Polina Bogdanova

For whom do critics write?

Editor's Reflections on the Modern Theater Press

THEATER has changed a lot in the past decade. Its rise occurred in the mid-90s. A whole galaxy of new professionals has arrived: both in directing and drama. The older generation is working powerfully. No less interesting are those who can be called “seventies”; some of them went into small spaces, into chamber halls and are focused on a narrow audience. That's not what we're talking about now. And that in the lively and turbulent theatrical process the principle of diversity really triumphed - in aesthetics, methodology, ideas. Today is the time for polystylistics.

Enterprises. Private and semi-private theaters. Non-governmental organizations have spread everywhere. A new viewer has arrived that was not there ten years ago. The theater ceased to serve the state. For the first time in many decades, he began to engage not with ideology and politics, but with art itself. This is a colossal achievement for our cultural and creative elite - not to keep a fig in their pocket. The opportunity arose not to be a tribune, a teacher of life and a preacher, but simply an artist and a professional.

Commercialization has occurred. This is also a new phenomenon for us, which not everyone is yet able to correctly assess. I personally don't think this is bad. This is a natural process of democratization of art, which begins to work for a wide audience, to fulfill the orders of various social groups. And in the so-called commercial theater there are already achievements - this is “The Sheep” by Nadezhda Ptushkina, directed by Boris Milgram, “Master Class” by Terence McNally, directed by Viktor Shamirov, the stunning performance “City of Millionaires” by Eduardo de Filippo, stunned in its unexpectedness, directed by Roman Samgin (artistic director Mark Zakharov), the grand premiere of the last season. The theater split into many different spheres.

Only our theatrical criticism remained unchanged. She doesn't seem to notice the general movement. And it is unable to adequately reflect the theater, remaining on the periphery of the theatrical process.

Who are our theatrical publications for? They are too narrowly oriented: they do not go beyond the boundaries of the theatrical environment itself. I'll say more. They exist only for those who publish in them. As a last resort for those about whom they write. That's all. But this is not enough. I am very sorry for my colleagues from Theater Life, but I am forced to say that servicing the needs of individual theaters at their own expense is the last thing in a number of available opportunities. For what reader was the magazine "Theater" created, or rather, reanimated? In the first issue of this magazine, on behalf of the editors, it is said that it is intended, in addition to theatrical ones, to some other humanitarian workers who will supposedly read all this. Will not. There is no need to flatter yourself. What is there to read? Boring, long-winded evaluative reviews? Sluggish interviews? Any themes and problems that theater criticism has been chewing on for decades? You flip through its pages, and you get the feeling that it’s 1984—an era of stagnation. Perhaps a different situation with theater criticism exists in new publications?

“Gags” - do they correspond to the tone of Galina Volchek’s performances? “Jokes” is the young critics’ own word, this is how they define their style (“cool”, “prank” and, as the characters of playwright Nikolai Kolyada, an excellent imitator of vulgar speech, express themselves, “something like that”). The reviewer crucifies Galina Volchek. A year ago, Volchek was rather harshly “defeated” for “Three Comrades.” And now they are making a “joke” about catarrh of the stomach. They say that the sisters in Chekhov's latest production of Sovremennik are so “anxious” as if their digestion was not normal. "Sovremennik" is one of the most popular theaters in Moscow. The last Chekhov premiere is sold out (as, indeed, is “Three Comrades,” a play for which the audience has been selling out all tickets for the second season). Why shouldn’t the “new” criticism think about what, exactly, is the reason? No, this criticism is not interested in reasons. The "new" criticism displays astonishing ignorance. So, for example, they write about Volchek’s previous Chekhov productions: “I haven’t seen it. I don’t know.” So go read it. You must know this. Or they write a review of a play by Anatoly Vasilyev, where each passage is accompanied by questions: “What is this?”, “How should this be understood?” Go read it. Take an interest. A certified specialist cannot act as a layman. Have you never heard anything about Orthodoxy? Are you not interested in such topics? But they are of interest to Anatoly Vasiliev. And I want to read a competent and professional interpretation of what Vasiliev did. Critics must have professional curiosity, something that would force them to analyze and compare. No, they have their own opinion on this matter. The critic calls “Three Sisters” “a fiery greeting from the past.” And she counters him with her fiery greetings from the present, considering herself to be the bearer of some exclusively relevant knowledge. All the past, "exemplary Soviet theater"(this is how the critic again stigmatizes the latest contemporary performance) is now cancelled. There is no need to contrast Mirzoev - Volchek on one page of the magazine, maintaining the scheme “yesterday’s day” - “today’s day.” Comparisons are possible, but at some deeper levels and not according to the principle is good - bad. Today the time is completely different. Today there are no first and last. There are representatives of different generations, each has its own style of thinking. When critics label, I feel that they have claims to. to make theatrical politics. The degree of aggressiveness in this case is very high. Previously, there were newspapers “Pravda”, “Soviet Culture”, where a negative review of a performance or director was a death sentence. big games" state-biased criticism. And today these are "small games" of small groups, which thus spread their influence.

