Can one critique from the point of ignorance? “When the music (or art, or writing) moves you, it is good.” That is pretty much the basis of judgement. Knowledge changes the level of appreciation. We can criticize from the point of ignorance, but we cannot critique without knowledge.
Listening to a recording of myself reading for the first time was a startling experience. The voice was a monotone, expressionless and boring. My own criticism did not make me a better reader. Rather, it was through realizing the lack of rhythm and tonal variations in the voice that I began to make improvements.
A critic said about Philip Glass, that all his music sounds the same. Glass replied, “You have to listen. You have to pay attention.”
I don’t think it’s possible to critique from the point of view of ignorance. We always criticize from the point of view of some sort of knowledge–though it may not be specific knowledge of the art we’re criticizing (which is what I think you mean by “ignorance”). Our judgements–ill advised as they sometimes are– always come from some sort of context. But the context may not be appropriate to the subject under consideration. Someone who knows all about fishing and little about poetry may make a judgement about a poem: I like / don’t like it. But he isn’t someone I’d listen to if I wanted feedback about my poems.
Critic, Critique, Criterion. They all have a common root, kritikos, able to discern. Criterion, a standard rule or test on which a judgment is based; Critique, the art of criticism; Critic, a specialist in judgment. I think of real critics as artists. Art is the process and product of craft which is able to evoke in a participent a psychic event. Psychic, of the psyche, the motion from the nutritive to the intuitive, the highest level of intelligence. Mann said, “To wholly merge thought with feeling, to wholly merge feeling with thought; these are the artists greatest joys.” The critic I’m drawn to is the one who loves the subect, the art, and brings all their powers to bear to show us why it is valuable. Unfortunately this same critic often fails miserably when faced with the task of critiquing something they loath.
How you critique what someone feels?
A critic’s critique should be knowledge based. How does a piece of art or music fit in (or not) in the realm of history? What is its effect? Does it change something or give us something that’s not there before? Is it life-changing? Feeling is personal. While it does play a part in the critique, it should only be a part, and not the whole.
Mario, you investigate, analyze, how the art makes one feel. Clara, sounds too close to Science and the Objective for my taste, and I don’t believe you can separate thought and feeling (the irony in Mann’s statement); they are both psychic and one always leads to the other.