My response to creators who don't like critics is always the same: You're not supposed to. Which doesn't mean you are specifically supposed to not like them, but you're not specifically supposed to like them, and whether you like them is beside the point. Criticism is not advice or correction.
Comments
Because I would argue that many people on the internet, when critiquing some art creation DO wholly step into approbation and near-ostracism of the creators for their artistic decisions—where it IS personal and destructive, and intended to be so.
Basically, the podcastification of art criticism.
We can make normative statements like "it is up to the public to discern facts" (and I do all the time) but we know the broad public is basically irrational (and immoral).
There is no superordinate authority that gets to draw The Line. So there is no Line. Which is an opening for iconoclasts and insurgents to attack through.
Critics are an integral part of the creative process, and I am absolutely supposed to like the ones that do the job right and inspire me to strive to improve my craft after every outing, even (especially) if their reviews are harshly negative.
I think every brow furrowed at that point. The man did not understand.
Until then, I thought it just meant to point out the faults. But it can be "This is great! Here's all the reasons why!".
I don't think many creators know this.
I'm less happy when people misunderstand or miss the point I'm making. That is still valuable feedback though, and likely my fault!
I'm not against it entirely btw, just how it's done nowadays
People are different. It may not work for you because you don't have the life experiences to appreciate it. And yet, you are reducing that piece of art to good or bad in near absolute terms