Chat/Debate Thread (jan 24->)

[jujubetoo]

I'd like to start a discussion as to what the idea is behind a structured critique.

I thought they were supposed to help us to improve our skills. I realize now that was a poor assumption. Some of the critiques I have seen by a handful of critiquers are more than a little harsh and sometimes outright rude.

If the point is to scare off anyone that these certain critiquers don't deem worthy of being painters, that's definately working. Attacking a painting is not the same as critiquing it.

Also, I think I will no longer critique paintings in this forum. I didn't realize when I read the agreement that one cannot give a critique without finding FAULT with a painting, thus opening myself up to reprimands (by private message) from a certain critiquer, who I believe is not one of the monitors. Also, I have had at least one of my critiques "critiqued" in some manner by a fellow critiquer. I didn't realize that was part of the agreement either. I suppose, another poor assumption on my part.

I had come to wetcanvas structured critiques looks for a place that would push my skills as a painter further and to learn how to better critique the works of others.

I have received some wonderful advice and have not had one of my paintings attacked. However, I do not want to be part of a forum that allows such obnoxious behavior. Everyone here is striving to be better or they wouldn't have opened themselves up publicly to such scrutiny. To see one attacked and not guided in such a forum is disheartening.

I don't believe I'm the only one who has noticed that there are many more viewers to this forum then requests for critiques or those willing to give a go at it. After seeing what goes on here, I'm not very surprised. I have noticed that those harshest among us do not post their own work for scrutiny. I will be more reluctant in the future to visit here. I will check back on this thread for the next week and see what develops.

In the meantime, chins and paintbrushes up. One bully in the group shouldn't stop us from pursuing our passions.

[henrik]

Please report posts that you think are in violation.

I hope you will stick around.

Just one comment - you do not have to find what is at FAULT - your are encouraged to comment on what you think can be improved - I think that is a big difference! Also, if there is nothing you think can be improved, you are also encouraged to post and describe things that are really well done and why you think so - that also provides a learning experience (perhaps more for onlookers than the artist).

Anyway, regarding harsh critiques - I (as moderator) always read them carefully to make sure that they are within the lines of the site policy and the rules for this forum. I don't want to censor critiques heavily - blatant slamming where somone is harsh and do not motivate their critique is not allowed - but if someone motivates "this is not good" with a coherent reasoning I think it should stay. If nothing else; knowing that some think that way can be of value.

You could alsways read the harsh critiques and translate on the fly... read "this is not good..." with "I think you can improve by..." etc. Some people just have their thermostat setting on High


Always remember that you need to take criques with a grain of salt and use what you think was of value to you.

[jujubetoo]

I will stick around wetcanvas. I'm still debating with myself as to whether this is the right critique group for me. I have other options in the real world that may prove more supportive to ALL members.

I could do as you suggest, Henrick, and replace what one has written with something more positive. But I do not want to turn a blind eye when someone is blatanly hostile, even if they stay within the guidelines of what is acceptable. I don't recommend censorship on your part either. My point in starting this open discussion is to guide us all to be better critiquers and critiquees.

I, personally, put on my thick skin and open my mind before opening a critique of my work. I've invited viewers to say what is on their minds and hope to become a better painter through the process. However, one can usually tell through the level of work how much a painter can and cannot take. A work from a painter at an elementary level does need, want or deserved to hear about every little flaw in their painting. A more generalized approach may be more valid. Or one or two areas of possible improvement could be pointed out.

Here's is an example from one of the recent critiques that just floored me...

This is NOT a "very fine work," because of it's glaring compositional and value flaws. The eye cannot smoothly enjoy this work because of the severe imbalances of color, value, proportion and shape. There truly are just too many things wrong with this piece to salvage it in its entirety,

This was posted after several previous paragraphs of "what's wrong with this painting". I can't imagine that the person who posted the critique request needed this. To me, is is quite clear that the author of the above quote was not trying to help the painter. Actually, I believe the critiquer was actually critiquing a previous critique! So, not only did this critiquer devalue the painting, but the opinions of those who posted before him/her! To what purpose?

The one thing I have learned in my short stint here is that I now know how I dont' want to critique.

Here's hoping the discussion continues...

[MarkMark]

Originally Posted by jujubetoo

I will stick around wetcanvas. I'm still debating with myself as to whether this is the right critique group for me. I have other options in the real world that may prove more supportive to ALL members.

I could do as you suggest, Henrick, and replace what one has written with something more positive. But I do not want to turn a blind eye when someone is blatanly hostile, even if they stay within the guidelines of what is acceptable. I don't recommend censorship on your part either. My point in starting this open discussion is to guide us all to be better critiquers and critiquees.

I, personally, put on my thick skin and open my mind before opening a critique of my work. I've invited viewers to say what is on their minds and hope to become a better painter through the process. However, one can usually tell through the level of work how much a painter can and cannot take. A work from a painter at an elementary level does need, want or deserved to hear about every little flaw in their painting. A more generalized approach may be more valid. Or one or two areas of possible improvement could be pointed out.

Here's is an example from one of the recent critiques that just floored me...



This was posted after several previous paragraphs of "what's wrong with this painting". I can't imagine that the person who posted the critique request needed this. To me, is is quite clear that the author of the above quote was not trying to help the painter. Actually, I believe the critiquer was actually critiquing a previous critique! So, not only did this critiquer devalue the painting, but the opinions of those who posted before him/her! To what purpose?

The one thing I have learned in my short stint here is that I now know how I dont' want to critique.

Here's hoping the discussion continues...

I do believe that the crit forum is useful and most people contributing to it, do so in an even handed manner. It is fair to say though that there are members who cant help 'dishing the dirt' I guess there is no way of getting around this.

