Critics

"I came upon an interesting contradiction in my readings, the roll of the critic. They are traditionally and stereotypically seen as some sort of parasitic growth upon the artistic fields, merely there to offer their own opinion, and expecting to be paid for it. Typically they offer simple emphasis on the work's down-fallings, without acknowledging the pieces worth, or what went right in it. Yet there are those few gems who manage to point out what went well, and offer a relatively unbiased view of the piece that could be considered helpful. It seems generally accepted that critics should be done away with. Yet in his works, Bell applauds the critic, calles them useful, uses them to point out things he may have missed, to give him a different perspective."
The dragon looks at me for a minute then responds: "Both these view seem valid to me, while some critics are parasitic, and detrimental in nature, others seem to give worthwhile reviews, that contain shocking insight into the piece's nature, along with the critic's own personal opinion of the piece. A good question would have to be: Should criticism be treated as a profession and paid and respected as such, or should it be treated as a hobby, with the artist choosing to endorse reviews as they like, and newspapers donating money if the choose to, making the quality of the article more important than the affordability of the critic."

And so, I pose the dragon's question to you, my friends: Should criticism be treated as a profession, or as a hobby?