Using passive voice in artistic critiques and reviews can present several challenges, primarily by making evaluations sound more detached, impersonal, and vague. When passive voice is employed, the focus shifts away from the actual critique and onto the action or object being critiqued. This can make it harder to clearly identify the critic’s perspective, leading to ambiguity and a lack of specificity in the review.

Passive voice can hinder the expression of strong opinions or personal insights by diluting the sense of conviction or authority in the critique. Strong opinions often require direct, active language to convey the critic’s stance clearly. Passive voice can soften the critique, making it seem more tentative or non-committal, which may not effectively communicate the critic’s viewpoint.

The use of passive voice can create distance between the critic and the artwork by separating the actions or decisions from the individuals responsible for them. This can lead to a sense of detachment and abstraction in the critique, where the focus shifts away from the specific details of the artwork and onto broader, less personal aspects. As a result, the critic’s engagement with the artwork may be perceived as indirect or disconnected.

In conclusion, while passive voice can sometimes be used effectively in artistic critiques and reviews to emphasize specific aspects or redirect focus, it often poses challenges by affecting clarity, authority, and engagement. Critics should be mindful of when and how they employ passive voice to ensure that their evaluations remain clear, impactful, and closely connected to the artworks they are assessing.