What is the difference between critic and reviewer

A CRITIC specializes in only one art form reviewing new openings writing longer essays on theatre, for instance--staff member of the Entertainment Section of the paper most critics are experts in their fields -- theatre, fine arts, architecture, dance, sculpture, music they assign value and historical significance to a performance by relating it to other works in the genre, by the playwright or the actors. According to William Glackin of the Sacramento Calif.

Bee : "One might say simply that a critic is a man who has a lot of time to think about his views, plenty of space to write about them, readers who already know the background of what he is talking about, and the authoritative knowledge to locate a given work of art in a meaningful place in the whole history of the art. A reviewer is a fellow who tries to tell you in personal terms what happened with the art and what the experience was like.

Your REVIEW will appear the week that the activity begins because you as the reviewer attended opening night of the performance. Usually written from a PR release or feature release or from an advance showing for the media. Advance activities may even include an interview opportunity with a celebrity or the artist being featured in a gallery exhibit. What is pretty to one listener may be annoying to another. To answer this question I will describe what I perceive as the difference between a review and a critique.

Curiously, the word critique has as its root the concept of negative opinion as in criticism. On the other hand, a review should be the dissemination of information with the desired intention being elucidation. The idea is that with this information, the listener is equipped to form his own opinion. The very act of review presupposes that the writer is recommending the work to be worthy of attention.

In a review, there is no opportunity for negative opinion, because the gist of the writing should be objective information. In no case should a review turn personal. All that accomplishes is to reveal more about the writer than the subject. It might be helpful time and space permitting to question the artist directly or at least if notes are given, use them as source material.

As a whole, the idea is for the writer to guide a reader through the work by highlighting various factors which shaped the piece in question. DukeofChutney replied the topic: 25 Aug In my view a critic should have something more significant to say than whether the product is good or bad. The critic should be making an artistic or cultural judgement.

I think its hard to pin down what that may look like precisely. This is fairly common in film or videogames. In boardgames because it is a lower value market the product review is still the dominant form. To me: Review: analysis of the thing itself and how or poorly well it meets its goals. Critique: much broader in scope. Analysis of the thing, how the thing fits into the historical and cultural context of similar things which have come before, how well or poorly it meets its goals, whether its goals are worth meeting or not, and why.

Et cetera. Vysetron replied the topic: 26 Aug So is there any game that merits "critique" using dysjunct's definition? Is there any boardgame that has the reach, cultural impact, and social commentary like a film, book, or documentary?

I'd guess chess, go, maybe DnD? Something that reflects the culture from which is was created and can change the player and the audience. Not to say those are bad games, far from it, but if "critique" has a loftier aim than just "is it any good? Sagrilarus replied the topic: 26 Aug I think games like An Infamous Traffic or Angola open the opportunity for a broader discussion.

You can question whether they bring insight into the moment in history they present, but that question, regardless of answer, is warranted. Gary Sax replied the topic: 26 Aug You could also include something like Greed Inc.

There are a number of games that I would argue are a critique of their subject. John Company implictly is, as well, but Sagrilarius brings up the similar Infamous Traffic. Games can be good at answering the question of "why? I mean, the wider context can still be the context of boardgaming - it doesn't have to be like, where does the game fit into humanity or whatever not that it can't include that either. Review of the next deluxified soulless euro game: there's a few things to like here; there are so many different ways to get those points and the components, wow.

If you like a point salad this one is for you, etc etc. Critique of the next deluxified soulless euro game: we've been here before - what's new? Nothing here is pushing the boundaries - it's just like the last one. And why are we so slavishly beholden to deluxe components? A critique is usually written by a critic. A critic is an expert in a particular field, so he can comment on a particular theory or work in depth.

Therefore, a critique is more reliable than a review. A critique can look at separate components of a work as well as the overall impression of the work.

A critique can be very technical since the critic has expert knowledge in the field. It can contain information like techniques, trends in the field, etc. A review describes, analyses and evaluates a work.