The Points of the Creative Artists’ Code: Four - Never accept or agree with a destructive criticism
October 12, 2007
Criticism is a necessary ‘evil’ that done right, helps us. But how do we know when it is valuable? In the fourth of the “Points of the Creative Artists’ Code” Articles, NDK Creative Artist provides some information that helps us to tell the difference and identify the intentions of those who would ‘help’ Creative Artists. When I first started working with NDK, I was surprised by the way he dissected my compliments and criticisms and asked me for the why of it. I soon learned that it was to find out why I felt that way so that the problem could be fixed inherently, and not just superficially. Read on to find out why this is important, and how to get to the roots of a criticism - Joel Falconer, Editor-in-Chief
Never accept or agree with a destructive criticism about your art or your performance. Accept only constructive criticisms that enable you to better your communication. A constructive criticism is identified by the communication of an accurate observation. It is therefore a fact and not an opinion.
When it comes to works of art & entertainment, what is a destructive criticism? It’s important to identify this sort of thing. There are some artists who are absolutely terrified of criticism, but it is not really criticism they are terrified of; it’s destructive criticism that they wish to avoid. Certainly, there are some malicious people living in the world, and sometimes artists are no better than these. I have spent a lot of time exploring and experimenting with different ways of criticizing creative people and their works, and it can be a difficult thing to do. Editing is a great way to master the art of constructive criticism while improving your craft as a writer, but we’ll cover that particular subject at another time, and only touch on it here as it may serve to illuminate this point of the Code of a Creative Artist.
You have no option other than to receive a criticism directed at your work, or even you personally (though that’s an entirely different thing). People are going to criticize your work. Whether or not that criticism is constructive or destructive is all you need to determine at the moment you actually receive that criticism.
Destructive Criticism is the toxic side of communication, and the people who utter destructive criticisms are basically pretty shallow, desperate, and sometimes malicious people of consistently ill-intent. Destructive criticism is frequently personal. It’s not about the work at all. It’s about you, who you are, what you represent to the person offering up a serving of poison.
Destructive criticism is not always intended to be destructive; it’s sometimes the simple unthinking utterance of someone who is really communicating their frustration with something or someone else, and you’re simply the target of convenience. You have to observe and listen actively enough that you perceive and grok the difference between destructive and constructive crit.
…this brand of destructive criticism is entirely intended to…
However, there is this brand of destructive criticism is entirely intended to symbolically slay the work and those who create it. I use the term ’symbolically’ rather loosely, and ’slay’ precisely. These are the sort of remarks that are totally designed to undermine one’s confidence. They are cruel, they are rarely accurate and often have no basis in observation, or fact. They are simply intended to destroy. Buy into them and you’re buying into the proverbial fate worse than death, letting such criticism poison the rest of your creative existence.
It is important to take on board the entire nature of such remarks and examine them closely and dissect them for tone, intention and effect. Work them backwards from their effect, because it is the effect that defines the nature, and often, the intention of the remark, where they are not always so obviously malicious in intent. These types of remarks and comments are similar to the sort of intellectual and emotional abuse that is visited upon people in domestic and workplace situations. Destructive criticism is the sort of behavior bullies engage in.
It is important to understand the difference between opinion and…
Opinion is a big part of how those who are destructive communicate. It is important to understand the difference between opinion and conclusion. A conclusion is drawn from close observation of what one is presented with. An opinion is simply a shallow statement, that observes almost nothing. One can question criticism of a destructive nature and quickly discover that there is no substance to the remarks made. You ask someone “What observation did they make, that lead them to formulate such an opinion?” and you go after the specifics, and not any sort of “I don’t know” or other evasive, equivocal and prevaricative answer.
Constructive criticism however, is very precise and entirely different. It’s a compassionate statement and that is perhaps the initial observation one will make about it. The constructive crit is communicated with an attitude of care and respect that is intended to be (and is) truthful, without necessarily undermining the creation that is being observed and critiqued. A person who is going to deliver constructive criticism is going to set up the communication and preface the observation they have made with remarks intended to prepare the author for criticism.
The critical observations will not be delivered until the person offering the criticism is sure that the author is ready for it. The degree of care taken will be commensurate with the nature of the crit to be delivered, i.e. if the crit is particularly “rough” then you can expect the person delivering the crit to be careful about how they deliver the crit.
Of course, this is dependent upon the nature of the author receiving the crit too; some authors are very easy to work with when it comes to receiving and accepting critiques, and others require more care, especially those not used to the process and sensitive to critical comment. As they gain trust with the process then this “discomfort” will ease. By the way, I’m not trying to say one has to be too precious about this, and the approach varies with the author.
A constructive criticism communicates a very precise and…
Constructive criticism is valuable. It improves a work and it improves the ability of the creator of the work to produce good work. But it is how the constructive criticism is communicated and what it communicates that marks it out as constructive and therefore useful. A constructive criticism communicates a very precise and accurate observation. You can see it, understand it and think with it. Destructive crits paralyze thinking, they’re meant to, it’s part of the effect they create.