I am ready to answer all reproaches and objections. Listen to your colleagues. In the heat of controversy, unfair things can be said. But my professional life pushed me to this conversation. own work critic and editor. I can't read evaluative reviews anymore.

Ratings. Ratings. And once again the ratings. It’s not just young critics who suffer from this disease (the ones I talked about, their assessments are simply harsher and in many cases more offensive than those of others). Very, very many people are susceptible to this disease today. Those who write in order to either scold or praise. Sometimes authors call me and ask me, I’m looking for a place where I can destroy so-and-so. Questions like these make me cringe. No, of course, not everyone writes this way. There are excellent authors whose articles are very interesting to read. But such people, alas, are in the minority. Why is this happening? Due to circumstances, partly objective, partly subjective, criticism is still “unwinding” the old system of relations between itself and the theater. A system in which she occupies a position “above” the theater. She is filled with ambitions for which there is no more ground left.

Today, the assessment of the press is not a death sentence and there is no need to pretend to be so. This is simply the opinion of an individual newspaper. And most likely - the opinion of an individual critic with a very specific name. This, by the way, significantly increases personal responsibility. We must not forget that the critic writes specifically about artists, and they do not need to evaluate their work, they need to reflect it through the means of criticism. Criticism should be a link between the artist and the public, acting as an interpreter, propagandist, image maker, if you like. At least the expert who, of course, knows more than the audience and due to this can explain a lot to them. But we should not forget that he proceeds from the audience’s interests and expectations. He knows what will be accepted and what will not be accepted by today's audience. It is very important to understand this. This is the new urgent task of criticism. Only then will it be possible to overcome this narrowness in orientation, isolation within one’s own theatrical environment. There is no need to be afraid to include the opinion of the public or be guided by it (the public is not a fool). Our theater, which works very interestingly, needs a press that could adequately reflect the diverse and polyphonic theater world. Criticism's relationship with the theater should not be top-down, but equal. In what directions could theater criticism fruitfully work today? In my opinion, in two main directions. The first is cultural criticism, analyzing theater in the context of culture, exploring its trends and processes. The second is theater journalism.

Cultural criticism can be concentrated in a “thick” theater magazine. And it is aimed at specialists - theater scholars and representatives of related humanities disciplines. Do we have such criticism? I work in the criticism department of a thick magazine - " Modern dramaturgy" - and I know well from experience how difficult it is today to get a good analytical text from an author. For last years I can list such texts on my fingers. Therefore, as an editor, I often turn to cultural scientists, economists, sociologists, as well as theater practitioners - directors, playwrights, producers.

Theater journalism is something that should connect with the general reader. And here, of course, we need bright, catchy texts and photographs, lively, fascinating essays, portraits, and reports. What is needed is sincere interest and love for the theater as such, and not evaluative reviews or intratheater games.

