“The popular widening of criticism today, where everyone can be a critic, and where every blogger can express an opinion on literature and the arts, has meant the death of the critic and the voice of the informed minority, to be replaced by a proliferation of the voices of mediocrity.”

                                                          – Irene Gilsenan Nordin, The Role of the Critic Today

“Of all those who are involved in the arts, critics are perhaps the least understood, the least valued.”

So wrote Professor Saul N. Scher in the 1974 edition of Today’s Speech. Forty years on, things haven’t gotten much easier.

In today’s information-soaked society, it’s hard to find someone who isn’t a critic. Rather than struggling for the attention of magazines and the ever-shrinking arts sections of the major metropolitans, budding writers eager to shred the latest Dan Brown novel are instead turning to blogging and social media to make a name for themselves as the Eliots of the 21^st century (just remember to subscribe).

While it may seem that this shifting media landscape leaves little room for the professional arts journalist trying to earn a living off their work, the truth is that the role of the critic is more important than ever – it’s just changed a little.

For Melbourne-based film journalist Tom Clift the rise of social media didn’t mark the death of the critic, but the birth of one.

From his modest beginnings blogging film reviews between classes in high school, Tom went on to co-found international film website Movie Mezzanine and now works freelance as an accredited film critic in print, online and on-air. Tom’s passion for cinema has since taken him on a gleeful circuit of international film festivals stretching from Toronto to the Czech Republic.

Not bad for a writer who got his first big break over twitter.

Although it may sound odd, Tom’s story is rapidly becoming the norm in an industry eschewing traditional forms of media in favour of aggregate ratings and the self-published review.

Reflecting on the rise of the blogger in a field previously dominated by an elite minority, Tom described the ubiquity of social media as a fundamental change in the media landscape – though for better or worse was difficult to say.

“The internet’s definitely made it easier to set up a blog and find an audience,” Tom said, “Even if you’re just using it as a platform to express your own views.”

According to Tom, the advent of the digital age hasn’t just made it easier to break into the industry – it’s completely changed the role of the critic in society.

“I think the days of the critic as this trusted figure, of David and Margaret at the Movies or Roger Ebert over in America, are coming to an end. People aren’t seeing films because David and Margaret gave them a positive review; they’re looking up its score on Rotten Tomatoes.”

Unsurprisingly for a medium birthed by the tenets of harnessing collective intelligence, the internet has wasted little time in establishing a tradition of review by consensus. Rotten Tomatoes, perhaps the most famous example of a film review aggregator, provides a compelling reason as to the dwindling number of mainstream critics.

Rather than focusing on individual reviews, Rotten Tomatoes adds up the ratings of what can be hundreds of accredited critics under its umbrella and presents the result as a single percentage score. The convenience of this system is clear; rather than having to wade through several lengthy reviews, potential movie-goers can simply find the popular consensus on a movie – and its subsequent value – in a single number.

For casual movie-goers, this means a more expedient way of choosing between The Artist and Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen. For up and coming film critics, this means the unfortunate realisation that the newfound ease with which they can broadcast their opinions via the internet hasn’t led to a wider audience, but an ever-shrinking one.

“The style of critics is becoming increasingly niche,” Tom said. “The ones who write in-depth commentary and analysis are writing mainly for a small, passionate audience.”

Naturally, Tom says, a good critic has to make sure their writing is accessible not just to a clued-in minority, but the wider public as well.

“I think that criticism has to have a slightly academic bent to it while still being readable – you have to know your audience. Your readers, your editor, your word count – you’re always tailoring your writing to the publication.”

“The best art offers a commentary on the time it was made in, and I think the best writing – the best criticism – reflects that.”

In her 2008 international seminar Women, Poetry and Criticism: The Role of the Critic Today, Dalarna University professor Dr Irene Gilsenan Nordin derides this change in the public’s perception of critics – and their relevance to a mainstream audience.

“Criticism today is seen either as part of the public relations work of the literary industry, or an internal matter for academics,” she wrote.

Rather than pushing informed voices to the fringes of public discourse, Dr Nordin advocates a return to the ideal of the critic as a fundamental point of reflection for a society and its culture.

“The voice of the critic was that of the educated Everyman,” writes Dr Nordin. “He was a cultural commentator of society as a whole, one who opened the eyes of his reader to literature, taught him to think, and helped him to form judgements about art and life.”

