Something that’s always aggravated me to no end is when people claim that a book, film, painting, album, or other creative endeavor is free from criticism because it’s “art.” Critical immunity is something I’ve spoken about in the past, but I want to focus on the art world today.

I need to make something incredibly clear: art appreciation is subjective, but art itself is not. What most people fail to realize is that any piece of art, no matter the medium, still requires certain techniques in order to produce it. Those techniques are not opinions; they are merely processes subject to criticism just like anything else.

Take a film, for example. Your personal opinions on the overall product nonwithstanding…how was the acting? The editing? Sound design? Special effects? All of those are tried-and-true techniques that are taught, learned, and mastered. If a film is poorly edited, your comments on it must take that into account, otherwise you’re simply wrong. The same applies if a film has fantastic special effects, but you pan them because you didn’t like how they were used to advance the story. You’re incorrectly dumping your opinion on quantifiable techniques, rather than feelings toward the final product.

Criticism should be specific rather than generic. When it’s the latter, you’re often criticizing someone’s appreciation of the medium rather than actual details of a certain work within that medium. That has nothing to do with the work itself, and thus has no place in proper criticism of art.