“I don’t care at all what critics write.
I know that deep down they love my work,
but they’re afraid to admit it.”

(Salvador Dali)

The happiness of living among people is fraught with the fact that we are constantly being evaluated. Both the homeless man and Elizabeth II are regularly criticized. On the one hand, such signs of attention should be rejoiced - the higher a person rises, the more he has not only admirers and friends, but also critics. But criticism also has a downside - sometimes it plunges you into despair, makes you doubt your abilities and, in general, the meaning of existence itself.

Perhaps even the Buddha would have boiled over the constant nagging. However, stories about the founder of Buddhism convince us of his lenient attitude even towards ardent ill-wishers.

The average student has hardly achieved nirvana. But to adequately perceive criticism, you don’t need to sit for 20 years in the lotus position, contemplating emptiness. It is enough to think soberly and understand the types of assessment from the outside.

Types of criticism

The first reaction to criticism can be a strong emotional outburst - from mild indignation to sobbing into the pillow and challenging the insolent person to an intellectual duel. If you plan to gain a reputation as a brawler or hysterical, you need to instantly turn into an angry fury and throw streams of sulfur and fire-breathing lava at your opponent.

We hope, however, that you have different priorities and ideals, and you decide to save the scoundrel's life. Having taken control of the volcano of passions, it is necessary to determine the type of criticism.

So, take ten deep breaths... Criticism could be:

– constructive and useful;
– destructive and mostly empty;
– based on the personal attitude of the opponent;
– built using the feedback method.

I want to start with something pleasant, so let’s consider constructive criticism.

Constructive criticism

Constructive criticism is different:

The presence of clear and precise evaluation criteria;
- objectivity;
- examples and reasoning;
- taking into account details and nuances;
- respectful attitude towards the interlocutor.

Positive side This kind of criticism is because it helps you become a better person. If a competent person pointed out the shortcomings in your magnum opus, expressed his point of view and argued for it, then this will only shake off the dust from the student’s brain, exhausted by routine. And if at the same time the critic also noted some positive aspects of the work, then the author has a reason for hidden pride. In this case, the opponent can no longer be considered a bastard.

After constructive criticism, a person does not feel like a hedgehog in a fog; he clearly understands what exactly the opponent wanted to say and what details he paid attention to. Important: In order to be a constructive critic, you must be competent in a specific area. For example, only a person who is well versed in this genre can indicate.

Destructive criticism

“Some people were born just to find fault:
with Achilles they see only his heel.”

(Maria von Ebner-Eschenbach)

If constructive criticism brings clarity, then destructive criticism, on the contrary, allows the poor creator to feel like an unrecognized genius or complete mediocrity. It all depends on the self-esteem of the creator, the pressure of the criticizing party and the presence/absence of a support group for both opponents.

This criticism:

Foggy and mysterious;
- often irrelevant;
- unreasoned;
- built on stereotypes and sweeping judgments;
- sometimes rude and tactless.

Destructive criticism is possible at work when a customer criticizes you. It is from the clients’ side that you can hear a lot of interesting things. After all, they are often not professionals in what they are judging.

Ask your opponent to argue the position. The critic says that he is guided only by his subtle instincts in his assessment, and at the same time he is not an expert in his field? Congratulations! You were given a cheap review, because this type of criticism is the most wasteful product. The only correct reaction to such attacks is to ignore. If you wish, you can reasonably put the critic in his place. There is clearly no need to worry here.

Nitpicking

If you have bad karma, then constructive critics will bypass your work. Fate will not give you a chance to get valuable recommendations from them. Destructive critics in this scenario will get second roles. Nitpicking and personal attacks have nothing to do with what you're doing - relax. They just want to take you to a madhouse with flashing lights.

If your future (study, career, reputation) does not depend on the attacks of an evil troll, then it is easy to deal with him. Eat Magic word“ignore”, which immediately restores harmony in personal space. In more serious cases, it makes sense to look alternative ways protection. When your boss is a tyrant, it's easier to find another job.

