Playwright Edward Albee, author of “Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf,” has some harsh criticism for critics.
“Some critics cater to existing taste,” says Albee. “What they should be doing is trying to improve it.”
It seems to me that opinions as to the function of critics vary, and there are basically 3 schools of thought as to what a critic should do:
A) Let you know what he, the critic, thought of the movie, play, book, or record.
B) Help you determine whether you’d like it and should spend your time and money to read, see, or hear it.
C) Help you improve your tastes so you CAN enjoy a higher level of art (as Albee seems to think).
Which do you think is the critic’s role — A, B, C, or something completely different? And why?