is all it is. there are overlaps between popular fanfic tropes and popular romance genre original novel tropes, for sure, but when people use the word fanfic or imply something is "fanficesque" in order to comment on an original piece of fiction it just dilutes our understanding of this particular artistic medium and, i believe maybe muddies our ability to talk about why we feel instinctively an artistic work is reminiscent of fanfic.

it especially frustrates me how vague a statement or critique is that something is "like fanfic" is. as i said in the first line, my assumption is that people are using the word fanfic to mean "using tropes popular in or popularized by fanfic as a medium/culture" but that's just an assumption. in order for words to actually be useful they need to be operationally defined. if a person is complaining or even praising something for being "like fanfic" i don't think that's specific enough because to be useful without having to go in further on what is actually meant by that. again, i would assume they're going to talk about the character-drivenness and romance, and while, i fully admit a LOT of fanfic is comprised of that things that fit that bill, if it's not actually based on another source material it literally is not fanfic and if it IS based on another source material it might be fanfic even if it does not contain the typical conventions of popular fanfic.

it might be fair to ask "why does this source material FEEL like fanfic" but in trying to answer that question you would have to define what it means to feel "like fanfic". therefore bringing it out of this nebulous assumption about what fanfic is and actually talking about the conventions of the medium that give it this fairly cohesive recognizability. as a direct and full statement that "this is fanficcy" it just doesn't really make sense without having to assume what "fanficcy" means and what fanfic actually is is NOT usually what is meant by people saying that, i assume? they're not saying "this feels like a narrative that was written by a non-professional as a direct transformation of an existing source material in order to play around further in the space created by the source material they are transforming". or maybe it is. but unless they actually explain it, it means nothing.

[toemates]

Compulsory Question 1

Critical Thinking Skills module feels like learning to become an architect of thought, almost as if we’re fashioning reality itself. It’s not just about perceiving what’s in front of us but about creating ideas, challenging them, and exploring each layer as if navigating the dream levels in Inception In the film, every level of the dream has unique rules, requiring careful navigation and comprehension. Critical thinking operates in a similar way: each “layer” of thought contains assumptions and perspectives that need to be examined and critiqued. The deeper you go, the more complex the ideas become, with each insight revealing new questions and leading to a more nuanced understanding.

The totem in Inception serves as a powerful analogy here. Just as the characters use their totems to test reality, critical thinking requires self-checking methods our own logic, evidence, and reasoning skills to keep us anchored as we explore complex ideas. Even in the deepest exploration of thought, we need something concrete to keep us grounded.

When I think of teamwork, the monument project stands out. Working with friends to create something meaningful allowed everyone to contribute their unique skills and ideas, making the experience incredibly rewarding. I especially enjoyed seeing ideas evolve, transform, and fuse into a powerful outcome. Such projects show that teamwork isn’t just about achieving the end result but also about combining different perspectives that one person might not envision alone.

Lastly, I want to work on overcoming procrastination. I realize that delaying tasks only leads to unnecessary stress, so I’m aiming to improve my time management skills. Breaking this habit will allow me to work more effectively and reach my goals with greater clarity and confidence.

Critical Thinking as a Qualified Decision Making Tool. (2019, December). Researchgate.

[janaawrites2024]

Required 4.1

Week 11 Writeup #1: Skills-based

Words by: Nike

࣪۶ৎ ۶ৎ How to Write an Article Critique ۶ৎ ۶ৎ

Writing an article critique might sound intimidating at first, but it’s really just about breaking down an article, understanding its main points, and then offering your thoughts on its strengths and weaknesses. I learned all about it due to the writing workshop that my professor held in our class. Here’s a step-by-step guide that I learned from her and through my own self-study that’ll make the process easier, like a friendly roadmap to help you navigate the world of academic analysis.

1. Start with a Brief Summary

Before you can critique the article, you need to understand it! Read through it carefully, and then summarize its main ideas in a paragraph or two. This isn’t about retelling the entire article but rather capturing its core points. Answer these basic questions:

What is the article about?

What is the author’s thesis or main argument?

What are the key points or evidence the author uses?

Think of it like a “Cliff’s Notes” version: just the essentials.

𓆝 𓆟 𓆞 𓆝 𓆟𓆝 𓆟 𓆞 𓆝 𓆟𓆝 𓆟 𓆞 𓆝 𓆟𓆝 𓆟 𓆞 𓆝 𓆟𓆝 𓆟 𓆞 𓆝 𓆟𓆝

2. Identify the Author’s Purpose

What is the author trying to achieve with this article? Are they informing, persuading, or analyzing? Understanding their intent is crucial for critiquing. Ask yourself:

Why did the author write this article?

What are they trying to prove, or what message do they want to convey?

How do they support their argument?

This will help you assess whether the author successfully meets their purpose.

𓆝 𓆟 𓆞 𓆝 𓆟𓆝 𓆟 𓆞 𓆝 𓆟𓆝 𓆟 𓆞 𓆝 𓆟𓆝 𓆟 𓆞 𓆝 𓆟𓆝 𓆟 𓆞 𓆝 𓆟𓆝

3. Evaluate the Evidence

A good article relies on strong evidence. As you read through, ask yourself:

Is the evidence convincing?

Are the sources credible?

Are there any gaps in the research or data?

Does the author make logical, clear connections between their evidence and their argument, or is there a weak link somewhere?

This is where you start offering your critique: does the author do a good job supporting their claims, or is there something lacking?