Feedback

A classic example of feedback is working with a supervisor on a course or graduation project, or comments from your immediate superior. You do the work (write a term paper), show it to your boss or manager, he evaluates it and makes recommendations for improvement.

Feedback does not have the negative connotations that are unknowingly attributed to it. It is rather positive and helps to develop. It is desirable that there be more such “criticism”.

Is it worth criticizing someone yourself? Only on duty or when asked, and at the same time you need to remember a simple rule: praise in public, criticize in private.

CRITICISM, -And, and.

1. Discussion, parsing something. in order to evaluate advantages, detect and correct shortcomings. Expand criticism and self-criticism. Be criticized. □ We need strict business criticism of people at work - both party and non-party. Kirov, Articles and speeches 1934. || Razg. Negative judgment about smth. His past is unknown. In the present, he is a dissatisfied person who criticizes everything harshly. Novikov-Priboy, Podvodniki.

2. Research, scientific verification of the authenticity, correctness of something. Criticism of the text. Criticism of historical sources.

3. Special literary genre, dedicated to the analysis of literary, artistic, scientific and other works. Literary criticism. Theater criticism. □ Criticism is the science of discovering the beauties and shortcomings in works of art and literature. Pushkin, On criticism. Teaching aspiring writers to write simply, clearly, and competently is one of the responsibilities of criticism. M. Gorky, About literature.

4. collected Critics. It was in vain that criticism, using the power of the printed word, took a militant position towards the theater; In vain she is carried away by the role of an accuser. Stanislavsky, From notes on theater criticism.

5. Outdated Critical article. When it [the poem] appeared in 1820, the magazines of that time were more or less filled with critics 131 condescending. Pushkin, Preface to the 2nd ed. "Ruslana and Lyudmila." “Oblomov” will no doubt cause a lot of criticism. Dobrolyubov, What is Oblomovism?

Make criticism- criticize.
Does not stand up to (any) criticism; below any criticism- about smth. not satisfying the most lenient requirements.

[From Greek κριτική - the art of disassembling, judging]

Source (printed version): Dictionary of the Russian language: In 4 volumes / RAS, Institute of Linguistics. research; Ed. A. P. Evgenieva. - 4th ed., erased. - M.: Rus. language; Polygraph resources, 1999; (electronic version):

Criticism is something that can easily be avoided by saying nothing, doing nothing, and being nothing. Aristotle put it so categorically back in his ancient times. That is, criticism is like politics - if you don’t criticize yourself, then someone will criticize you. Every day people are faced with expressing feelings and evaluating the results of not only their actions.

Criticism - what is it?

You can often hear “I can’t stand criticism of myself” or “this critic spoke favorably of the film.” And there are many other phrases in which the word criticism, which comes from the ancient Greek language, appears. Kritikos to the Greeks meant “the art of dismantling.” Criticism is:

1. Making a judgment about the merits of something.
2. Blaming, searching for mistakes.
3. The art of analyzing and evaluating artistic work.

Who is a critic?

A critic is not only a person who judges and evaluates, it is also a specialty. A professional critic analyzes works of art:

• literary;
• musical;
• theatrical;
• architectural;
• cinematic.

For him, to criticize is to weigh all aspects - to consider the methods of transmitting the material, to evaluate the extent to which the author managed to achieve his goal, whether the chosen means are justified. A good critic has mastery over the subject he is examining. A famous cultural critic was the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche. He wrote critical essays on religion, morality, contemporary art and science.

Criticism - psychology

Criticism in psychology is a subject of great interest. Psychology studies the cognitive and emotional effects of criticism. Psychologists are interested in:

1. The intentions that people have for criticism.
2. The impact that criticism has on people.
3. How people react to criticism and how they deal with it.
4. Forms of criticism.
5. Denial of criticism.