[Terri5]

She's absolutely right, though, Mark and Henrik. The behavior I've witnessed here is definitely out of bounds, not to mention unethical. She's also right in that the critiquer who delivers such critiques was, in this instance, responding to a critiquer with personal venom rather than responding to the actual painting, I believe.

On any other site, this critiquer would be reined in. Here, I've actually seen her behavior encouraged (and, in one instance, replicated by the moderator himself). My feeling is that, if the moderators or powers-to-be agree with the opinion expressed, it doesn't matter HOW it's expressed. This, of course, is not a rational position, nor is it a kind one to adopt toward fellow members.

Ultimately, the site should be about encouraging mutual growth.

I think that this is an excellent site overall, and I'll stay. But the kind of critique that's been excerpted here is not helpful to anyone and simply betrayers the reviewer's insecurity.

A "no praise only forum" should not equal a "free-for-all" by the insecure (or the embittered).

I think that the moderators here could "moderate" a bit more.

[henrik]

I hear you.

To help me, and the other moderators please report posts you find objectionable. This makes it easier for me to discuss issues with fellow moderators. It may be that I have grown acustomed to some critiquers style and automatically turn on my "translator".

I have delt with issues like this before, and if I do receive official reports I have firmer ground to stand on when discussing the matter with a member.

I am ok with talking about critique and style in general in this thread, but do not want to single anyone out in public. If you want to have such a discussion, please PM me, or indeed just report posts that you find objectionable.

The purpose of the forum is to provide a learning experience; that should always be the standard to judge critiques by.

[Terri5]

Thanks, Henri, very much!

[jujubetoo]

Thank you, all for joining in this discussion. And Henrik, thank you for taking the time to listen and respond. I will in the future report such threads.

However, I really don't want this discussion to go away. I, for one, would love to learn how to better critique and view art at all levels. I would love to be a better mentor, and I have learned in the past that the best way to improve my skills is by trying to teach others.

[henrik]

Well, to start from the beginning on how to critique - something that has been discussed in the past and where everyone (that participated then) agreed was that it is important to understand where the artist is in his/her development and the intent/background of a piece.

Sometimes a piece falls between styles - it is difficult to know if it is an honest atempt of realism or if things are skewed and quirky on purpose. Trying to ask open ended questions about background ususually gives enough information to be able to give an apropriate critique.

Also, it is important to take one step at a time; a novice is not turned into a master in one single critique. If big change is required focus on a few things to improve on for the next piece, explain them well and simply leave the rest - when the feet start moving the body and eventually mind will follow.

I do believe in honesty but I always try not to be judgemental. I also err sometimes - slap me when I do.

[Pars]

I'd like to thank Jujubetoo for opening up this sensitive subject and Henrik and members for their willingness to express their feelings.

Structured Critique and Henrik's critiques in particular had been recommended to me so I've tried to make a point of coming over to the forum to see what is posted.

I too think that several of the members have taken too strong a tone, especially with new members, and/or members who have not been exposed to ways in which individual members phrase their responses. However, that said, it is difficult to know "how to critique" with so little to go on in the description, the experience of the artist, his/her goals and their susceptibility to hard or soft shells.

I myself am very sensitive and would probably dash off, with pride and shed my tears elsewhere after one or two of the harsher criticisms I've seen in the last week or so. But, I also know I haven't posted critiques of several pieces for fear of offending - thus a quigmire: to critique or not?

Thanks for the opportunity to share my thoughts.

[jujubetoo]

I find that I have gut reactions to works first. I sometimes have to look at the painting then go away and come back before I can really start to critique it. This approach is helping me put some distance between my initial emotional response and what I can try to tell the author of the work something even remotely useful.

In the few "live" critiques I've been involved with, there has generally been an instructor that tells us what to look for first. Most of my instructors have said to try for the approach first, i.e., abstract vs. realism. Then visual approach, light & shadow vs. local tone vs. line, etc.

Does anyone else have a way they approach their first impression? Mine don't always work.

Also, Zoe, I hope you will start participating and your more than welcome.

Cheers,
Denise

[henrik]

This forum usually has long intervals between controversy but then and again the moon is full and jupiter aligns with mars (or whatever) - or maybe it is solar activity

[henrik]

I want a first impression that I understand to start off with. This means that I may come back and look several times before I make up my mind. I may also edit an image just to see "what happens if..." to test my impression.

In my mind I sort of run down my checklist (as described in the article I wrote on how to give a critique, plus the list have probably grown a little since then) - but rather than sticking to a particular order I sort of focus on what stands out most (comes across most strongly) first. Is that thing "good" or "bad", what to do about it?

But as I said before - first I have to figure out where the artist is coming from and what the style is supposed to be.

[jujubetoo]

I like that idea of testing out an impression. I'll give that a try. And I read your article and think it useful.

I do have a problem with trying to critique those paintings I get an immediate impression that I don't like. But this intrigues me even more. I can't often pinpoint what I don't like about it. These are really the critiques I want to try. Many painters I thought I didn't initially like, I have later grown to appreciate and even love their work. But, I have been just skipping those critiques for now for fear my emotions may color the critique inaccurately.

What do you do in those circumstances?

[xavier]

Hi Denise~Just took a look at your site and was very impressed.
Your work is strong and painted beautifully.I have this problem
that I can share with you about computers.I just never seem to
express my self the same way i would in person.Sometimes
what sounds really harsh is just my inability to write on the
computer and sound constructive but Ive really come to understand
that no one has any thing to gain by putting someone else down.
It seems to me that our work says more about us than anything
we can write about it.Isn't that why we chose to express ourselves
in a visual way?This is for your site.