ARTICLE

The Ethics of Dance Critique: Why it matters who writes

- Anita Vallabh
e-mail: editor@globalindianartist.com

August 24, 2026

(The article first appeared in Global Indian Artist™ LLC, dated July 19, 2026)

In an interview, the former New York Times chief dance critic Alastair Macaulay described his work this way: “To reconcile heart and head; to show how emotion and intelligence can combine when absorbing works of art. To report on and to evoke an event for those who weren't there. To provoke and enrich discussion of dance. To help people show how many elements - how many values - go into the process of judgment.”

It's an apt description of the critic's role: feel deeply, think clearly, write truthfully. But behind those thoughts, lies an ethical terrain every dance critic must navigate.

I started critiquing in 2014 for no other reason than my love for writing and dance. My first critique was on a performance by my gurus, The Dhananjayans and published in Narthaki. Soon after, I had a conversation with my Gurus about what I had written. In that exchange, I understood the power of words and the responsibility to choose them with care.

It was then I realized that if I wished to write honestly and critically, I could not also remain a performing artist in the same spaces. I made a conscious decision to step away from the stage and commit to critiquing. In the eleven years since, apart from the occasional performance for a non-profit or community event, I have not danced publicly. My love for dancing will never vane, I think of my transition form dancer to writer as expanding the artistic canvas.

I did not think much about that decision until, during the second day of the 2025 Intersections Conference, one of the presenters asked me:

What does it mean to be a dance critic?
After giving it careful thought, I offer these reflections.

Firstly, to critique is to observe keenly what is happening kinesthetically and emotionally and find words precise enough to carry that experience beyond the theatre. This translation matters because once written, a review outlives the evening. It becomes part of the record: future dancers, scholars, and audiences may look back and meet the performance only through the critic's eyes. That alone demands responsibility: the review must be crafted with care, not by impulse or prejudice.

Secondly, writing a critique is an act of choosing. To write about dance is to decide what matters and what can be left unsaid. Each sentence includes and excludes; each focus shapes how a performance will be remembered. These choices aren't casual. They come from the critic's sense of value: what is essential to the work's meaning, what reveals its craft, and what would only clutter or distort the picture.

Underpinning this craft are some guiding ethical principles that I remind myself to uphold every time I sit down to write.

The ethics of dance critique

1. Respect for artistic labour. Behind a single performance is disciplined practice, coordinating orchestra, thoughtful choices of costumes, ornaments and props, to name a few. A lot of emotional and financial investment is at stake. That labour must be respected.

2. Sensitivity to context. Dance is never “just movement.” It lives inside histories; of form, ritual, politics, and identity. A critic must try to understand the frameworks within which the work is made and offered.

3. Awareness of one's own bias. It is my opinion that no critic, if human, is neutral. Each of us sees through our training, taste, and cultural predispositions. Acknowledging and being aware of this and staying curious and open to new ways of seeing is part of the job. This ethical vigilance is meant to keep our vision honest and expansive.

4. Deep knowledge of texts and nuance. To speak responsibly about any form requires more than surface admiration. The critic must study the texts, philosophies, and subtle aesthetic codes that shape each tradition. Without this grounding, commentary risks distortion, erasure, or the belittling of valuable work.

5. Courage matters. Writing honestly about a celebrated artist's work requires courage and conviction. Fame can intimidate and tempt a critic to retreat into safe praise, but integrity demands courage to stand by what you have truly seen even when the subject's stature makes candor risky.

Critique thus demands a kind of independence that is nearly impossible for someone still deeply enmeshed in their performing life. Here are some other reasons why an active performer cannot be a critic.

1. Conflict of interest and divided loyalties
A performer lives inside the same ecology she would be asked to judge: shared teachers, presenters, donors, funding bodies, and audiences. To write candidly about a colleague's missteps risks real cost - invitations withdrawn, relationships strained, opportunities lost. That pressure can turn criticism into gentle polishing rather than truth-telling.

2. Unavoidable bias
Every performer's years of training instills a vocabulary in their body that is unique. A dancer may instinctively value precision of nritta and clarity of line, while a contemporary improviser may privilege experimentation, rupture, or dissonance. Consequently, when this dancer critiques the work of another, there is a risk that the review unconsciously defends or validates the aesthetic values of their own practice.

3. Erosion of trust
Audiences expect critical independence. A review penned by someone who will share the same stage or compete for the same grant feels compromised, however sincere the writing. That suspicion erodes the ecology of critique itself.

4. The need for distance
Performing demands immersion and vulnerability; criticism asks for detachment and broad vision. A critique must step back, take in the whole, and only then suggest how certain additions or deletions might refine the form. Trying to inhabit both roles fully almost always compromises one or the other.

5. Protecting the field
When the few visible voices are also performers, conversation shrinks into insider praise or veiled rivalries. Healthy criticism needs some writers who are free from those entanglements, so dialogue can be frank, risk-taking, and generative.

Performers have much to say about process, body, lineage, and craft. Their voices are vital in essays, artist statements, interviews, and reflective writing. But the role of the critic - the one who asks for accountability, offers perspective, and helps shape how history is recorded - requires a distinct kind of spaciousness. Critique needs independence not to take away agency or diminish the performer, but to serve the art itself. And while the pen, as the saying goes, may be mightier than the sword, it cannot be wielded safely by someone still moving within the very dynamics it must assess. To write truthfully, the critic must step out of the frame - not to detach from the art, but to see it whole.

Anita Vallabh, Ph.D., is a dance critic, author, and the Founder & Editorial Curator of Global Indian Artist LLC. She is also the Creative Director of Sarang Arts for Social Justice and serves as Cultural Advisor to the Bhagavatula Charitable Trust. She is based in Boston, Massachusetts.

Post your comments
Pl provide your name along with your comment. All appropriate comments posted with name in the blog will also be featured in the site.