There’s 2 ways I believe you can view and criticize art, you can criticize it for what it is, or for what it isn’t.

I see a lot of the discourse and criticism around Discovery being much more focused on what it isn’t. That isn’t a fault of the show itself, that is a fault of the watcher.

You can love the Mona Lisa, but if you go and look at Starry Night and say “I don’t like it because it doesn’t have a woman in it”, that’s ridiculous. Is it a valid opinion? Sure, in the sense that any opinion on something subjective is. But the fact you don’t like it because it doesn’t have a woman isn’t the fault of the art or the artist.

Art is viewed subjectively, it can only be interpreted that way. Your beliefs and feelings towards any art is informed by who you are as a person, your experiences, etc. It’s why I hate the need fans of every fandom feels to compare and argue about which iteration of any series is “better” than another. What TNG was to me isn’t going to 100% line up with what it was to you, art is interpreted, those interpretations are unique to every person.

It seems a lot of people went into Discovery expecting it to fit their view of what “Star Trek” is. That’s fine, but saying the show is “objectively” bad because it doesn’t fit their expectations of what “Star Trek” is, is absurd and reductive. It’s not the fault of the art.

Unlike you, under that Hellhound Lorca, we have time off on the Glenn for relaxation. You should try it some time.