Why did The Beatles get so many bad reviews?
It&#x27;s a really interesting piece but I feel the need to question the premise that there&#x27;s a &quot;wrong&quot; or &quot;right&quot; with art criticism, as if the purpose of a critique is to reveal to the reader the true state of an artwork — as opposed to just being an expression of an opinion.<p>I realize that &quot;getting it wrong&quot; could be a shorthand for &quot;being so different from the historical majority opinion&quot; but the piece doesn&#x27;t seem to approach things that way.<p>It&#x27;s significant in a way because I think over time majority opinions have a way of stifling minority perspectives on things that are most popularly seen as &quot;great art&quot;. I don&#x27;t mean to sound contrarian, I&#x27;m just suggesting that maybe consensus about a given work isn&#x27;t quite what it seems all the time, that there are social pressures and dynamics at play that sometimes distort how people might consciously consider a piece versus how they might react to it completely independently without labels.<p>I also think it points to other things, like art perception being contextually dependent. People change and their tastes change — it doesn&#x27;t mean one perspective is invalid, just that it was occuring in a different time.<p>Of course, sometimes people just don&#x27;t fully appreciate something because it&#x27;s new and are looking at it with a certain lack of imagination. But I also sometimes think we look back at the past as if it were preordained, more so than how we see the future.