Somehow i find a strange double standard or, at least contradiction, in the 'art' world regarding entitlement to giving criticism (and about teaching the same).
On one side, it is kinda well-accepted that if you are a well-known, well-established, well-respected, good photographer your criticism is welcome and worthy, you do know what you are talking about, and if you are a nobody or somebody who obviously has no special photography talent nor reputation, your criticism to others' work is of a lesser value. I could even accept this reasoning.
Now on the other hand, we all seem to be up to criticising a movie or music, and acccepting written reviews of these, while how many of us (or even of the famous critics whos writing we acknowledge as valid) ever made (even a crappy) movie or produced anything musical that doesn't hurt the ears? Raaaarely..
How do you explain this discrepancy?