The rehearsal process is short, maybe a month max for straight plays. Once you get past the grind of blocking and memorization, the director doesn't have much time to shape and mold things to make the show fit their vision. Which means that actors have to swallow their insecurities (of which actors notoriously have many) and incorporate everything they're given. Fast. It's an exercise in feedback loops at break-neck speeds. And believe me, directors don't like giving the same note twice.
What I'm getting to here is that feedback has become a social event in theatre. I don't mean that there is pizza and noise makers, just that it's done as a group. Every night after a run through, the entire cast will sit down for however long it takes and go through the director's notes -- of which there will be many pages. Given the timeline, there is no time for debate. If you start a discussion with the director, you are wasting their time, as well as the time of all your cast members (who are on the clock). It doesn't matter if your feelings are hurt, or if you have some lame excuse -- at that moment, you're always wrong and the direct is always right. And the only thing going through everyone else's head is, "Take the note." There isn't a single actor in the world who wants to work with someone that can't take criticism.
The real rub is that all of these opinions are completely subjective, yet deeply personal. Because that's art. Ultimately, you just have to know your shit and be willing to think on your feet. In you're spare time, study what you're given and think about actual ways you can incorporate it. The big realization is that it's collaborative art. Everyone is working together and NEEDS to be willing to work towards the same goal. If you don't, you're the bad apple. Directors will simply stop casting you.
I don't know that any of this can be incorporated into the tech world. Maybe this is how we should do code reviews or design meetings. Or run startups. Heck if I know. But it's not something I've personally encountered in any other social groups so far.
If an actor disagrees with the director's note, the rule is to try it once and see how it goes. Once you've done that, you can toss out additional ideas or expand on it, but you have to at least do it once.
If the actor simply wants to give the director or other actors general notes that they aren't immediately involved in, the answer is "no way." The director was hired to shape the overall vision of the show. However, that's not to say that they are infallible. Good directors will generally ask people they trust to come in and watch the show and give feedback. The Artistic Director (the director's boss) will also usually give feedback.
And ultimately, directors get reputations. Actors can choose who they want to work with and theatre communities are small. Just a few months back I watched a director get fired and completely ostracized because she was downright mean when it came to giving feedback. She would use insults and fear to control actors. I doubt she will ever work in this area again.
Being able to take criticism, filter and apply it correctly is a definite skill.
If you are getting criticism from a coach, teacher, mentor or customers it's a good thing because if they aren't giving criticism then they've already given up on you.
Having been to a theatre/performing school for a bit as a kid. They would tell like a 10 year old that they sucked and how they could improve. The kid starts breaking down with visible tears, it's then explained that it's professional criticism. You end up building that skin, and you continue to keep progressing.
But there's a flip side to it. Criticism is often affected by a filter or lens that the other person sees through, by their past experiences, pattern recognition and world view. So you have to take that into consideration. You can be driven off path by taking everyones criticism. Here is a good quote from Jeff Bazos:
"Think Long Term - On feedback and being misunderstood: If we think we are right, then we continue.
If we are criticized for something we think we’re wrong on, we change it, we fix it. It’s really important to think about this things, but never to buckle to standard kind of pressure that forces really short term kind of thinking. It’s a competitive advantage to think long term."
- Jeff Bazos
There is not a single way or method to climb a mountain. But you'd be crazy if you didn't take the advise and criticism of others that have gone there in the past or have a deep understanding of the area.
But my personal view is that criticism should never be taken negatively.
Having been to a theatre/performing school for a bit as a kid. They would tell like a 10 year old that they sucked and how they could improve. The kid starts breaking down with visible tears, it's then explained that it's professional criticism. You end up building that skin, and you continue to keep progressing.
That's a wonderful thing to teach. It's too bad we only allow it in competitive extracurriculars (I learned it in youth sports) and never in the classroom. It's being driven out of sports in some places -- my dad is a Little League buff and has observed that the Little League culture in the town where my parents spend their summers is completely "supportive," as opposed to the youth sports culture he and I grew up with, which was pretty friendly (there were some "screamer" coaches, but I never had one) but definitely critical and competitive.
