To "There is no sophistication without knowledge", I might add ...
"Without experience there is no knowledge."Now I know (from experience) that it takes about 2000 hours of experience to get a fairly good grasp of some new "thing". And about 5000 hours to master it. So why doesn't the critic of anything take the time to learn the craft and produce an artifact in that craft so that he can say, "here is my example of what a good work in this genre looks like."?!?
Well, of course the answer is that this would require honest work and that is not a field in which the critic wishes to play.
A typical excuse for not acquiring the necessary skill is "I don't have any (innate) talent in that area." This is the most explicit confession of a lack of knowledge that I can conceive of, for, as anyone with experience knows ...
They approach their "job" with a snide, knowing cynicism that is immediately both repulsive and curious. It is repulsive because the average citizen does not possess the same deep hatred for "life and reason" while curious because the listener/reader does not understand the true motivations behind that which is being expounded.
Certainly, there are supposed critics who are not numbered among the foregoing. But these tend to be more accurately described as "commentators - sans experience". A commentator (no experience necessary) is what we all wish to be ... the person who gets to give his views on personal likes and dislikes.
Siskel and Ebert (movie critics) are of this type. They think that they know something about movie making but they don't to any great depth because of lack of experience.
They have experience "watching" movies.The absolute proof that they know little and are only expressing personal opinion is that they ... disagree ... at very fundamental levels ... often.
Now if you know something about a subject, you must expect there are some general rules about that subject that everyone studying it would discover independently. They would find permanent agreement on almost all the movies they review. I find myself agreeng or disagreeing with them on a random basis on about 50% of reviewed movies while agreeing on the other 50%.
Not a very good indicator of objectivity ...
What good do commentators without experience do then? Nothing ... just entertainment and information about the thing commented on. And possibly ... if a good correlation exists between you and the commentator ... useful evaluative info of the type ... "If he likes it, I will like it because I like everything he likes." ... see?
Why aren't there more critics with experience?Simply ... if you have experience ...
You don't talk about it