The Artistic Criticism of Drama and its Difference with Journalistic and Academic Criticism

Categorizing the criticism of drama into three parts as journalistic, academic, and artistic originates from Iranian tradition. It should be borne in mind that two great famous European critics, Lucian Goldman and Roland Barthes, had previously dichotomized criticism into two groups in their literary discussions. Goldman proposes genetic criticism instead of academic criticism, and Barthes in an analysis proposes academic criticism instead of interpretive criticism. In any case, our discussion about the criticism of drama entirely differs from their literary and critical discussions. While elaborating on the practicality of artistic criticism of drama, I propose, in this research, the hypothesis that the artistic criticism of art has priority over the journalistic criticism, which is propagandist, shallow, and non-productive, and it also has priority over the academic criticism, which is neutral and detached from the social and dynamic activities of daily life. The importance and the privileged status of the artistic criticism of art truly demand a full observation of the three major integral factors of drama- the play, performance, and the audience, and all this is meant to develop the aesthetics and the artistic language of drama in the contemporary era. To achieve this goal, a critic of art must heed the three following characteristics: knowledge, understanding, and professional conscientious.