Critiques?

How do people feel about a thread for critiques?
Or critiquing in general?

It seems to me, often critiquing is either at one end of the spectrum or the other> Just harsh tearing down, or mealy mouthed pandering praise.

I know I don't often like to hear bad things , just like most people.

I also have found that some who give suggestions don't have much "authority", yet present opinions as if they are prime directives.

Any thoughts on this?

At times I would like to say something about other people's works, but if they are not asking for it, I should just look and enjoy their participation.

For the most part, I enjoy hearing what people do like About my work, and if they like it they will come back. There are times when It would be nice to have intelligent and informed discussions about pieces...and techniques, mediums and methods. That could be diff threads.?

I'll take that as a "meh".

Critiques/Critiquing--A Double-edged Sword/Word

Hi, Throbbs...

Artists, whether literary or visual, are super sensitive individuals.

I know because I am both, or at least, trying to be a writer/author now. Thus, I valued criticisms as important for me in many ways--but only if I can recognize and weigh the truth, the sincerity, and the honesty of the intentions behind the critiques.

If the criticism was blatant and hurting to my works, I considered the opinions, as you put it, as if given or expressed like "prime directives." (Who the fuck are you to judge my work? What the hell are you looking for in my art? What the fuck do you know? Only some of my most often irate reactions to people critiquing my works, my ideas, my style, my attitude towards my art--especially, at the start of my career in visual arts.)

I was stubborn, arrogant, a fool not to listen to the critiques but felt secured to embrace my art, and where I considered everyone, as you put it again, "don't have much authority" to judge my art. True, there were many posers, many hypocritical pretenders as if they have the final say in everything...And yet, I found out later, EXPERIENCE is a good teacher--and good criticisms came from the experienced lot.

Yet, I mellowed and learned to accept and sift and filter what is only reasonable from their words. I examined my works, allowed it to marinate for some weeks before I reconsider what muck were thrown at it by examining it again. I re-drew my earlier illustrations, in the same way I rewrote my stories. But this time incorporating the essences of their observations, trying to distinguish the truth from their words, where I found there were at least 65% valuable advice. It worked and helped a lot, and yet, man, that is rare.

As artists, we hold the right to create what we want to create, and the observations of the learned pretenders are harmful to that freedom. From the bunch of critiques, less than a handful can be believed as honest and without any hidden agenda up their sleeves.

To discuss one's work with a scalpel in hand instead of a soft blush-on brush, seems imminent, if one knew for sure his/her works are not up to par yet or below the Master's standards--whoever it is one idolizes or admires. It really depends a lot on the artist on where s/he places her/his works as all right.

Thus, art is a continuing process of development, of discovering one's own unique talent, until it becomes known as, say, I.M.Fauve, without looking at the signature. When that happens, to hell with the critiques!

Well, that was a mouthful! (or an eyeful)

if not critiques, then discussions...?

Are you going to start a thread of your work lean?
We don't have to have them open for or inviting unsolicited critique (though, unfortunately, we cannot moderate our own threads here)

Critiquing the Critics? Why, yeah--of course!

I'm kidding! Continue the idea, man, it's a good thread.

How I love to start posting my old, and some recent, erotic drawings, and yet--

I'm nervous of what I. M. Fauve would say when he sees it -- ha-ha!

Or the rest of the good guys already posting their works here, for that matter, after I blabbered a lot already about art. The thing is, I'm still coping in transferring the raw artwork into digital format: I don't have a scanner, a digicam -- and for me to have an electronic copy, I must visit a public internet cafe where people are still a bit squeamish when the subject is erotica.

Thus, I must see an old friend, an advertising photographer, who can do the shooting and editing for me without questions asks. Maybe, before end of the month, I can post some of my works.

Till then, keep it up and hard!

Don't be nervous. I have yet to see someone come out and slam somebody's work. The trend here is praise and encouragement, and focusing on the positive. That said, I have offered mild critiques here and there. I could use a few critiques of my work myself, and it's out there if anyone wants to check.

Hey, thank you for the encouragement. Will do a.s.a.p. Just moved to a new place and everything is a mild clutter. Thanks again!

Responses are also encouraging.

"hello....? H-E-L-L-O ? Is anyone out there?"

Even those who do not feel qualified to give review on technique or composition and what have you — Everyone has an opinion, so if something appeals, it is helpful to say so, and even better if one can "put a finger on"...why it appeals. That way you might get to see more of what you like.

That being said, as Leanmeangoblin noted: being "super sensitive individuals," if one does not care for an image, just follow Momma's rule: "If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all."


OOOoooOooooohhhhh! got it. LOL

never mind.

I think critiques can be very helpful, and even when they aren't, I appreciate the feedback. It's nice to know someone paid enough attention to hate it, even when they hate it for the wrong reasons. My belief is that you really aren't an artist until you've dealt with critiques. A tiny handful of people can do this for themselves, another tiny handful are basically savants for whom critiques are useless, but their work is in some way wonderful anyway. Everybody else gets better with critique.
I have had those 'super sensitive' feelings beaten out of me, and I'm also very critical of my own work, so it's hard to hurt my feelings. People are always welcome to criticize my work. However, I know that there are a lot of delicate snowflakes out there, so I try not to offer my opinion unless people ask for it. If you do ask for it, though, I don't feel any obligation to sugar coat it.
So, by all means, a critique thread is a great idea. At the moment my own work is all sketchwork, I'm not even attempting anything I'd call 'finished' while I learn about digital tools (advice to budding artists- do a LOT of bad stuff rather than a small amount of good stuff while you're learning. You'll learn a lot more, a lot faster, and your good stuff sucks anyway), so I don't know if they're really worth critiquing, but I'm willing if others are.

I can never think of anything kind to say.
'Give up' sounds so cruel

ifluke said:

I can never think of anything kind to say.
'Give up' sounds so cruel

Click to expand...

Having seen some of your art, I'm surprised you have a problem with cruelty.

DrDelirium said:

Having seen some of your art, I'm surprised you have a problem with cruelty.

Click to expand...

I give up

I for one am always looking for critique on my drawings as such - Especially if it's constructive.
How else would I learn and get better?

While it's appreciated when people comment with "oooh, so good!" or simply "wow", it's pretty useless to me. Yes, it's nice to know that someone likes what I made, but it's not helpful. The comments that point out what it is that's liked/appreciated in a drawing actually help. It lets me know that I did a good job on the hands in that drawing or the nose in that one.
It's the same with the reverse type of comments.."Omg! You sux" (or whatever) is just a waste of time. I don't even get sad or annoyed by them. It's white noise, again because I can't use it.
Comments pointing out that my anatomy is wrong or listing everything about a drawing that's unrealistic... yea, it's hard to hear, but at least it gives me some kind of idea what it is people don't like.
If it's a personal preference for something I can just brush it off, but otherwise I might learn something.

I vastly prefer the comments that point out both something good and bad and then proceed with a pointer or explanation of "why"
(I.e. "I don't like the way you drew the legs and feet, since it seems to be an un-natural pose and really unrealistic, but if you shaded X and Y like that, maybe it would be better. Also I like the way you shaded around the eyes, and your line work is good")
Yes... I'm demanding

Shadowheart82 said:

I for one am always looking for critique on my drawings as such - Especially if it's constructive.
How else would I learn and get better?

While it's appreciated when people comment with "oooh, so good!" or simply "wow", it's pretty useless to me. Yes, it's nice to know that someone likes what I made, but it's not helpful. The comments that point out what it is that's liked/appreciated in a drawing actually help. It lets me know that I did a good job on the hands in that drawing or the nose in that one.
It's the same with the reverse type of comments.."Omg! You sux" (or whatever) is just a waste of time. I don't even get sad or annoyed by them. It's white noise, again because I can't use it.
Comments pointing out that my anatomy is wrong or listing everything about a drawing that's unrealistic... yea, it's hard to hear, but at least it gives me some kind of idea what it is people don't like.
If it's a personal preference for something I can just brush it off, but otherwise I might learn something.

I vastly prefer the comments that point out both something good and bad and then proceed with a pointer or explanation of "why"
(I.e. "I don't like the way you drew the legs and feet, since it seems to be an un-natural pose and really unrealistic, but if you shaded X and Y like that, maybe it would be better. Also I like the way you shaded around the eyes, and your line work is good")
Yes... I'm demanding

Click to expand...

I mostly don't do that unless someone is paying me. A) regardless of what people say, most of them don't want to hear it. This is not about you, just generally. B) it's very hard to know what kind of critique a person can understand unless you deal with them frequently. C) Even people who do want to hear usually argue, which is a big waste of everyone's time. D) Usually I don't care if someone 'gets better.' I know, right?
However, selfish prick that I am, I want to get better, so I demand useful feedback from everyone else!

DrDelirium said:

I mostly don't do that unless someone is paying me!snipz

Click to expand...

Will you take a cheque If I draw one?

Self-motivated 'Artists' know what's wrong with their work*
Being exposed as lazy and or dishonest is however useful if that's what's needed
The average commentator doesn't have the technical knowledge to say much about a picture. They like or they dont - so what

Any miserable advice I could offer would be promoting my own style of doing things. Do I care enough to bring on an apprentice crook – nope

The thing is the art here serves no purpose other than self gratification. One may as well be boasting about getting a high score on Nintendo. It is self-indulgence and generally unusable and uninteresting to the sensation seekers grazing unless they get something back.

Of course, the more thoughtful plant seeds of encouragement as they go, virtue is its own reward as the vicar sez
–
Or one can just have fun - like the voice on the phone in 'Compliance'

Im going to regret this post

ifluke said:

Will you take a cheque If I draw one?

