A broad educational background that gives one a cultural understanding that can be brought to bear on particular dance performances is also important. This might be training in history, philosophy, or literature generally, especially since degree programs in dance criticism are virtually nonexistent. Second, good critics must have seen a lot of dance. They ms possible, both by performers and choreographers. Opinions vary, but I believe critics write primarily for the other people in the audience and for the potential dance audience in the general population.
Critics try to help that audience focus on things worth thinking about in dance.
The critic should crystallize gut reactions and intuitions that audience members form about a performance. The critic should educate an audience about what to look at and provide a historic and stylistic context enhancing the appreciation and understanding of a particular performance. Although many audience members are quite knowledgeable about dance, the critic functions as a leader of the continuing dialogue among members of that audience, enhancing their understanding of dance. It may be surprising, but I do not believe that critics' primary readers are the dancers and choreographers, who have coaches, teachers, and company directors to help them improve. Many dancers and choreographers complain mightily about dance critics, and sometimes they boast that they never read critics.