For psychologists, criticism is a form of ego defense. They found that people who tended to constantly evaluate others were often criticized during childhood, when it hurt the most. Children under seven years of age in the phrase “you good boy, but this is bad behavior” they see only the second part. Any criticism, even very mild, means to a child that he is bad and unworthy.

Is criticism good or bad?

Criticism is good if you have a positive attitude towards it. This is an important life skill. Every person is subject to criticism, sometimes professional criticism. Sometimes it is difficult to accept, but it all depends on the reaction. You can use criticism:

• in a positive way, which leads to improvement;
• negative, which reduces self-esteem and causes stress, anger or even aggression.

What kind of criticism is there?

There are many types of criticism. They differ in the scope of use, the method of presentation and perception, and the goals they pursue. Criticism happens:

1. Aesthetic. About beauty and ugliness, taste and bad taste, style and fashion, the meaning and quality of a work.
2. Logical. An idea, argument, action, or situation that makes no rational sense.
3. Actual. About the lack of sufficient evidence.
4. Positive. About positive but ignored aspects. Often people only see negative side something, so there is a need to highlight the positive. Often used for self-defense and justification.
5. Negative. About what is wrong and meaningless. Expresses disapproval, disagreement and highlights shortcomings. Often interpreted as an attack.
6. Practical. About the beneficial effect.
7. Theoretical. About the meaning of the ideas on which practice is based.

There are many types of criticism - it is an integral part of almost all areas human life. But the most famous two types are destructive criticism. Indeed, no matter how many variants of criticism exist, they can all be divided into these two “camps”. The difference between constructive and destructive criticism lies in the way the judgment is presented.

Constructive criticism

Constructive criticism is intended to identify mistakes and help what, where and how to improve. It should be considered useful feedback. When criticism is constructive, it is usually easier to accept, even if it hurts a little. It is important to remember that it can be used to your advantage. Therefore, when releasing criticism towards someone, it is worth thinking about what benefit it will bring. Rules for constructive criticism:

1. Follow the "sandwich" method: first focus on strengths, then - the disadvantages, and at the end - a repetition of the advantages and possible positive results after eliminating the disadvantages.
2. Focus on the situation, not the situation.
3. Make your feedback specific.
4. Give recommendations on how to do better.
5. Avoid sarcasm.

Destructive criticism

Destructive criticism hurts pride and negatively affects self-esteem and deprives confidence. Destructive criticism is sometimes simply a thoughtless action by another person, but can also be deliberately mean, and in some cases lead to anger and aggression. Types of destructive criticism:

1. Bias. The critic does not admit that he may be wrong.
2. Nebula. The assessment is given without specifics.
3. Irrelevance. The arguments are irrelevant.
4. Contempt. Expressing judgments in a rude manner.
5. Unsubstantiated. Without examples or justifications.
6. Sweepingness. Rejection of alternative points of view.

How to criticize correctly?

There are two types of critical behavior:

1. A person objectively weighs the pros and cons, and then makes a conclusion.
2. The critic makes judgments based on emotions.

The latter is often associated with cruelty. The criticism in this case stems from inner feeling dissatisfaction and continuous efforts to resist it. A person who tends to be “emotionally” critical tries to increase their self-esteem by denying the value of another person. Such criticism is based on arrogance and is a relationship killer.

The golden rule that psychologists recommend adhering to is “Respect the person. Focus criticism on the behavior that needs to be changed - on what people actually do and say." In any case, no matter what criticism comes your way, you need to remember that it can be extremely useful if you remember:

1. Criticism is a form of communication. By accepting criticism, you receive feedback, and with it the opportunity to improve for the better.
2. Feedback helps you improve. If you always think you're right without getting feedback from anyone, how do you know if you're right?
3. Correct criticism gives you an advantage. This is especially true in the professional sphere if the client can tell what ideal product or service he needs.
4. You need to respond to criticism correctly - language is very important. It's better not to get into an argument.
5. There is no need to take criticism, even if it seems extremely unfair, to heart.

