Good practice: reviews

Good and bad reviews

Make a distinction between good reviews and positive ones, and between bad reviews and negative ones.

A good review is a well-written, well-observed non-fiction story that informs, illuminates and engages its public. A bad review is poorly written or observed, an inaccurate story that doesn’t give the readers the information they need, doesn’t provide insight or angle, and is a turn-off to read.

Any review can be positive or negative (or more often a mix of the two). Whether that review is also good – that is, well-written, and attentive to the reader – is a separate matter.

Our aim is to write good quality reviews.

Opinion and perspective

Make a distinction between opinion (or judgement) and perspective. Opinion is your viewpoint. Perspective shows your viewpoint. Perspective helps us to see a subject even if our viewpoint is different. Perspective is necessarily partial, but it is also useful. Opinion is just a verdict – or worse, a reaction.

Too often, novice critics (and readers of criticism) believe that the purpose of a review is to pronounce a verdict (thumbs up, or down?). A good review does not rush to arrive at a verdict, but rather offers a perspective on its subject. The question it addresses is not ‘was this a good piece?’ but ‘how did this piece work?’

Spring Forward

Aerowaves platforms emerging artists, from different countries with different cultures and access to resources. Few have much experience of being reviewed, and many will be presenting work before a large international group of programmers for the first time.

Keep this in mind. The programmers can and do have their own stories, opinions and agendas, but they can keep these among themselves. You, on the other hand, are publishing your stories.

Be fair, and don’t adopt a tone that you wouldn’t use if you were speaking to the subject in the foyer (which could happen).

Red lines

Problem: Facts and information are wrong.
Solution: Factcheck and spellcheck beforehand. Additionally, if readers see an error, they can contact the Academy editor with both the error and the correction, and we will make the amend online (far better, though, to prevent this from happening by being accurate).

Problem: Speculating about the artist’s intentions.
Solution: Unless it’s given by the artist (for example in a programme note), don’t imagine that you know their aim or intention. That is between them and the work. Focus instead on the work’s effect, which is between the work and you.

Problem: Saying what could or should have happened, rather than what did.
Solution: Comment on what is presented, not on how you think it could have been different. It’s not your position to offer that advice. A dramaturg might do it, but not a reviewer.

Problem: Making personal comments about performers (appearance, weight, race, etc)
Solution: Write about the work, not the person – unless the personal is also the subject of the work. (This distinction is not always easy to make, especially in dance – but the guideline is a good starting point.)