So I grew up knowing how to take criticism, but I also learned that people do not give criticism in any context other than training competitors who had voluntarily signed up for a competitive activity. In any other context, criticism meant personal hostility or a drastic message that you didn't belong or did not have what it takes to succeed. I loved playing sports and happily took a lot of criticism (I wasn't that great at any sport I played) but I felt personally attacked and humiliated when I got any other kind of criticism, because that's what I was taught it meant.
Giving criticism is a skill as well - or rather providing an assessment is an important skill. An assessment which doesn't point out what the person is doing right is less productive than one which does because it doesn't provide a access to the type comprehensive picture which skill mastery requires. Telling people what they should not change is as important as telling them what they should change.
Saying what works as part of your criticism is also a pragmatic way to make the recipient receptive to your negative criticism. A friend of mine who is a professor uses what he calls the sandwich theory of essay criticism: Say something nice. Say the critical stuff. Say something nice. The tough and bitter meat is in the middle, and the bread makes it palatable. I’ve just taken over a peer-review essay site and added a feature (expert reviews) that has come to dominate what the site does. Although the reviews we have started offering are not scathing, they are detailed and very critical. My hope, of course, is that they are very useful, but some students who submit essays for review will find their writing dissected and examined to an extent they have never experienced before. And it’s in public. I expect that it may for some be an overwhelming or even harrowing experience, and reading this post and the comments makes me appreciative of the courage of those who submit their essays for such criticism.
Yes, the shit sandwich, as one trainer I had called it. If you have someone who uses the sandwich, each time he says something nice you start bracing yourself for the shit that follows. Personally, I believe you should be up-front about criticism, but be aware of how it will affect the other party. There's lots and lots written about this, so I won't trudge through it again, but keeping non-confrontational language focussing on the thing that is wrong rather than "you did it wrong" is usually better.
Like the previous commenter said, it is difficult, but the shit sandwich is not always the way to go, especially not if giving feedback to me.
Actually, Dr. Chris Nass (author of The Man Who Lied to his Laptop [1]) claims that people's memory of what is said after criticism is much better than what is said before criticism, so you should start with small praise, then criticism, then end with a larger amount of specific praise. He talks about it a bit in a Science Friday interview [2] and apparently more in the book.
I think that's what a lot of internet users do, myself included. It's so easy to harp on a company for something they are doing and much harder to suggest a feasible course of action that they should take.
It's also important to surround yourself with people who will engage in a conversation about the criticism they give, not just those who simply give it and walk away. I don't think anyone who is a leader or who aspires to be one takes any criticism without questioning it first.
The trick on the receiving end is to not be defensive, be open to the valuable portions of the feedback, and to call out people on ad hominem statements that have no place in a constructive relationship.
Finally all criticism should serve a business purpose, not a personal one. The person leveling the critique should be able to justify it in those terms in a clear, genial and convincing manner if they really want to effect change.
That's an awfully narrow purpose for giving criticism; not all of life takes place at the office. (I actually get what you're saying, but a slip of the tongue like that in different company, say with a significant other or a child, can leave you looking like a cold and uncaring bastard. Just a friendly heads-up ;-)
10-4. Hopefully clearly meant in the context of startup culture. Just feel there should be a clear separation between biz and personal issues criticism in the work environment.
Save the "why don't you ever do the dishes? Is it because you don't care about me?" critiques for the significant others. :-)
As a student at San Francisco's top design school, critiques has become a huge part of school. Every day involves at least one class critique, and it's not uncommon for student to solicit extra critiques from their peers and teachers. A big part of our grade is based on how we do during formal critiques, how we integrate feedback, and the quality of the feedback we give others.
After two years of this, I have become much more resilient when it comes to getting feedback. You can tell me anything, I won't take it personally. However, the feedback I give has become harsher, and outside of the school context (especially at work—I'm a developer at a startup) I sometimes fear I may be putting people off by being so honest. I do my best to be as constructive as possible, though.