The Destructive Criticism is typically identified as: a sweeping statement that pretends to be authoritative and based in accurate observation (it’s a generality). It is often, but not always, communicated in a derisive tone. A particularly cruel statement can tie your mind in knots for days, or weeks, or even the rest of your life; if you let it. It is often delivered in a social setting so that the cover of a crowd prevents response and an escalation of open conflict; i.e. the cowardly nature of the barb is relying upon the social circumstance to prevent analysis, realization or defense, whilst maximizing the destructive nature of the effect.
The person who delivers such a statement wants the maximum possible social fall out, and they are relying upon your social nature to smooth the waters, or not ruffle them further. Such remarks truly identify the critic as coward. If you do manage to challenge such a person, then you will find that asking questions such as: “What did you observe that lead you to such a conclusion?” and “How did you come to that conclusion?” to be very effective. However, expect the question to remain unanswered, because such statements are not usually based on anything valid other than a desire to destroy and undermine.
The very fact that no answer is given is enough to remove the sting of the criticism, and expose the nature of the critic as someone who has, in fact, observed nothing. The questions and others similar to this expose motive. You see, any conclusion or statement of opinion is, or should be, based on accurate observation. Otherwise it is not a valid statement. It has no foundation in truth, that can be verified. And that’s all you have to do to protect yourself and your work from such attack–expose the fact that it is not based on accurate observation. That means it is based purely and only on a wish to destroy coming out of some pit of envy, jealousy or malice. Expose the fallacy and you expose the motivation.
This is a valid crit of the work.
Spectator observation is a term I use to describe shallow social answers to questions such as “What did you think of the work?” The answers a spectator who does not really accurately observe anything is typically “I liked it.” And if you press the question as to what they liked, you’ll find they don’t know and get uncomfortable. In this case you’re encountering an overall emotional response that may or may not be true, but which has not been sufficiently engaged by a work to actually have any part of it make an impact on the consciousness of the recipient. All that has occurred, at most, is a superficial observation. This is a valid crit of the work and it is useful to a certain extent as it tells you something of the ability of the work to engage and effect another.
Quality feedback is hard to come by, and that is by and large a reflection of the ability of people to articulate what they see; they lack the necessary communication skills, so you have to make allowances for this when taking in what appears to be a spectator observation. I call this spectator observation because a spectator is not involved in the work. They are standing on the sidelines of their mind, observing from the periphery and thus not involved in the work itself.
Constructive criticism…identifies itself as…
Constructive criticism, by contrast, is tactful in its delivery, and identifies itself as a sincere attempt to help and the end result is valuable and useful. One of the things that identifies those who want to give valuable criticism is that they ask what you are trying to achieve, in order to clarify their own understanding before they offer their observation.
You cannot avoid criticism, and you should not endeavor to avoid criticism because it often teaches us much about human nature and character; both of ourselves and of others. And, as the work of art & entertainment is for people, how people receive that work is valuable feedback for those who create it.
Email this article to a friend - or a nemesis, it doesn't bother us.
Subscribe now to receive notification of new Free Articulator articles like this one.
I have been anticipating this article, ever since I started reading The Free Articulator and had read the Creative Artist’s Code. I’m glad that this is a Code Point.
Differentiating between destructive, opinion and constructive criticism and how it affects you and others is something that people should really think about more often.
This is an excellent article! As with all the articles on Free Articulator it is a wholly satisfying and thought provoking read!
Well said, Jess. I agree. I particularly enjoyed the observations in this article. Having started a blog a few years ago I have learnt that people react to ideas in various ways, and the motivations behind a critique or comment are just as varied. Trying understand the motivation and looking closely at the critique often helps you to know how to deal with said criticism.
Well written, NDK!
Jess and Emmah, thank you very much for your comments which are much appreciated.
I will be expanding on the analysis side of feedback some more later, as there are some very useful “do’s and don’ts” to know about feedback, and I promise: it’s all new stuff that nobody else has ever written or codified. But it doesn’t belong in these articles, so will be more centered around some craft articles I’m planning for later issues.
I’m very glad that it is thought provoking for you both. Do feel free to share any conclusions or comments, or questions. And any experience you have with application if you’re so inclined. Cheers!
People also need to remember that sarcasm in criticism does not work and can lead to misinterpretation, especially in text based feedback, that will often be interpreted as destructive criticism.
It’s always hard to receive negativity on something you have put so much time and energy into. But seeing a different perspective on you work can often lead to positive results.
Cheers for the quality read NDK.
A very good point, Mike, and thanks for your support and encouragement.
[...] Invalidate the work and you invalidate the human being who created it. This is not a constructive endeavor or action; therefore it is not the behavior a Creative Artist subscribes to. Rather, one utilizes constructive criticism to help the artist improve their expression as covered in Code Point Article 4. [...]