Criticism is good. The useful effect of criticism is to help people improve what they are responsible for. The designer is told “the interface is inconvenient”, he improves it, and a user-friendly interface is obtained. The writer is told “you have a typo,” he corrects it, and now there is no typo. Criticism makes the world a better place.

But there's a problem: sometimes criticism is hard to take because it's framed as a personal insult. Such criticism does not achieve any useful effect; relationships and reputation deteriorate because of it.

To achieve benefits, maintain relationships and not spoil your reputation, follow the three laws of criticism.

The first law of criticism. If you don't like it, criticize it

Criticize everything you don’t like, regardless of whether someone else has criticized it and whether you believe in the effectiveness of criticism.

The button in Internet banking does not work - wrote to technical support
The text on the site is poorly worded - wrote to the author
The asphalt in the yard is bad - wrote to the city portal

If you are being ignored due to an important issue, do not hesitate to turn on the “client from hell” and blow the minds of those responsible. It so happens that dispatchers, designers, presidents, programmers, writers and in general all of us constantly criticize those who do not defend their position. If one person reported a problem, the problem doesn't exist. But if a hundred people worry about this problem every day, we will find a way to solve it.

Don't expect the problem to go away on its own. Don’t rely on someone else to tell you about the problem for you. If you don't like it, criticize it.

The second law of criticism. If you criticize, justify it

For criticism to be useful, you need to explain what exactly you don’t like and why it’s bad:

The button is pressed, but nothing happens. I don't receive SMS, I can't pay.
It is not clear from the text what to do after the notification arrives. I didn't do anything and the payment didn't go through.
The asphalt in the yard was laid poorly: there were continuous holes. It is inconvenient to travel by car, and completely impossible by bicycle.

Always criticize the work, but never the person. Don't try to imply that the person in charge is incompetent. This is not possible:

Do you use your own online banking?
Did you hire students to write this text?
What, they cut everything up and there wasn’t enough for asphalt? Just for fun, come into our yard and see the conditions in which your voters live.

Such criticism leads nowhere, because from the outside it looks arrogant. Since criticism is perceived by a living person, he will not want to respond to such criticism. Imagine people writing to your website: “What kind of idiot made this website?”

Criticism is hard to take: it means that the person in charge did a poor job. Don't make it worse with arrogant comments. If you criticize, justify it.

The third law of criticism. If you know, offer

My blog is read by designers, writers and developers. A good designer sees bad design around him and knows how to improve it. The same goes for the writer and developer:

The designer, unlike the average user, knows Fitts' law and that the interface is evil. A designer may suggest an improvement that the average user would not be aware of.

The editor is well-read, studies international experience and understands how to correctly compose public announcements. He will make a much more convincing announcement than an ordinary official or citizen.

The developer knows how to optimize animation and knows what 60 FPS is. Where the user sins on a slow computer, the developer is already optimizing the animation.

If you know how to improve something you are dissatisfied with, suggest an improvement. It doesn’t matter whether it’s correct or not, whether it will be implemented or not, whether you take into account some subtleties or not. If you know, offer it.

Law in action

This is what unconstructive criticism with passive aggression looks like:

Have you seen the new Alfa Bank website? What a fierce p...t! @alfabank, why are you doing this to us?

It's arrogant and unhelpful. Unless you throw a cheap show-off in front of your friends: look how brave I am, I’m throwing a barrel at Alfa Bank. Unfortunately, this criticism will not help either you or Alfa Bank.

Here's what useful, reasoned criticism looks like:

@alfabank on your website the background video is slow under Chrome on Rasbury. I suggest replacing it with static images if the client is low-power. Here is the code: (link)

Now you have a chance to change Alfa Bank, receive an invitation to work from them, and genuine respect from your friends.

Remember the three laws

1. If you don't like it, criticize it
2. If you criticize, justify it
3. If you know, offer

Practice

I invite readers to practice commenting on this post. Criticize everything you don't like.

Thanks to Artyom Sapegin, Kolya Toverovsky and the Alfa Bank support team.