Guy Laliberte Quotes

I don't read the reviews because it somewhere affects my work. If some critic doesn't like a movie, I can't keep his criticisms in mind the next time I am making a film. Even if someone writes a great review about my film, I don't want to be affected by it.

Perhaps it would be better for science, that all criticism should be avowed.

Criticism is something that you have to take, regardless of what you do. Even if you go out there and try to make the most vanilla, non-offensive TV show possible, people are going to criticize you for doing that. It's just part of the game.

Think of and look at your work as though it were done by your enemy. I you look at it to admire it, you are lost.

I do see value in music criticism. Most of the criticism I have received over the years has been very good.

Critics have their purposes, and they're supposed to do what they do, but sometimes they get a little carried away with what they think someone should have done, rather than concerning themselves with what they did.

Reviews are great. I can read negative reviews and say, 'You know that point they made... they were dead on.'

In the past I have declined to comment on my own work: because, it seems to me, a poem is what it is; because a poem is itself a definition, and to try to redefine it is to be apt to falsify it; and because the author is the person least able to consider his work objectively.

My music asks people to think critically, so how can I get upset when people think about me critically?

Critics... They're like traffic cops. They say what they have to say, then leave, and another guy moves in, and he has his say - and it's often just the opposite. The result is either critical acclaim or critical murder, and neither has any bearing on my music or direction.

I do take things away from reading reviews. I think they keep you honest.

I attack ideas. I don't attack people. And some very good people have some very bad ideas. And if you can't separate the two, you gotta get another day job. You don't want to be a judge. At least not a judge on a multi-member panel.

The critics are not writers - they're not a part of the creative process; therefore, they should not influence how I go about doing my next bit of work.

Because I'm a former critic, I view criticism differently than most do. I can take criticism, but if you're going to eviscerate us, be specific.

I never read anything concerning my work. I feel that criticism is a letter to the public which the author, since it is not directed to him, does not have to open and read.

Critics should help people see for themselves; they should never try to define things, or impose their own explanations, though I admit that if... a critic's explanations serve to increase the general obscurity, that's all to the good.

Readers forget that one can critique yet still admire.

I think the problem with polemics is that it's general and it's lazy. When you say, "This is bad," that's a general thing. We're more interested in asking the question.

I never hesitated to promote someone I didn't like. The comfortable assistant - the nice guy you like to go on fishing trips with - is a great pitfall. Instead I looked for those sharp, scratchy, harsh, almost unpleasant guys who see and tell you about things as they really are. If you can get enough of them around you, and have patience enough to hear them out, there is no limit to where you can go.

Critics are more committed to the rules of art than artists are.

I want to have time. When you're doing a monthly book, you're like a man racing after a bus. You're breathless and red-faced. I want to build in quality control.

Swallow my words. Taste my thoughts. And if it's too nasty, spit it back at me!.

No man can be criticised but by a greater than he. Do not, then, read the reviews.

Writers are rarely their own best critics, nor are critics.

But what is criticism? Criticism is purely destructive; anyone can destroy, but not everyone can build up.