𓆝 𓆟 𓆞 𓆝 𓆟𓆝 𓆟 𓆞 𓆝 𓆟𓆝 𓆟 𓆞 𓆝 𓆟𓆝 𓆟 𓆞 𓆝 𓆟𓆝 𓆟 𓆞 𓆝 𓆟𓆝

4. Analyze the Structure and Organization

How well is the article put together? A well-organized article makes it easier to follow the argument. Look at how the author structures their ideas:

Is the article logically organized with clear headings, subheadings, or sections?

Does each section build on the previous one, or are there confusing jumps?

Does the introduction clearly lay out the thesis, and does the conclusion effectively wrap things up?

If the article’s organization is chaotic or difficult to follow, that’s something you’ll want to note in your critique.

𓆝 𓆟 𓆞 𓆝 𓆟𓆝 𓆟 𓆞 𓆝 𓆟𓆝 𓆟 𓆞 𓆝 𓆟𓆝 𓆟 𓆞 𓆝 𓆟𓆝 𓆟 𓆞 𓆝 𓆟𓆝

5. Look for Bias and Limitations

No article is perfect, and every argument has its limits. Is the author’s perspective balanced, or do they show clear bias? Keep an eye out for:

Overly one-sided arguments or selective use of evidence

Any assumptions the author makes without justification

Gaps or areas that are not explored in-depth

Don’t just look for flaws—think critically about whether the author could have explored other perspectives or evidence to make their argument more complete.

𓆝 𓆟 𓆞 𓆝 𓆟𓆝 𓆟 𓆞 𓆝 𓆟𓆝 𓆟 𓆞 𓆝 𓆟𓆝 𓆟 𓆞 𓆝 𓆟𓆝 𓆟 𓆞 𓆝 𓆟𓆝

6. Consider the Writing Style

How readable is the article? Even if the content is solid, the way it’s written matters too. Consider:

Is the writing clear and accessible, or is it jargon-heavy and confusing?

Is the tone appropriate for the audience (academic, professional, casual)?

Does the author engage the reader or is the article dry?

A critique isn’t just about the content; it’s about how the content is presented too.

𓆝 𓆟 𓆞 𓆝 𓆟𓆝 𓆟 𓆞 𓆝 𓆟𓆝 𓆟 𓆞 𓆝 𓆟𓆝 𓆟 𓆞 𓆝 𓆟𓆝 𓆟 𓆞 𓆝 𓆟𓆝

7. Offer Your Personal Assessment

Now comes the heart of the critique—your own judgment! Reflect on what you read, considering both the strengths and weaknesses:

What did the author do well?

What could have been improved?

Did the article change or challenge your thinking in any way?

You don’t have to agree with everything in the article, but you should be able to provide a reasoned argument for your stance.

𓆝 𓆟 𓆞 𓆝 𓆟𓆝 𓆟 𓆞 𓆝 𓆟𓆝 𓆟 𓆞 𓆝 𓆟𓆝 𓆟 𓆞 𓆝 𓆟𓆝 𓆟 𓆞 𓆝 𓆟𓆝

8. Be Constructive and Respectful

Critiques aren’t about tearing down an article—they’re about offering thoughtful analysis. When pointing out weaknesses, offer suggestions for improvement. For example:

Instead of saying, “The article is full of errors,” try, “The author could strengthen their argument by addressing X, which would make the claim more robust.”

Instead of, “This was boring,” try, “The author’s writing style might be clearer with more engaging language or real-world examples.”

Your critique should feel like a conversation with the author, even if you never speak to them directly.

𓆝 𓆟 𓆞 𓆝 𓆟𓆝 𓆟 𓆞 𓆝 𓆟𓆝 𓆟 𓆞 𓆝 𓆟𓆝 𓆟 𓆞 𓆝 𓆟𓆝 𓆟 𓆞 𓆝 𓆟𓆝

9. Write the Critique

Now that you’ve gathered your thoughts, it’s time to put everything together in a coherent critique. A basic structure for your article critique might look like this:

Introduction: Briefly introduce the article (author, title, publication), and give an overview of its purpose.

Summary: Provide a concise summary of the article’s main points and arguments.

Analysis: Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the article, touching on evidence, structure, style, and any biases.

Conclusion: Wrap up your critique by summarizing your overall evaluation and offering your final thoughts. You can also suggest areas for improvement or questions the article leaves unanswered.

𓆝 𓆟 𓆞 𓆝 𓆟𓆝 𓆟 𓆞 𓆝 𓆟𓆝 𓆟 𓆞 𓆝 𓆟𓆝 𓆟 𓆞 𓆝 𓆟𓆝 𓆟 𓆞 𓆝 𓆟𓆝

10. Proofread and Revise

Like any piece of writing, your critique will benefit from a thorough review. Check for:

Clarity and coherence—are your ideas presented logically?

Grammar and spelling errors

Any points you might have missed or could elaborate on further.

𓆝 𓆟 𓆞 𓆝 𓆟𓆝 𓆟 𓆞 𓆝 𓆟𓆝 𓆟 𓆞 𓆝 𓆟𓆝 𓆟 𓆞 𓆝 𓆟𓆝 𓆟 𓆞 𓆝 𓆟𓆝

Writing a critique isn’t about just finding faults; it’s about offering a balanced, thoughtful analysis that considers both the strengths and limitations of the article. By following these steps, you’ll be able to construct a fair, well-rounded critique that shows a deep understanding of the article and demonstrates your critical thinking skills.

Happy critiquing!

References: