Chat/Debate Thread (jan 24->)

[henrik]

For some time I have lacked a way for the members that hang out in this forum to talk about critiques, how to give and receive critique, discuss other critique related things, or just chat.

So, I am trying this thread as a new approach. I will keep this thread sticky and open until it starts to become long. I will then unstick it and let it sink while creating a new sticky Chat/Debate thread with a new starting date.

I am also prepared to open other other similar threads to talk about a specific subject on request. If this thread attracts a lot of traffic, or if I get lots of requests for various threads I will ask for a subforum to be created for that purpose.

[henrik]

So,,,, (ehhrmm)
what is the weather like in your part of the world?

[Keith Russell]

Good morning:

One of the things that is missing from the original sticky about 'how to give a critique', is a more overarching viewpoint (not necessarily a definition or description) of what visual art is.

Technique, composition, contrast, light and shadow, perspective, etc. are essential to certain kinds of visual art--but not all--and yet they are only the means to an end.

The 'end' is something far less tangible--yet essential. The feeling, mood, message, or meaning of a work of art is crucial--IMO--to the work being worth of the descriptor 'art'.

Without that additional element, a work of visual art can be 'illustration', 'visual depiction', and/or 'decoration'--all noble achievements in their own right--but not 'art'.

Not all artists may be aware of this, and a conscious knowledge of it is not essential to the creation of art. And, artists who are still struggling with technique, etc., may rightly be unconcerned about such things.

People who lack this element in their work should not be chastised, but artists who are struggling with it, might enjoy talking with each other.

Just a suggestion,

Keith.

[mame]

Originally posted by Keith Russell
Good morning:

One of the things that is missing from the original sticky about 'how to give a critique', is a more overarching viewpoint (not necessarily a definition or description) of what visual art is.

Technique, composition, contrast, light and shadow, perspective, etc. are essential to certain kinds of visual art--but not all--and yet they are only the means to an end.

The 'end' is something far less tangible--yet essential. The feeling, mood, message, or meaning of a work of art is crucial--IMO--to the work being worth of the descriptor 'art'.

Without that additional element, a work of visual art can be 'illustration', 'visual depiction', and/or 'decoration'--all noble achievements in their own right--but not 'art'.

Not all artists may be aware of this, and a conscious knowledge of it is not essential to the creation of art. And, artists who are still struggling with technique, etc., may rightly be unconcerned about such things.

People who lack this element in their work should not be chastised, but artists who are struggling with it, might enjoy talking with each other.

Just a suggestion,

Keith.

The END=content/meaning, (feeling/mood/message) is created using the "means" - Design elements/Cannons of Art.

The debate/discussion occurs when the artist's intention does not jive with the interceptor's perception/reaction/ interpretation.

The various elements you listed above ARE essential to ALL kinds of visual art - they are the "parts"/"means" that make a thing ART.

The End (feeling/mood/message) is the sum of the parts.

Line/color/perspective (realistic or skewed), shapes, direction, tone, texture, scale, dimension, movement, etc. are the "words" of visual art and "say" The End - feeling/mood/message.


Henrik - I signed up, clicked the disclaimer and dropped in to comment re Keith's take on what Art "does" re feeling/mood/message as an example/illustration of what might be a fun/interesting/informative thread that explores issues not covered/addressed in a particular critique of a particular artist's work

One can speak generally rather than "hard-hitting" a particular poster's work but speak to all of those things we all are mired in, - trying to make good work.

[henrik]

Keith, exactly - could not agree more. Seldom, if ever do we critique the "artfullness" of a piece, its place in history, its uniqueness, the painters voice etc. Some try, but often come across as just plain slamming the artist with "that has been tried before - your art is invalid" - which even if sandwiched between a Oooh and and Aaaahh is still pretty devastating.

I think the more technical aspects of the work are pretty well covered (I think I got the most common stuff in my article about "how to give critique"), but as to "artfullness" (or whatever we should call it) I think it would be of great value to agree on some evaluation rules. Not only would it be fun to discsuss (if nothing else comes out of it), but having rules makes it possible to better understand how your work can be judged and that a critique of the artfulness thus becomes less frightening and less apearing as slamming the artist's aesthetics.

In the article you find these non technical things to check - but they are still far from "artfullness".

• Lack of imagination - Poor selection of subject and approach. A dull subject rendered in a dull way.
• Lack of originality - Presenting a trite subject that has been painted a thousand times before.
• Plagiarism - The artist has copied another's work, or used someone else's photographs, and presented it as their own. (This also has legal implications.)
• Lack of interpretation - The artist was controlled by the subject. For example, including the shadow of a photo flash, or rendering a subject's eyes with effect of photo flash; a pleine aire artist has included an ugly object which detracts from their landscape simply because it was there.
• Empty - No mood, message or feeling conveyed.

[Keith Russell]

mame said:
"The various elements you listed above ARE essential to ALL kinds of visual art - they are the "parts"/"means" that make a thing ART."

Light/shadow and perspective were not essential elements in Mark Rothko's, Robert Motherwell's, or Jackson Pollock's work. (There are others...)

And, I have good arguments that their work is art, albeit not 'good' art...

But, I guess this isn't the place for that discussion...

Keith.

[mame]

Didn't mean to imply - in fact assumed (shame on me) that it was understood re Art 101 that ALL elements do not necessarily have to be present/reside in ALL works of visual art.

Hey, don't have to hit me with a Rothko to see my input in this clique aint wanted/needed/is of no potential value.

PS - My point was that it is in fact the artist's arbitrary choices of particlular elements or "parts" that equal the total and that create the End - feeling/mood/message. If a critiquer doesn't have a handle/is not aware of/is not versed in the parts, he/she cannot even begin to discuss the End.

The end Keith, I promise.

[jnet11]

I think the 'artfullness' of a piece is a legitimate addition to the critique toolbox, however, it is even more subjective than say composition or focal point discussions. So can really only be 'opinion'. Because there were so many portraits before, was Sargent out of place to paint them, or unoriginal?

I do find that many of the artists here at wc have never even begun to consider the overarching direction of their art, their 'sensation' to use Gauguin's term, and approaching it with them is likely to get a slap in the cyberface. too bad. I'm glad to hear some discussion about it anyway.

I find it interesting to read this discussion, and it makes me want a thread where each artist critiques themselves. I'd especially love to hear Keith and Henrik's opinions of their own art. Mame's shared hers with me much in the past. Down in ab/con we tend to get into more motivations/ouevre/historical relevance talks.

[henrik]

My own art - LOL...
First, I don't get to do much - WC is sort of my artistic outlet.

Anyway, in general I think I have a problem holding back my colors - they are in general too saturated and it looks garish and amateurish. In general I think I compose well, but my drawing abilities are not that great so I need to work carefully.

I don't really have a "voice" and I am not aware of any "direction" except that I can do more things better now and with less effort.

The artfullness of what I do... this is very difficult for me to judge in my own work.

[madster]

I like Jeanette's idea as a sticky of it's own...

Regarding the "artfullness" of a piece, "Intent" would, or should be a consideration also. I am reminded of the recent bruhaha we had regarding the mask invitation, and the "dull, unoriginal" critique the work generated, when in fact, for its intended purpose as an invitation it was crisp, well executed and quite novel.
Also, what about well executed works that still manage to come across as "making the viewer uncomfortable"??? A recent posted work titled "Hardcore" is very well done, but the subject matter borders between lewd and soft porn. As much as I appreciate the technical excellence, the subject disturbs me (Not offesive, but a little "too" private?) to where I cannot commend the artist on their skill.

Perhaps a "checklist" for critiques regarding the "basics" of value, composition, etc? with room for comments...

My art? I have yet to truly develop my own "style," prefering to express my intent in whatever oeuvre moves me at the moment, although my visual preferences are impressionistic and art deco leaning, with a strong urge towards expressionistic photorealism...(doesn't that sound grandiloquent?)

PS Henrik, the weather here is sucky, with too damn little moisture! We NEED a LOT of rain or snow, but preferably not all at one time...

[henrik]

Madster; here is a checklist/article on giving critique http://www.wetcanvas.com/Articles2/509/168/ in case you missed it.

[madster]

That's not quite what I meant, Henrik...I meant for people requesting a critique so that they would better understand what others look for. And the issue of "intent" is not addressed, as in the Mask Invitation, which was a request for the work under the intent that it was not attempting to be "fine art," but an eyecatching work for a specific purpose. The invitation was then criticized as being unimaginative, and a lame imitation of a well known work.

[jnet11]

Originally posted by henrik
My own art - LOL...
First, I don't get to do much - WC is sort of my artistic outlet.

Anyway, in general I think I have a problem holding back my colors - they are in general too saturated and it looks garish and amateurish. In general I think I compose well, but my drawing abilities are not that great so I need to work carefully.

I don't really have a "voice" and I am not aware of any "direction" except that I can do more things better now and with less effort.

The artfullness of what I do... this is very difficult for me to judge in my own work.

woo hoo

thanks henrik

next!

[henrik]

ok madster, sorry about misunderstanding...

I think it is assumed that work is supposed to be "art" rather than "illustration" (or whatever term to use) unless the poster states such intent.

However, I think we all have not given critique on "artfulness" in general unless specifically asked for. I guess the question is if we should - as stated earlier - many of us have not found "our voice yet" and a technical critique is perhaps what is most helpful.

Anyway, if we do start critiquing "artfulness" I think it is best if we can have some structure/rules (even if this perhaps is even more subjective than the technical part). I think the structure is of value to both sides of the critique; the artist knows what to expect if they ask for it, and the critiquers know how to handle this more senistive part of the critique.

What do you think? What do you think we should do?

[henrik]

Originally posted by jnet11


woo hoo

thanks henrik

next!

At some point I can take one of my own pieces and rip it apart.