Where have all the vanguards gone? We need strong critics again

The Chinese model carries obvious risks for free speech, but it also throws the Western paradox into relief.

We have replaced discernment with decibels. 

At its worst, regulation silences; at its worst, deregulation drowns us. We have built algorithms that reward familiarity over depth, affirmation over fact. We don’t ask who knows; we listen to whoever sounds most convincing or has the largest following in our personal echo chamber.

And expertise shouldn’t stop at medicine or law. What about culture? Don’t art, fashion, food, dance and music deserve a higher standard too — or at least an expert-verified tick instead of an audience one? 

My solution: bring back critics. The real ones.

A frictional force

Critics were once a frictional force – editors, curators, designers, chefs and historians – who trained, learned, risked and spoke because they knew. Uncomfortable, unflinching, essential.

The New Yorker’s Pauline Kael infuriated Hollywood with her brutal honesty. She called The Sound of Music “sugar-coated lies” and clashed with studios that tried to bar her from screenings.

Art critic Dave Hickey, the self-anointed “bad boy of art criticism”, once quit writing for Artforum after they softened his language. “Without argument,” he said, “there is no art.”

Food critic Ruth Reichl disguised herself as six different characters to dine anonymously, exposing restaurants that treated the famous differently from everyone else – a lesson in integrity now lost in the age of influencer press dinners.

Roger Ebert refused to attend press junkets to avoid “studio hospitality”. A small rebellion that kept reviews clean.

And Pete Wells of The New York Times showed that a single, thoughtful review could spark a cultural reckoning. His critique of Locol ignited a nationwide debate on whether good intentions excused bad cooking.

Cathy Horyn, fashion critic at The New York Times, was banned from Armani’s show in 2012 for her unflinching coverage, just as food critic Josh Ozersky was blacklisted by Momofuku. They grated, and that’s why they were good.

Vanguards took risks. They staked reputation for revelation. They weren’t always right – some abused their influence and paid the price – but at least the conversation had stakes.

Who pays, wins

In today’s creator economy, social media reviews carry more weight than entire arts sections once did. Fashion is judged by feeling, restaurants can live or die by an aesthetic, and books trend by cover art rather than prose.

Criticism is often replaced by collaboration, and “partnership” is shorthand for payment. According to the European Commission’s 2024 report on influencer transparency, nearly 80% of influencers fail to properly disclose paid promotions so how can you trust anything they say?

Even legacy critics now tiptoe around sponsors disguised as partners, often paid by affiliate links and punished for honesty. As The Guardian observed in 2025, we’ve entered a “risk-free era of content”, where journalists are retrained to be brand-safe and agreeable.

When critics lose independence, culture loses its friction.

The great gutting

The critic once held the mic. Now the mic holds the critic. Major newspapers are gutting their cultural desks. From The Los Angeles Times to The Village Voice, Condé Nast Traveler to The Guardian, all have cut back or consolidated critics in the last decade. A Nieman Foundation survey found arts journalists facing intense newsroom pressure, one cultural writer noting she had personally lost over 100 colleagues to layoffs. Entire desks disappear overnight, folded into lifestyle sections with better SEO.

And for the critics who persist? 

Does their role even have an impact on an audience that looks more to influencers than experts? Music critics like Robert Christgau, the self-proclaimed “Dean of American Rock Critics”, could once make or break an artist’s legacy. Today, algorithmic playlists decide taste and reaction videos replace reviews. As fashion critic Alexander Fury told System Magazine, “The last ten years have proven the impotence of the fashion critic.” No matter how blistering a review, sales remain unaffected. The audience has revealed its apathy toward critics with money. The problem isn’t that culture is commercial. It’s that commerce has become our only culture.

Bring back the brains trust

The rise of new voices online hasn’t been all bad. It’s forced old institutions – many Western, many white – to confront their blind spots. Critics once dismissed African, Asian or Latin American art, food and fashion as unrefined or lacking a narrow European standard of savoir-faire. Now, creators from Lagos to Seoul can speak directly to global audiences and correct the record in real time. The challenge isn’t to silence these new voices, but to make sure knowledge and curiosity rise with them.

Today’s vanguards should not be gatekeepers, but sophisticated, experienced guides. They should walk ahead, pen and steak knife in hand, clearing the path so the rest of us can move through something richer, sharper, more alive.

Bring back the amplifier for food writers who understand salt, acid, fat, heat and deep cultural contexts. Fashion critics who can explore historical silhouettes, designer inspirations, cuts, textiles and craftsmanship. Editors who refine, sharpen, shape and reduce – not just create clickbait and reposts.

Don’t think I am calling for a return to elitist gatekeeping. This is a desperate plea for a return to excellence.

We deserve culture that moves – not because it’s viral, but because it’s alive. Vanguards don’t tell us what to think. They remind us how.

Get in touch with Symonne on LinkedIn

Read more opinion on The Drum