The incubation of thought has always been an interesting topic to me. In a society where everyone is a critic, I sometimes wonder how credible these critics actually are; and if you can ever truly state a point of view neutrally, without inevitably inputting a personal opinion.
The thought process is after all, a relentless journey, and the sanctuary of inputting data, and expecting the process to end from such input, is unfortunately a rare affair. I cannot count with digits from my hands and feet, the amount of times I have changed my perception of a piece of design work. Which at first, I attributed to my wishy-washy personality…
Further probing though, reveals something more complex. The incubation of thought it seems, and the time taken for it to turn from an intangible thought, to a tangible written documentation is somewhat a grey area. Because you can never really know when a thought is mature, or if it can ever truly be mature.
That to me is disturbing. After all, the nature of a critics work, is to review a subject after an interaction with it; and that review, can vary from a few hours to a few days–when penned, stays engraved in physical form. The idea that the critic can change his or her mind on the piece in the future, reveals a system that is flawed.
To be frank, a critic can return to update a piece in a future date, but how often do people look forward to stale news. It is the current trends that matter. The who’s who, and what’s what.
Unlike a product, where a reviewer is allow to comment on its durability, or functionality at a later date. A critic does not work that way. It is often the most current, most unfiltered thoughts that prevail; and while fresh out of the oven, is always subjected to the potentiality of hindsight.
FILM | PSYCHOLOGY | SOCIOLOGY