I tend to think of creative works as gifts from the artist to the viewer. When I receive a gift, my first impulse is to say “thank you.” Then, after taking it in, I might have a heartfelt and sincere, “I think this is good,” to add to it. It’s never my impulse to say, “thank you for this gift, but I would like it better if X.”

When I am specifically and explicitly in the role of critic, I am inclined to respond with preference (and I think it’s a powerful tool for criticism). But when I am in the role of receiver of the gift, appreciation (similar but different from approval) is the first mode of action that comes to me.

What do you think, Joe?

Yeah, definitely.

My assertion is tied almost exclusively to artistic process. When it comes to artistic product, I’m pretty sure preference (as I’ve been using the word)is useless.

The key to my sentiment is that it is more useful to guide someone that validate them, and that both are forms of criticism.

I like your division between appreciation and approval, and I think that as a way of reacting to a finished product, appreciation rules. Still, in the moment, during the process, while we’re busy making something, I’d take preference above all else.

I, too, think that *appreciation* is very important, and I think that it is different (though sometimes confounded with) approval.

I think that appreciation for the process that we are engaging in is essential. That means engaging with whole heart, and sometimes explicitly saying, “I am so glad that we are doing this. I feel really good about the places we’ve been and the places we’re going.”

I do not actually want people to “appreciate” my products. That, to me, feels like approval, and it causes me stunting anxiety because it implies the possibility of disapproval.

Instead, I want my allies to be excited about our shared directions.

I want appreciation for the process with a preference for direction. What do you guys think?

PS It’s really cool that I was thinking “appreciation, appreciation,” and then clicked on comments and found this discussion. Yay!

Joe, Julian: Yes! I agree completely.

The “Nonviolent communication” method calls what you term ‘approval’, ‘violent appreciation’. Certainly, if someone has the authority to declare your work ‘good’, they certainly next time can call what you do ‘bad’.

‘Nonviolent appreciation’ works this way: rather than evaluating the quality of the work you’ve done, I simply tell my story, my experience of it. “When I play your game/listen to you music/look at your painting, I feel ecstatic. Thank you!”

This then gives segues into the creative/investigative process called “Appreciative Inquiry”, where rather than looking for what you’ve done ‘wrong’ or ‘right’, you look for strengths/energy/life, and build on it.

I too think we can give appreciative gifts to each other, and create beautiful, life-giving things, without resorting to judgement and criticism.

Just earlier today, I started musing about the role of “Yes, and” in any kind of cooperative endeavor, and started turning over in my mind that it separates cooperative endeavors that work from those that don’t. I don’t know if I’d go so far as to stand behind that just yet, but I started to think about that earlier today. This discussion gives me even more to consider.

Once again, I’m amazed by the synergy I’m feeling from this group. Jason, I was thinking exactly that, earlier today. I was thinking, “is Yes, And the kind of engaged appreciation/preferred direction that I look for at and beyond the storyjam?”

Awesome.

“I too think we can give appreciative gifts to each other, and create beautiful, life-giving things, without resorting to judgement and criticism.”

Willem, here is where we fight. Possibly over ideas, possibly over semantics.

I think judgment and criticism are potentially healthy components of the creative process, and that’s a large part of why I wrote this initial post: to dissect the core of healthy criticism.

Exercise: think about judgment more in terms of “using one’s better judgment” and less in terms of “casting judgment”. Think about criticism as someone offering suggestions for directional growth.

My best work happens when I feel creatively pressured in the RIGHT way (which is to say: preference over approval; nonviolent appreciation). When I don’t feel like I am expected to RISE UP, I often don’t.

This expectation to RISE UP, I’m suggesting that’s a form of judgment. If we’re talking about approval, someone is rooting that expectation in the past (and that sucks). If we’re talking about preference, someone is rooting that expectation in the future.

And that is a very good thing.

Also, when I first heard the phrase “violent appreciation” (my friend JB introduced me to it and some other NVC concepts about two years ago), it rocked my world.

It continues to do so.

It so concisely shakes my world view up.

Joe,

I hope that your next post or one soon after will be about what judgment is, what criticism is, in detail, and what separates their “valuable” forms from their “harmful” forms.

Is it simply a matter of rooting expectations in the past or the future? I don’t think that’s it. Is it simply a matter of following NVC principles and truly basing the communication in self? Maybe.

I’d like to see us discuss this thoughtfully.

Joe-

I always boost for what works; you know best what works for you.

I’ve noticed in my own artistic life, the words “judgement” and “critique” carry a large negative (i.e., reducing the energy and the quality of my experience as artist and/or audience) burden. I think I probably use other language for the meaning you intend, such as “appreciative inquiry” and so on.

