I enjoy Michael Bay movies. There, I’ve said it. According to the vast majority of film critics this makes me no-taste, mouth-breathing Troglodyte. This must be true because everyone knows that critics know more about movies than I do.

This great deception is based on the idea that the masses wouldn’t know or appreciate art if they tripped over it. Critics are all about meaning and depth and (my least favorite) importance. Without these, they tell us, a movie is cheap, trashy, worthless etc. I think they are missing the point.

Art serves two purposes. The first is the expression of the artist’s vision. No one can judge the success of this except the artist. The second is to generate a response in the audience. As the audience I think I can figure out my reaction for myself. Once art is commercialized in the form of movies, music or any other medium where a third party has an interest then profit must also be added to the purposes.

Because movies require a significantly larger third party investment, that need for profitability increases proportionately. This leads to the divide between high cost, profit-driven studio pictures and lower cost, vision-driven independent films. Given a choice, critics will almost always snub the “populist” studio movie in favour of the more elitist independent film. Personally, I enjoy both types. Which is why it irks me to see alleged experts insisting on this artificial divide. They tear down the popular to build up that which is less so. In doing do so they cut away two of the tripods three legs. They ignore the audience, and in doing so deny the ugly truth of that art costs money.

Of course they also maintain the myth that for art to be art, it must be inaccessible to the “average” person. If I or anyone else can say that something is good where does that leave the professional critics?

The only valid critics are those whose subject requires specialty knowledge. An example of which would be an automotive journalist. They have knowledge which I do not and so it makes sense for me to pay attention to what they say. Movie critics can claim no such specialization. Film school notwithstanding, they are still not qualified to tell me what I do, or do not enjoy. It is fine to say that they did not enjoy a movie for whatever reason. When they say no one else should either, they cross the line from simple opinion to self-important delusions of grandeur.

The other leg of the the tripod is of course profit. While everyone treats it like a dirty word, nothing could be further from the truth. Profit is a convenient measure of success in the public space which movies inhabit. If a movie is created to have broad appeal and generate large profits it is still art. For such a movie success is measured by it’s popularity and thus profitability.

By this measure, contrary to what critics and their parrots will tell you, Michael Bay is a good film-maker. (See, I typed that and the Art Gods didn’t smite me.). Let me clarify. Any 100m Olympic sprinter can tell you, you don’t take the gold by sucking at running. Michael Bay is the artist putting his vision out there, the audience is overwhelmingly positive in their response leading to high profits and happy studios. Mr. Bay gets hired to make movies that fill theaters and make money. That’s what he does, and he does it extremely well. He has filled a niche in a highly competitive market, and his success is proof of one important fact: no matter how they try, critics can’t actually tell a person what they will like.