Choosing what criticism to ignore, too, is also a huge skill. Every time someone suggests something, I will take it into consideration. I figure out why they said what they did, and try to get to the core reason. Then I can make an assessment as to whether to implement their suggestion, or whether another solution addresses the core problem.
I've always been put off by people who are passively aggressive in calling their criticism "honest" or "hard truths". It just means they don't understand how to communicate well or induce change and are too lazy to deal with it.
As one of the people who likes being honest, I've always been put off by people who can't handle it if I call a spade a spade. As long as my criticism is constructive, I shouldn't be forced to beat around the bush. When I offer you constructive criticism, I'm offering you what I believe is a way to improve some aspect of yourself and/or your work. You should be in charge in your own improvement. Asking me to "induce change" in you means you won't take responsibility and expect me to do your work for you.
I'm not asking you to induce change in me. But if you're going to take the time to give criticism, why be ineffective about it? Calling your ineffectiveness "honesty" is stupid, self-righteous, incompetent, useless, and pointless. If you're not making changes with your words, shut up.
Induce change sounds like a euphemism for manipulation or coercion. You'll forgive me if I don't think the world needs more manipulative interaction.
Yes, there are some folks out there that come across as pretty raw, but get outside of coding/software circles and it's shocking how fragile people tend to be in the face of any kind of criticism. I think the ideal here would be for the passive aggressive dickheads to take it down a notch, meanwhile everyone else could stand to toughen up a little.
Personally I'm put off by people that require some layer of cozening as a buffer for their communications with others but such is life.
Great comment and very true, you need to be able to take criticism to get better. I'm curious, which school is considered the top design school? Thanks.
That's cool, I have check out CMYK and a few other magazines and there's usually quite a bit from CCA in there. Good luck! I'm sure you'll create some really fun stuff.
Taking it a bit further it's often useful to invite criticism. Next time you show off your latest prototype instead of asking "What do you think?" ask "What do you hate about this?". Sometimes your peers are reluctant to criticize; make them feel comfortable to do so.
I used to be that person that can't take criticism and blows up whenever he's challenged on something.
I wish I knew what happened, but I'm now the person who wants criticism so that he knows how he can improve himself. It still hurts my feelings a little, but that's totally drowned out by the new mission created for bettering myself. (Of course, that assumes the criticism is valid. It's not always. In that case I just contain my anger and file the advice away in case I keep hearing it over and over. If I do, that means it wasn't something to ignore after all.)
The rehearsal process is short, maybe a month max for straight plays. Once you get past the grind of blocking and memorization, the director doesn't have much time to shape and mold things to make the show fit their vision. Which means that actors have to swallow their insecurities (of which actors notoriously have many) and incorporate everything they're given. Fast. It's an exercise in feedback loops at break-neck speeds. And believe me, directors don't like giving the same note twice.
What I'm getting to here is that feedback has become a social event in theatre. I don't mean that there is pizza and noise makers, just that it's done as a group. Every night after a run through, the entire cast will sit down for however long it takes and go through the director's notes -- of which there will be many pages. Given the timeline, there is no time for debate. If you start a discussion with the director, you are wasting their time, as well as the time of all your cast members (who are on the clock). It doesn't matter if your feelings are hurt, or if you have some lame excuse -- at that moment, you're always wrong and the direct is always right. And the only thing going through everyone else's head is, "Take the note." There isn't a single actor in the world who wants to work with someone that can't take criticism.
The real rub is that all of these opinions are completely subjective, yet deeply personal. Because that's art. Ultimately, you just have to know your shit and be willing to think on your feet. In you're spare time, study what you're given and think about actual ways you can incorporate it. The big realization is that it's collaborative art. Everyone is working together and NEEDS to be willing to work towards the same goal. If you don't, you're the bad apple. Directors will simply stop casting you.
I don't know that any of this can be incorporated into the tech world. Maybe this is how we should do code reviews or design meetings. Or run startups. Heck if I know. But it's not something I've personally encountered in any other social groups so far.