I think I may understand what you mean by “rise up”; if I do understand you correctly, I too use this as part of my storyjamming/artistic toolkit, but very specifically and carefully.

It sucks to let down one’s artistic partners, and this tension alone can push one to great heights. But it also has imploded and destroyed groups for me, before they’ve ever really begun.

When I see hesitation, and self-censorship, I turn down the “rise up” knob; when I see high-energy and trust, I turn up the “rise up” knob.

I have a really difficult time talking about this over the internet.

What’s the ultimate harm here? I think deeper digging is required for me to get on board with this.

Elegua,
Who are you asking that to?
Are you asking me, as in “What’s the ultimate harm [of approval]?”

Or are you asking Willem, as in “What’s the ultimate harm [of criticism]?”

Well, I think both are interesting questions, but more directed at you regarding the ultimate harm of approval.

Elegua,
I feel like I outlined my two reasons in the post, along with their implications. Are you saying that you don’t feel the question is answered, or that it isn’t answered at the depth you are looking for?

Approval suggests the existence of disapproval. The existence of approval and disapproval introduces a new goal into the artistic process: Seek Approval While Avoiding Disapproval. This is part of human nature.

This is bad for two reasons. The first is that adding extra goals into a process dilutes already existing goals. The second is that as a goal, it is an especially bad goal to have. Of the things we have already done, we know what has earned us approval. Of the things we have yet to do, we cannot know for sure. We are incentivized to repeat our most widely accepted work, as opposed to being incentivized to create new things.

Approval puts a safety zone in that which has already been done, while the threat of disapproval simultaneously removes the safety zone from that which is new and different. Given the context of art, approval creates a feedback loop which dampens creativity.

Approval suggests the legitimacy of seeking external validation for your contributions. If you give someone approval, you suggest that approval is a useful thing. You also suggest that they didn’t begin with approval. You also suggest that the approval of their ideas is in your control. Ultimately, approval creates a hierarchy of expertise which ranks creator below critic. This hierarchy is dangerous because it devalues the artistic process, and it does this through suggesting that the artist alone does not have sufficient self-awareness, nor do they have intrinsic permission to create (that must be constantly proven through the appraisal of their work).

Does an instance of approval do this? No. Does a culture of approval do this? Yes.

As another feedback loop from approval, see the story games community at large. There are frequent waves of “I played this and it was awesome!!!!!!1!” These comments say to us “my game was justified”, and in doing so imply “your game now must be justified” and “there is the possibility that something will be unjustified”. It creates a dichotomy: games can be awesome or unawesome. It also consumes discussion of preference, which is where I would suggest our useful analysis will always lie: what could be done differently to make the game different and better. Preference does not concern itself with the awesome/unawesome dichotomy, because you can always improve/guide/shape/re-imagine/re-purpose/continue something regardless of whether or not it was awesome to begin with.

“Violent appreciation” means roughly the same thing as approval. I’m not going to assert that they are synonymous, mostly for a desire to avoid terminology wars. But, violent appreciation basically boils down to: a form of appreciation which invades someone else’s ability to form their own appreciation.

Approval and disapproval both interrupt our own stories that we have about a particular experience. If you say, “that game was a failure,” then you have just shut down a lot of valid appreciation and criticism that I might hold. If you say “that game was awesome,” then you have just shut down a lot of valid appreciation and criticism that I might hold.

In short: approval creates disapproval, approval dilutes our other artistic goals, approval denies intrinsic permission, approval creates a toxic hierarchy (creator<critic), approval roots our safety zone in the wrong place (if our goal is artistic growth or experimentation), approval incentivizes redundancy/repetition, approval denies space for preference, approval invades our personal experiences and stories, approval spawns substanceless feedback.

//thank you thank you thank you// you have said what i have been trying to communicate for…years.

//thank you//

Neat, @#.
If you’ve been trying to communicate this for years, I’m betting you have some additional perspective over me, no? Anything to contribute?

Also, what’s your name? I’d love to know who this is!

I’m still unpacking. I apologize for the delay.

(This is not the first post I wanted to respond to, just the first I did respond to.)

I appreciate the intellectual perspectives brought to the table here (this post and this blog in general). I find these viewpoints really engaging; however, through my own pilgrimage of self-awareness, I have come to learn that I speak through my thoughts. That is, when I write I edit but when I vocalize I don’t have that luxury pushing me towards both initial responses and silence. That said, rather than spending a long time trying to give feedback, I will point to another short post from a blog I read that deals with similar subject matter:

http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2009/06/should-hugh-swear-so-much.html

The connection I see is in regards to “a culture of approval/disapproval” and “the difference between creating something that matters or pleasing everybody.”