From freeCodeCamp:
A fairly well-known and respected graphic designer once openly criticized something I had written and shared publicly. He did a poor job with his feedback however, as his only remark—in its entirety—was: “This guy doesn’t get it.”
The feedback stung, but it also made me question the designer’s intention and understanding of what he was criticizing.
“This guy doesn’t get it.” What was the “it” he was referring to exactly? How might I begin learning how to “get” whatever “it” was? What could I do to improve and become as seemingly aware and insightful as the critic? He failed to provide any answers. His criticism was hurtful and loud, but ultimately useless.
Of course criticism is important: it can expose us to perspectives we weren’t aware of, uncover flaws in our work, and help us identify areas for learning and growing. Criticism can be generative and help us create a more complete picture of whatever it is we’re trying to do. But some criticism, while obnoxiously loud, will lack any real substance.
Knowing when to tune-in and probe or when to ignore criticism is valuable. It will save you time, help you avoid headaches and heartaches, and get you to a place where you’re growing and producing good work rather than obsessing over the impossible pursuit of perfection.
In his book Antifragile Nassim Nicholas Taleb writes:
“When you take risks, insults by small men, those who don’t risk anything, are similar to barks by nonhuman animals; you can’t feel insulted by a dog.”
In my example story, this once noble designer may have had some great years of experience, but if the only guidance he can muster to a fellow designer is: “you don’t get it,” he’s wasting his time. He wasn’t helping me, or any of his dutiful followers, just barking like an obnoxious dog.
When you hear or give criticism you must consider whether it’s additive or generative—is it offering anything that can be built on?—or is it neutral or subtractive?
If I had listened to the criticism—if I had taken the words to heart and believed that I wasn’t “getting it,” if I had done anything because of the criticism—I’d be no better off. Absolutely unchanged. Because I wouldn’t have had the slightest clue as to any reason the criticism might be true. What was the argument to be made against whatever “it” was I wasn’t getting? What was the way forward, toward understanding?
Link to the rest at freeCodeCamp
When it comes to writing, I ignore criticism if it comes from the minority instead of the majority (meaning readers who review). Even then, I’ll ignore it if it’s a matter of personal preferences.
I write the stories I want to read, and that’s why I began writing. I’m happy when others also want to read them!
When should we ignore criticism? Always. Criticism aims to reduce the artist, not improve the art.
When should we ignore critique? Never. Critique aims to improve the art.
So many of these pieces seem like psychological explorations of the writer’s own issues when articles used to strive to be more universal.
As Patsy Stone always said “Heigh Ho”.
Agreed, Barb.
The dude still doesn’t get it.
Ah, but by saying “This guy doesn’t get it.” The critic was protecting himself from the possible backlash if it turned out it was the ‘critic’ that wasn’t getting it.
A bit like that BookBub piece by Digital Book World we saw yesterday. DBW’s whole bit was ‘you need to up your game’, where uping your game means nothing – and can’t help if the real problem is BookBub doesn’t have the slots for all those trying for them.