We've all been there, wanting opinions on our work that are hopefully positive and motivating while fearing the feedback that comes back is actually so negative it invalidates the dreams we are chasing. Anyone who's gone through the process of critical review should know how brutal it can be and how much tougher it gets when your work is out there in the public domain. We live in an age where people with no credentials put themselves on pedestals and tell the world how to go about its business, and in this article Ville Nummenpää gives some advice on how to survive it all - CJ
One day you may find yourself in a situation where your work goes public. Something you created got real, and people talk and write about it. Be prepared, not all of it is nice. Don’t act surprised, no one has ever created a piece of art that pleased absolutely everybody, and neither will you.
How should you deal with criticism then? Is it useful or constructive? Is criticism aimed at your work, or you personally? Here’s one way of looking at it - Criticism is often personal alright, but not in the way you think.
Picture a scene:
In this scene you tell me a joke out of the blue. What you get in return is an immediate, sincere reaction. In this case, laughter or no.
But if you say: ”I would like to hear your opinion of a joke I have written, because you’re so noble and wise”, you already ruined it. Now I am flattered you value my opinion, and put my snob-hat on. What you get from me will be thoughtful and reasoned, but definitely not a sincere reaction.
You see, it just got personal. I will listen to your joke deeply focused, stroking my beard (as we wise and noble people do) thinking of wise and noble things to say. I need to deliver, I can’t just say ”good”, because we awesome people have important things to say about stuff. So now it’s more about me than your creation.
The question is, are you going to let my beard-stroking affect your creative process?
How about you, would you make a fair and objective critic yourself? Would you write reviews honestly from the heart? Before answering...
Imagine talking to your friend about a movie you just saw. Let’s say you had a good time and thoroughly enjoyed yourself. That was your sincere reaction, this is what you tell your friend, no problem.
Now walk 1.609344 kilometers in a critic’s shoes. Imagine writing you enjoyed an Adam Sandler-film for the biggest newspaper in the world. Or the Fast and The Furious 27… That’s right, it just got personal. Suddenly it’s not about the film anymore, it’s about you. What will people think of me if I say this?
So we could argue, a critic quite often is not writing about the piece of art in question at all, but about themselves between the lines. As a creative, are you going to let someone’s ego affect your creative process? Has Sandler?
It’s good to remember, criticism is often far from sincere.
Comedy is the perfect genre to measure sincere reaction, since you can literally hear the results in real time.
Imagine a stand-up comedian performing to complete silence for an hour. How devastating would that be?
But if the whole room laughs for an hour, and the next day there’s a review saying: ”Not funny”,
which do you think matters more to the comedian? Should the comedian write the entire act again in hopes of pleasing the reviewer?
This all goes to say: Reaction means everything, but criticism… not so much. This statement has nothing to do with sour grapes, ã la: ”I don’t care about critics”. That would be a dishonest thing to say. Compliments feel good, and bad words sting, duh. But the fact is, criticism doesn’t matter in the end, and this makes the world of difference.
Contradictory? Look at it this way: If a stranger in the street tells you you’re ugly, it will probably ruin your day. But are you going to spend the rest of your life trying to live up to that person’s ideals in the off-chance you meet again?
In other words, it had an impact, but no real effect.
What really matters is how the work is received. If you hope to please people with your art, you’re doing entertainment. Entertainment has a function, and if the work fails to entertain, it fails. An entertainer is constantly faced with this grim possibility, a critic doesn’t truly enter the equation. To summarize: If critics have surprises for you, they will be happy ones.
Apparently anyone?
There was a time when a ’critic’ was a job title, and not just that, it also had an aura of prestige attached to it. A critic was considered an authority, their words carried weight, since they ”knew better”.
So once upon a time Shakespeare wrote a play, then someone with a really sharp quill took a dump on it, or praised it to high heavens. Is it still the same? Pretty much, except for the number of literate people armed with sharp quills, known these days as smart-devices.
So does the prestige-thing still hold true? Anyone can post an international review about anything, and a layman’s opinion can get more views and likes than a ’real’ critic’s on a major newspaper. The very word ’criticism’ has gone through such an inflation, what does it even mean anymore? Should an artist consider which carries more weight, a barely coherent tweet, or a ’real’ critic’s in-depth analysis in the ’Weekly Snob’?
Now take off your creative hat, and become a regular consumer. Try to decide on a movie to watch tonight. One way to consider a certain movie, is checking out a bunch reviews online. Doing so you will find that:
a) The movie is awesome
b) The movie sucks
c) It’s ok.
So the options are, you might enjoy the film, not enjoy it, or find it watchable. In the end there’s only one way to find out. Was reading reviews helpful? Seriously, tell me?
We know there are trolls who slander things and people online as a hobby. Are they allowed to call themselves critics?
The legend has it, big studios bomb their own films with 5-star reviews on IMDB. Conversely a bitter rival can alter a competing movie’s rating with 1-star reviews. Surely, neither behaviour can be called criticism.
In the very near future (or maybe happening already?) AI will write some of the reviews online. Where does this leave us? Should an artist care about academics, tweeters, or ChatGPT’s opinions?
We have already seen different AI-works of art being submitted to various contests, so theoretically we might reach a point where AI reviews AI-work? Would reading those reviews be a good use of your time.
No simple answer here, but something to consider...
There’s a critic out there, who writes from the heart and tells us how they truly felt about a certain piece. This is valuable. A creative person should keep an open mind, and wonder why that critic felt the way they did, be it bad or good. You most likely have a blind spot, and an honest review might help you see things clearer.
Then again, you will encounter someone who absolutely ”knows” how things should be done, despite never having done said things themselves. When this person offers you their verdict, you can tune it out. Here’s a hard and fast rule: People who state their opinions as facts are invariably useless, and it is safe to ignore them. (I am fully aware of the irony involved, when stating this opinion as a fact.)
Ultimately, it’s not about how many points or stars you get. It is the motive behind the criticism that determines the value of said criticism. Mean, dishonest, or pretentious criticism is obvious and worthless. Everybody has the right to say how they feel, but when someone declares themselves an authority, they immediately lose all credibility. Never let anyone’s poison creep into your creative process.
Hopefully your work will get plenty of sincerely positive reactions, and hey, maybe even a positive review.
Comments
John Hunter
Fri, 2023-08-04 01:44
Permalink
I've read some savage online
I've read some savage online assualts on aspiring writers. Painful to read and serving no other purpose than tearing the wings of off of Bambi. Writing is tough enough without going into cyberspace looking for personal validation.
Ville Nummenpää
Sat, 2023-08-05 11:05
Permalink
Amen. Aka bullying.
Amen. Aka bullying.