The PhD dissertation titled “Production and Reception of the Zagreb Ballet Scene from 1992 to 2012” analyses the critical reception of first performances, premieres and revivals (the latter only if they are the work of a new artistic team and/or if they are conceptually significantly different from the first version) staged in the Croatian National Theatre in Zagreb in the aforementioned period (during the mandates of Milko Šparemblek, Almira Osmanović, Dinko Bogdanić and Irena Pasarić), followed by the Atelier Corégraphique and Croatia ballet companies, and the independent authorial projects of Dinko Bogdanić and Ljiljana Gvozdenović. The methodological framework of the research consists of the basic analytical procedures of description, interpretation, contextualisation and evaluation, and the critical texts are evaluated in terms of whether and which of these procedures they include, whether the chosen procedures were adequately carried out, and whether and to what extent the texts included were competently written reviews. An analysis of critical reception leads to the conclusion that three groups of texts can be roughly distinguished. The first group, consisting of three sub-groups, has in common the types of texts that do not fall into the critical category. Some of them were neither conceived nor written as critical since they consist of only a few sentences within which their authors had no space to express more than personal impressions (Maja Stanetti), i.e. a general, partial and concise overview of what was seen (Višnja Rogošić). The second sub-group of texts consists of those which, although significantly more extensive, actually focus on another event (Marija Barbieri, Dalibor Paulik, Bosiljka Perić Kempf), i.e. on the numerous reworkings of the textual template as the basis of the ballet work (Zlatko Vidačković), the overall work and significance of the ballet company (Trpimir Matasović), or information from the programme booklet and biographical information about the choreographer (Mladen Mordej Vučković), but not the performances themselves which are dealt with in a cursory and superficial manner by the authors. The second, and most numerous, group of texts is made up of those that the authors conceived as critical but did not write down as sufficiently relevant. Within this group of texts, three sub-groups can also be observed. In the first group are Gordana Bočkaj, Bosiljka Brajčić, Emil Čić, Ratko Čangalović, Denis Derk, Nedžad Haznadar, Maja Hrgović, Svjetlana Hribar, Miljenko Jelača, Milica Jović, Dodi Komanov, Dubravka Lampalov-Malešević, Branko Magdić, Stijepo Mijović-Kočan, Snjezana Miklaušić Ćeran, Petra Mrduljaš, Kruno Petrinović, Branimir Pofuk, Višnja Požgaj, Zrinka Radić, Bojana Radović, Nenad Turkalj, Zdenka Weber and Sonja Zubović. The texts of these authors relatively often contain a disproportionate ratio between primary information about the performance (argued positions, comments, explanations, etc.) and secondary information (biographical data of the [co- ]authors, their intentions, transcripts from the programme booklet, narratives). They are usually characterised by superficial descriptions of the set and costumes (which are often more personal impressions than realistic descriptions), but not by an evaluation of the performance viewed through the criterion of its correspondence to the dance movements and other scenic elements. Descriptions and interpretations of choreographies and/or directorial processes and intentions are relatively rare, and even then they are mostly general, insufficient and unconvincing, as are evaluations of dance performances which are mostly superficial, lacking in professionalism and based on personal impressions rather than on more objective criteria of performance. In these authors, contextual reflection on repertoire choices is noticeable and rare, which, together with the aforementioned, makes their assessments of ballet performances insufficiently reliable or inadequately substantiated. The second subgroup consists of texts by two authors (Snježana Dukić, Maja Stanetti) which are also characterised by the absence of adequate descriptions, interpretations, contextualisation and, to some extent, evaluation, but which, unlike the aforementioned texts, are characterised by a greater detailed analysis of a separate stage segment—the dance segment (Snježana Dukić), or the vocal/musical segment (Maja Stanetti)—with which they provide a relevant critical opinion on the performance from one point of view and a relevant evaluation along these lines, but since they critically bypass other segments of the production, their presentations do not represent a sufficiently rounded and credible whole. The third sub-group of texts includes those by Ivica Buljan, Svjetlana Hribar, Trpimir