maybe i'm unclear as to how you define "artistic" vs "technical" critique. based on your two bologna critiques (thanks for going with the sandwich choice btw) it seems that you define "artistic critique" as any sort of opinion with unclear support, whereas in your "technical" example, your critic gives examples and reasons. with this, i agree, i wouldn't value a
review of my work that is only comprised of opinions without argument, but a
critique, with reasons about higher quality bologna, yeah i take that argument because it's backed with logic. if this is more of the case, i think your argument should be "review" or "opinion" vs "criticism," in this case, i agree fully. read the first sentence:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism
if this is not the case, let me expand the sandwich analogy: let's say i went with Wonderbread, Kraft Singles, and Oscar Meyer (my camera, audio, and actors), i made these film sandwich decisions deliberately to convey a down and out, struggling to get by, sandwich story. but my critic says: "why Oscar Meyer? this sandwich story would have been so much better told with SPAM, SPAM has a much more negative connotation than Oscar Meyer, and your down and out story would have been better conveyed." Yes, my imaginary critic is criticizing a technical aspect of my film sandwich, but it was still a critique of an artistic decision that i made based on my opinion of SPAM vs. Oscar Meyer. you see, all formal, or technical, aspects of a film are directly related to artistic decisions made by the creator
i hope this expansion of the sandwich analogy goes far enough to explain myself, without beating the dead sandwich horse
If I believe it's good, why would I care if someone doesn't like it?
you don't have to. but i'm very much of the persuasion that films are made by collective efforts and creativity, if i'm to deny a solidly backed critique solely because i think my film is good, i'm eliminating his part of the collective, his creativity, his contribution. i want to make great films, so as a service to myself, i have to consider the well backed opinions of others to improve my future work. of course i'm not going to go back and change it, i doubt anyone would, but do i watch old creations of mine and say, "well, this could have been better, and my friend was right, that specific decision didn't work," uh...YEAH! sometimes reviewers and critics make good points, do they offer solutions in their public reviews? generally no. if i'm speaking with a person who just watched my film, it's easy to ask "what could i have done better? how, why?" and take that into consideration for my next project
yes thesis + antithesis = synthesis is only a theory, but a pretty well backed one with application in film. i recommend beginning with Hegel, then explore Soviet Film Theory, look at Pudovkin, and especially Eisenstein.
i wont really go into your Shawshank example because it's so surface level, there is no critique of "how" or "why," there's no discussion. so yeah, if two people just say, "it was good," "it was bad," over and over, it's gonna be some "nu uh," "uh huh" shit, but that's not film theory or critique in the least
i now think our disagreement originated over some unclear language, or at least i hope so. personally, i get little from positive reviews, they're pleasant to hear, especially when people point out specific decisions and why they worked in their opinions. but other than that, i'm learning little from them, i'd take 10 well argued critiques for every one positive comment. plus that tells me i'm engaging my viewers in a dynamic way and bringing film or cultural critiques into discussion, not to mention helping me improve.