Self-motivated 'Artists' know what's wrong with their work*
Being exposed as lazy and or dishonest is however useful if that's what's needed
The average commentator doesn't have the technical knowledge to say much about a picture. They like or they dont - so what

Any miserable advice I could offer would be promoting my own style of doing things. Do I care enough to bring on an apprentice crook – nope

The thing is the art here serves no purpose other than self gratification. One may as well be boasting about getting a high score on Nintendo. It is self-indulgence and generally unusable and uninteresting to the sensation seekers grazing unless they get something back.

Of course, the more thoughtful plant seeds of encouragement as they go, virtue is its own reward as the vicar sez
–
Or one can just have fun - like the voice on the phone in 'Compliance'

Im going to regret this post

Click to expand...

I pretty much agree with this post. Art is subjective. You either like it or you dont...for any number of reasons. My opinion doesn't mean shit...my advice would just be an opinion...again, not worth much. I feel like an artist creates what they want. People interpret it how they want. If you want to 'get better' you play around with it and practice different techniques until 'you' are satisfied with it.

Most comments aren't going to be helpful. But if 50 people "ooooooh", "aaahhh", and "wow" over exhibit A, and nobody even comments on exhibit B, C, D, and 10 people hate exhibit E...that's as useful as anything else in determining what the popular opinion is. The question is, "Who are you creating it for?" Your own self expression...or to cater to the masses? Either way, a thumbs up or thumbs down is a sufficient comment in my opinion, but we've already discussed how much that means...

Will you take a cheque If I draw one?

Click to expand...

Why, yes, I would be happy to! I understand that Picasso, in his later years, always paid by check because people valued his signature too much to cash them. Perhaps yours will attain some ridiculous value, too.

Self-motivated 'Artists' know what's wrong with their work*

Click to expand...

This would be closer to the truth if you said, 'self-motivated 'artists' know when there's something wrong with their work.' Sometimes understanding the problem especially if it's not something as straightforward as a problem in foreshortening, is difficult to achieve. Outside perspective can be very helpful there. Of course, they are only useful in the context of what the artist trying to do, but sometimes it is exactly this that the artist needs outsiders to help him understand. Not to tell him what he should be trying to do, but to make him articulate what he is trying to do.

Any miserable advice I could offer would be promoting my own style of doing things.

Click to expand...

Allow me to doubt that you are this narrow.

You have a mature style and a high degree of competence in it. It suits your subject matter down to the ground, so your work is beyond reproach. I always admire that kind of facility- perhaps because I don't have it- even when the end product doesn't do anything for me, but either way, it is kind of critique-proof. However, I don't think everyone is operating in the same zone that you are.

I think that art here has several functions. One is certainly to win the adulation of the masses... um... if only the masses would bother to look... Perhaps a more realistic goal is simply self-expression in an environment where one might reasonably expect that viewers won't instantly reject the work on the basis of content alone. Having seen some discussion of the comments in "Loving Wives" I am now less sanguine about that...
Well, alright, it's pretty pointless. But if I was adverse to pointless activities I wouldn't be an artist. What is more pointless than art?

Im going to regret this post

Click to expand...

But a life without regrets would be so shallow...

what they said.

(which is not the same as: "that's what she said.")


Naturally there will always be the subjectivity of visual arts (and audio, and culinary...), but I think there is also an elusive (VERY elusive) objectivity or even univeral... je ne sais what? which qualifies a piece as "good" or "Art" (capital A).

We often say , "beauty is in the eye of the beholder", a dilute truism.
Sure the are cultural factors which influence taste, but..... it seems that a "trained eye" might distinguish and identify a "masterful hand" (stroke/line quality)...


and blah blah blah...

Maybe I'm putting too much emphasis on the difference between a "comment" and "critique" - and yes, I'm aware that I mixed them together in my previous post...

ifluke said:

The average commentator doesn't have the technical knowledge to say much about a picture. They like or they dont - so what

Click to expand...

But we weren't talking about the average commentator. Were we? The original question concerned what we felt about critiques on our stuff. That's what I was trying to give my opinion on.

DrDelirium said:

This would be closer to the truth if you said, 'self-motivated 'artists' know when there's something wrong with their work.' Sometimes understanding the problem especially if it's not something as straightforward as a problem in foreshortening, is difficult to achieve. Outside perspective can be very helpful there.

Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more.

Of course art is subjective, and I'm not saying that the average comments shouldn't exist (good luck with that!).
I'm saying that while it's nice that people tell me they like a drawing I made - it's not useful. Although "Constructive" might be a better word.
I'm not a professional. I have no formal training. There's a weekend course in one technique here, another on something else there. I google stuff to use as references (when I'm not just Hogarth'ing it). I'm experimenting and trying out new things. People telling me that they like an experiment is good. (or white noise, in case of "you suck"-messages)
But in order to be helpful, i.e. be an actual critique, it needs to be constructive.

Nice.