But is the loss – if there has been such a loss – of this figure necessarily a bad thing? Certainly, word-of-mouth has always been central to the success of an artwork, whether it be a film, book or exhibition – more so, it could be argued, than any one person’s opinion. What is the rise of the blogger if not the extension of the everyman’s voice into the digital sphere?

As demonstrated by Tom’s success, there will always be an audience – however small – for informed, in-depth discussion on art and film. But in his eyes, the role of the critic extends beyond simply preaching to the converted.

“I think the most important role of a critic is to shine a light on a film that wouldn’t be getting any attention otherwise,” Tom said. “It could just be a small, independent film playing in maybe one cinema that no one would see.”

In this way, the critics of the digital age are adapting to a medium that allows for an unparalleled level of public discussion by drawing attention to those voices that may be drowned out by the tyranny of the majority.

But high-minded ideals on their own are not enough to ensure the survival of the critic in the digital age.

Writing in the summer of 1974, Professor Saul N. Scher of the University of Maine emphasises the importance of a critic’s language in connecting them with the public.

“A critic’s insights need to be matched by the eloquence and power of his expression, his ability to recreate and interpret an artistic experience through the clarity and vigour of his language,” Professor Scher said.

As we can tell from this remark’s (relative) age, scintillating copy has always been central to the success of a critic. But as a medium evolves, so too must the wording of its message – a change not all arts journalists are keeping up with.

Broadly speaking, a forum where anyone can post their opinion encourages a more personal style than the authoritative voice of traditional print establishments – and we can see this reflected in the way in which online critics are writing to their audience.

Concrete Playground’s Melbourne arts editor Meg Watson sees the Australian website as the perfect medium for the increasingly intimate nature of reviews.

“We make a conscious effort to be informal and colloquial,” she said.

“Even though we absolutely report all the facts, it’s conveyed in the same way one of our readers would describe something to a friend — it’s relaxed. Because of this we can freely express opinions, play something out for laughs, and connect with our readers in ways you wouldn’t see in conventional hard news journalism.”

For Meg Watson and other online arts editors, the way to compete lies somewhere between the credibility of established print media and the free-form world of blogging and social media. Central to this challenge is building an understanding of their audience – something Concrete Playground has excelled at.

Founded by Rich Fogarty in 2009, Concrete Playground straddles the line between culture hub and social calendar. Much like Tom and other self-made arts journalists, Concrete Playground initially directed its content at the existing culture lovers of the online community rather than attempting to establish a mainstream following off the bat.

“Our readers are dedicated followers of the arts and we can assume certain levels of knowledge or understanding,” Meg said. “They want an evaluation of the work, but they also want a taste of it.”

Obviously, she adds, this approach would be ill-suited to the Australian legacy media.

“If I worked at The Herald Sun, my thought process would be different. With a much broader audience, the aim of the review becomes simpler — ‘should I go see this film’ etcetera. If I worked at a literary journal, I would probe deeper — ‘what are the cultural ramifications of this film’, that sort of thing.”

For Meg, the position of the critic still plays a crucial role in shaping society’s image of itself.

“All art can be linked into larger political or historical discussions. The fact it’s seen as a softer beat than finance or politics, doesn’t change its methods or standards,” she said.

“At their heart, reviews are about expressing your reaction to a work, then justifying it.”

This is perhaps the most crucial argument for the continued existence of the informed, educated critic. In a time when it is possible for anyone to publish their opinion on a work of art, it is still vital that there are those who have the ability to bring to that analysis a level of depth and nuance that allows us a greater understanding of the society that shaped it.

When asked about the significance of his work as a critic, Tom was flippant.

“I don’t have any illusions about it being a particularly important job,” he laughed.

“I don’t think I’m changing the world by writing about movies.”

But perhaps there’s more to his work than he gives himself credit for.

In her article “Criticising the Critics”, Vivian Gornick writes of the times when public discourse loses something – a sense of urgency, of weight.

“It is then, when the spirit of a time feels dissipated rather than fired, that the imaginative or critical sensibility must work to associate to the moment: get beneath the surface of things, separate the significant from the symptomatic, integrate fact and impression at a level deeper than that of journalistic description.”

Sounds like a good place to begin.