Whether criticism functions as a creative activity or a technical component of artistic creation, it always refers to an object that needs to be evaluated. Criticism is always a concrete response or a mediation that leads us to what is possible in a work of art. I’d like to point out first a, perhaps, a simplistic view that criticism is whatever the critic is doing or whatever is done critically. Specifically, defining criticism according to the function and scope of a critic’s activities and its subjects. Speaking of what is possible, criticism assumes that something can be improved or changed. While the definition of criticism has drastically shifted throughout cultural history from something that is done in the service of art to a form of art in its own right, one thing remains, that criticism approaches its subject with authenticity and evidence. Another thing that I want to put forward is that criticism is often defined as looking through art through social theories. In this definition, it becomes clear that the understanding of art criticism goes hand in hand with the general understanding of social ills. Criticism then, transcends art, and emerges through its  confrontation with art, becomes an emphatic engagement that is both socially mediated and mediating society.