Art criticism is important to personal and professional development.
A recent review of the DAN Studio Series’ (DSS) theatrical installment for the 2023-24 academic school year published in The Journal sparked backlash from Queen’s students online, some of whom slammed the critique as mean, bullying, or hateful.
Contextualizing Queen’s current budget crisis against the Global North’s general underfunding of the arts, DAN students would be wise to be especially assured of the quality of the work they present. Though this standard may not be a fair burden to impose on young artists, it’s a reality worth bringing to their attention.
The publication of art criticism is vital, and an important means of keeping artists able. Art reflects the issues affecting its creators, spectators, and even those ignorant to its existence. Such portrayals warrant quality checking, whether that be through celebrating powerful representations or pointing out artists’ shortcomings and missteps.
Some responses to the review implied The Journal’s misconduct in critiquing a student-led production.
Regardless of who produces artwork, or at what stage performers are in their career, art criticism is a well-established, expected response. If the public’s criticism isn’t welcomed, neither should be their attendance.
Student artists should expect and hope to receive criticism as a necessary part of their education: can better their future creations and immunize them to having their work criticized. In every field, but particularly in the arts, practitioners must learn to distinguish criticism of their work from personal attacks.
Of course, receiving criticism is understandably unpleasant—even more so if it feels unwarranted or unduly harsh.
Young artists receiving criticism should take comfort in knowing how early on they are in their careers, and how much time they have to improve their work before it reaches broader, harsher audiences.
No amount of criticism can detract from the hard work DSS students put into their production, or from the memories they accumulated doing so. Critics don’t intend to deny the efforts of artists; they simply can only comment on the final product showcased to them onstage. If a show’s efforts or intentions don’t translate to its performance, its creators must consider what adjustments they could make to remedy such disparity in the future.
Perhaps out of eagerness to differentiate their resumes from those of competitors or a need to work amid rising costs of living, Queen’s students seem to be overcommitting themselves to too many extra- and co-curricular activities. The result is a general decline in the quality of the output of many student associations.
Artistry is an especially competitive field. Those who wish to be successful must be devoted to bettering their work. In turn, they must be able to learn from criticism and disallow it from impacting their self-worth.
In the meantime, it warrants mentioning criticism may be regarded as positive. The responsibility of art is to incite individual responses and discourse.
The DSS’s theatrical installment has already been successful in doing so. Artwork that doesn’t affect can’t be said to be meaningful.
—Journal Editorial Board
Tags
All final editorial decisions are made by the Editor(s) in Chief and/or the Managing Editor. Authors should not be ed, targeted, or harassed under any circumstances. If you have any grievances with this article, please direct your comments to [email protected].
Zachary Weber
It warrants mentioning that the editors of the queens journal did not see DSS meta. The instalment was revered by many in the arts community at Queens, with some professors even referring to it as one of the best of the series in the past few years. Make no mistake DSS Meta was very good. Does that mean it is immune to criticism? No. Does that mean that art cannot be critiqued or polished? No. The point has been overtly communicated by the arts community at Queens and it is very much unfortunate that the journal has missed it entirely. It is dear reader, that this critique, if you are even able to refer to it as such did not match the calibre of others posted by the same writer. It is that there is a very big difference from encouraging growth and development in theatre and expressing that this years instalment failed to uphold the DSS legacy. Others included criticism where the author offered their ideas and opinions on pieces. The author also always gets comments from team , information regarding the production and its run, and is posted within a timely matter. Previous critiques have not been met with nearly as much outcry, despite not all of them being glowing reviews of complete positivity. Perhaps it is because the entire team that worked on DSS Meta are all over sensitive little babies unable to receive constructive … or perhaps it is because this specific critique was out of line and without any other word to describe it, bad. The journal insinuating that this situation is one in any way resembling the former is to put it lightly, ignorant. To have the public outcry surrounding this article and to double down is absurdity in its highest form.
Zachary
There’s still a difference between a hateful voice and a critical voice. A difference your whole team seems not to understand- despite the “backlash”. Disappointing editorial response to a disappointing article from a disappointing journal.
Lucas
That’s crazy, you guys really just doubled down 😂
Noelle
To insinuate that the students are at fault for the lack of funding for the arts at Queen’s is laughably untrue. It’s incredibly rude to the of Meta, and will only further propel the mill of rumours churning in the community as to why funding has been reduced. The quality of DSS’ work, or any other DAN student group, in no way affects how Queen’s decides to budget; student organizations and Queen’s curricular funding are completely separate.
To paint the reception of original article’s under the broad stroke of: “… receiving criticism is understandably unpleasant—even more so if it feels unwarranted or unduly harsh.” clearly demonstrates how unwilling the Journal is to understand the upset the original review caused. It is not the fundamental aspect of criticism that is unnecessary, it’s the unneeded personal, and harsh jabs the article takes at DSS.
It’s quite ironic this article was written defend the criticism the Journal received, repeating may times “criticism is good, criticism is necessary!,” as it pertains to DSS. If criticism is as constructive as the writers insist, why publish a second piece to dispute the original article’s flack? It seems criticism is only unconcerning to the Journal when it’s about someone else.
X
i have no stake in this game — didnt see the show, don’t know or care about anyone involved, but i did read the review. art criticism is absolutely necessary, but writing itself is also an art. your writer fails to grasp this concept in their tactless review, and you as an organization should also be open to YOUR audience — your readers — and THEIR criticism of what you choose to publish. doubling down to defend what is objectively a poorly written review, written by someone who is evidently not yet ready to write about art with the complexity and nuance it deserves is frankly… embarrassing. i especially detest the condescending implications here: “Perhaps out of eagerness to differentiate their resumes from those of competitors or a need to work amid rising costs of living…” that is a weird thing to say about artists, especially STUDENT artists who continue to have — against all odds— the optimism and drive to create, despite the clear apathy and institutional underfunding towards the arts at Queen’s. do you really care about producing good art or just about putting down the people who try?