Matasović, Olivera Međugorac, Nina Ožegović and Lidija Zozoli, which are characterised by an adequate analysis of the secondary production segments, but not of the main ones—dance and choreography—which is not critical enough in the evaluation of dance performances; that is, an analysis of the whole production, which is sometimes or entirely carried out in a relatively superficial way, which in the end also does not provide a sufficiently reliable critical judgement. The above is evident in Buljan's observation of the productions in a repertoire or regional context, and in his skilful parallel descriptions and interpretations of the musical, scenography, costume and lighting solutions, as well as in the absence of analysis of the dance productions and choreographic elements; with Matasović, through an analytical focus on direction, dramaturgy and orchestral music-making, and sometimes on the interpretation of choreography, scenography and costume choices, but also through the regular absence of analysis of the dance and sometimes choreography aspects of the productions; with Svjetlana Hribar, Olivera Međugorac, Nina Ožegović and Lidija Zozoli, through attempts to analyse most of the production segments, but mostly underdeveloped, i.e. through impressions and judgements that are not sufficiently solidly based on clear criteria and not sufficiently convincingly explained. However, it should be pointed out that relatively many of the texts by these authors were published in the daily newspapers as part of standard journalistic assignments which did not only cover dance art, but also covered a wide range of cultural areas and determined the daily rhythm of publication. This had an important and sometimes decisive influence on the production of largely under-relevant texts, whose authors lacked the temporal as well as the historical, theoretical and technical dance knowledge, the years of theatrical experience, and the demonstrated interest and sensitivity for dance art to produce studio-oriented and comprehensive analytical overviews and, finally, to establish more objective criteria. The third group of texts consists of critically relevant ones by Maja Bezjak, Maja Đurinović, Nataša Govedić, Sanja Hrgetić, Andreja Jeličić, Katja Jocić, Jagoda Martinčević, Mladen Mordej Vučković, Sibila Petlevski, Breda Pretnar Mekjavić, Davor Schopf, Iva Nerina Sibila and Ivana Slunjski. What they have in common is, above all, a broader view of the work in the context of (co-)auteur works, theatrical and performance repertoire, performance potential, European dance currents, historical and theoretical knowledge, audience expectations and so on. The descriptions are usually meaningful, i.e. linked to a convincing interpretation of a key production factor—most often choreography, and somewhat less often scenography and costume design—and as such are functional elements of the evaluation. The credibility of these critics' assessment is based both on their training and their excellent theatrical experience, and on closely related criteria, i.e. objective criteria which significantly reduce the potential arbitrariness of a summative assessment. Although the texts of these critics generally provide a comprehensive and competent analysis, they differ in their approaches. Maja Đurinović, Sanja Hrgetić, Katja Jocić, Jagoda Martinčević, Mladen Mordej Vučković, Breda Pretnar Mekjavić and Davor Schopf are characterised by a holistic approach to the work which attempts to evaluate it from all angles, especially through a skilful analysis of the technical and/or expressive aspects of the dancers' performances, and through the intertwining of vivid descriptions and convincing interpretations of the choreographic segment, i.e. set, costume and/or other. Nataša Govedić, Sibila Petlevski, Iva Nerina Sibila and Ivana Slunjski are characterised by an accentuated contextualisation and interpretation of the work, while Maja Bezjak, Andreja Jeličić and Ivana Slunjski are characterised by their thorough knowledge. Maja Bezjak expresses it mainly in the analysis of choreographies and dance performances, while Andreja Jeličić and Ivana Slunjski express it in the analysis of the whole authorial concept where it is mainly in the interpretation that they bring the essentials: the understanding of the character of dance, its content and the processing of this content. Nevertheless, in this group of critics, due to the longer continuity of publication, as well as following performances of diverse styles and in different (extra-)institutional contexts, only four stood out: Maja Đurinović, Jagoda Martinčević, Mladen Mordej Vučković and Davor Schopf. Thus, potential viewers had a relatively narrow choice of names that could regularly serve as authoritative guides, analysts, educators, arbiters of taste, etc.