[chipsy]

There are many creators out there who want to remain completely uncritical. They are happy they made something, and they don't need to be told that they're doing it wrong, because their goals were internal and self-set from the beginning. But the whole premise of the artist even trying to speak to an audience is to decide what is important to say, what is necessary and what is unnecessary - both what the audience will like, and what is good for them to like. And so artists who are aiming not just to say anything, but to say the "best" things possible, eventually gravitate towards a critical lens.

Critique is a discussion that is semi-private: It takes place between the critic and the artist, and not the audience as a whole. Audience members have the final decision in that they can walk away from the resulting discourse, but this doesn't mean that they need to intervene and announce which things should or should not be open for critique. When the audience does intervene directly in criticism, it generally amounts to bullying of either the critic or the artist, or sometimes both; it's not productive.

Where this dialogue becomes messy is when the space of discussion has not been agreed upon: Should this discussion aim for criticism or not? If "no," simply say you're thinking that. But if you're presenting an argument to avoid criticism as a means of shutting down a criticism, you're being a bully.