Nate I.
I think that people understand art criticism is necessary, I think the problem was the original review didn’t state anything as personal perspective , or even the journals opinion, but rather objective fact. The journal alongside several other outlets can, and have, written far more constructive reviews (including on shows I wrote and produced) that did point out what was wrong but also didn’t treat the show or instalment as an all around joke. As someone with so much love and respect for what DSS does, ugliness and all, but who is now 2 years separated. The initial article read as quite rude (and if arts criticism is necessary, rather stylistically bland). All of the critiques could have been kept and offered far more value to the crew and readers if it offered any kind of insight about how to do better rather than simple jabs about Euphoria make up being out
CJ
Instead of recognizing their own faults, the journal doubles down and blames student artists for not being able to handle criticism, rather than their delivery.
A take that makes one wonder if the journal’s self importance has risen dangerously over the years. Rather than listening and actively addressing complaints from the readers, instead we are provided a simple editorial that misses the mark completely, like a kids bandaid over a deep wound; completely ineffective and more insult to injury than anything.
The fact of the matter is recent reviews were ill received for plenty more reasons, as obviously previous reviews didn’t stir such controversy. However, none of these reasons I’m sure were “they hurt my feelings” like is being suggested here. Perhaps the journal’s editors would do well to stop speculating in editorials and pointing blame to the cost of living crisis as the reason for “poor art”, and actually took the time to speak to the student community who were the recipients of their Journals “criticism”, maybe then the Journal would understand the general frustration with recent criticism at a student theatre level rather than firing wildly out into the world with their own thoughts.
Student theatre isn’t the professional sphere, and attempting to hold criticism at that standard for student productions, especially with recent issues with DSUS slashing production times in HALF, just ends up providing poor reviews that don’t offer anything to the student artist beyond abstract suggestions on what the reviewer would have done better than them. This does end up affecting their self worth as artists however, despite how much the journal believes it shouldn’t, especially considering students are at a point in their artistic career where they’re still learning and engaging with university level theories and artistic methods, something the journal seemingly has forgotten in it’s attempts to “toughen up” student artists to prepare them for the professional world, an age old tradition across fields with it’s own issues, a duty no one asked for it to take up.
Darcie Watson-Laird
How interesting that moderation appears to have been turned on … I thought criticism was good? I thought criticism was necessary? The lack of ability from the Journal for a failed article is appalling.
Chris
Really disappointed with the tone of this editorial, to put student artists on the defensive and claim that they simply can’t handle criticism in general, instead of questioning the value of the criticism the journal put forward is frankly insulting to readers and student artists who put so much into their work, only to be torn down by the words the journal publishes. Whether the journal wishes to it it or not, on campus news is a part of the student community, and as students I should hope the journal would have put more effort into ing the works of artists on campus, rather than tearing them down to “prepare them” for the professional world.
And to insinuate that the quality of Student theatre directly correlates to departmental funding is absurd and ignorant, to echo other commenters, student organization are separate from curricular funding, why even put the notion of this financial burden into the minds of young artists? Insinuating that students who create ‘poor art’, affect the budget allotted to the drama program? What a horrid picture to be painted. Students should not create at this level to impress s and funders, this is a space to learn, and to fail without the “harshness” of professional criticism, and I’m afraid the journal has forgotten this in their self imposed duty to train artists for “the real world”.
anonymous
no student theatre artist expects to be immune to criticism. in fact, criticism is deemed incredibly valuable as it sparks discussion and allows personal and artistic growth – the DSS article that was written was not criticism. the article consisted of vaguely pieced together (and incredibly subjective) thoughts that were constructed as fact. for an article that critiques DSS’ lack of cohesion, it was ironically quite incoherent and seemed to jump at any opportunity to undermine the instalment’s efforts and accomplishments. instead of taking the actual criticism the review received from readers and considering it as , the journal is choosing to double down and defend every aspect of the review – remind me which party is the one that “can’t take criticism” again…? to reiterate the fact that student theatre artists are actually quite open and inviting of , just look at the kingston theatre alliance’s reviews – a publication that is not even created by students who would have any stake in ing student theatre at queen’s, and they approach their reviews with much more taste. this doesn’t come at the expense of no criticism, but rather, presents such as what it is – , not grand, frankly immature comments about the implied thoughtlessness of student theatre.
DAN Student
There is a difference between constructive criticism and being mean and harsh for no reason. As a student in the DAN school I can confidently say that we all welcome criticism but not bullying. Constructive criticism is supposed to build up, uplift, and inspire the person recieving it. The article that was posted was just plain bullying, in the delivery of the “criticism” and the harsh tone that was used. The journal has failed to provide DSS with constructive criticism by not only publishing the first article, but also by doubling down and defend the bully who wrote the first one.
Mic
“Student artists should expect and hope to receive criticism as a necessary part of their education”
Okay. Sure. Myself and many other people acknowledged this in our original comments on the original DSS article.
Does this not apply to that article as well though? The Queen’s Journal is student written journalism, is it not? I’m just saying that if you’re going to publish a review that genuinely was not constructive, expect to receive criticism in return. Because according to your own logic, student JOURNALISTS should expect and hope to receive criticism as a necessary part of their education.