Chat/Debate Thread (jan 24->)

[Keith Russell]

Originally Posted by Eraethil

I couldn't disagree more with this as a statement, while I believe similarly. The problem with it is that it is not useful for defining 'art'. What I perceive as decoration or illustration, could be viewed by someone else as deeply emotional. And then the question becomes, is there a consensus as to the interpretation that guides us to believe a work is art or one of these other categories.

No, there isn't.

And further, is it an elite group or a general consensus that is consulted.

Consulted--by whom? Different people, different groups, will consult different individuals, different groups. As with the label "art", some folks will see a particular group as an "elite" (or, as "elitist")...other folks might not.

Pesonally, I prefer educated, informed opinions over "general" consensus, anyday...

So we really shouldn't ever seek to categorize.

Oh, we absolutely should!

On the other hand, providing critique is valuable, as long as the critic is aware that their opinion is one of many valid opinions.

That doesn't even matter. As long as the person being critiqued is aware that what is being said is just an opinion (no matter how educated or well-informed), what the critic thinks about their own opinions is irrelevant.

And the artist should probably provide some guidance as to the critique that that they are looking for. A good critic should try to fit their critique to the artist's needs. An excellent critic knows the artist well enough to provide balanced and sensitive critique that the artist needs to hear, whether they know it or not. But too often critics only think they are excellent.

[AllisonR]

Wow, started in 2003, but nothing has happened. Has WC been meaning to move the database since then?

FWIW, thanks to Henrik for starting, and I think it is a good idea.

Originally Posted by henrik

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.

I do not think this is far from the mark. It's a clear, concise list. No list will be perfect, unless it is overwhelmingly long and precise, which then also will not be perfect. Better to start with short and clear, and let the users use it as a starting point. That is what they are going to do (and should do) anyway.

Originally Posted by madster

To assume that a) "the artist knows what to expect if they ask for it, and b) the critiquers know how to handle this more sensitive part of the critique is a nice fantasy, but I've seen some posters request a structured critique, and then tearfully regret ever even attempting to produce anything when tactfully informed as to flaws in their submission. I've also read rude and uninformed critiques with little to no literary merit simply because the individual did not like a piece, even after the artist explained that making the viewer uncomfortable was a deliberate intent of the work...so clearly, this assumption is somewhat flawed in the real cyberworld of critiquing. That is why I suggested a checklist of some type with room for additional comments. I'm not saying this is the best solution, but merely food for thought as to how to better address the important issues of a structured critique.

Agree wholeheartedly. If I want someone to say I make the most wonderful pictures in the world, then I can ask my mommy. If I want a real critique, I wish I could get one here, instead of all the sweet mushiness. I would like to assume we are all grown-ups here, and can accept proper criticism when we ask for it. Color, form, content... is valid part of criticism, at least in the Structured Critique.

Perhaps more would use Structured, if they knew they would both give and get serious feedback. Right now a lot of people default to Open Critique, because they do not get much better critiques in the Structured Critique, and additionally they get much more response in the Open Critique.

Originally Posted by madster

Henrik, I'm not that sure myself..
I'm thinking more of a critic reply form, wherein those who wish to give a structured critique have a specific form addressing the basic criteria to do so with categories such as color, light, compositon, intent, etc. that they could rate on a scale from say, 1 to 5, with space for comments.
This would give the artist a clearer idea of what their work was being evaluated upon, and would give those wishing to provide a structured critique a clearer guideline regarding exactly what aspects of a work they are critiquing...

My first thought was, ah, great idea. My second thought was it would be better to have space to comment specifically on color, light, composition …., either in addition to the rating system, or instead of it. Because there will be too many exceptions. I might find a painting has overwhelmingly good use of color, so a high rating, but that one highlight section is off - which is important to point out to the artist.

I think the simplest, clearest solution would be those asking for a structured critique have one option to "critique for 'artfulness.' " And Artfulness is explained in the sticky, with the list above.

[Aires]

Perhaps the number one rule should be:

1. All critiques must be constructive.
( Don't tear down unless you can provide a clear cut solution to the
problem.

2. If a critique cannot be constructive, it shouldn't be given. Not in an
artist forum that is supposed to be helping both new and old members
grow.

Just my observation after reading pages of this thread.

[henrik]

this forum has gone very quiet since I was here last (many months back)... where are all the cool kids hanging out

[Black Spot]

I'm the new kid on the block, but would like to give my opinion here. I'm used to giving and receiving critiques and both can be harsh at times. I tend to tread on the path of finding at least one redeeming feature of a work and try to suggest working on one or two things. Giving too much critique does not help as the artist will not know where to begin.

When posting, the artist should be clear about what they what they need help with, be it lighting, composition etc. It's not the job of the critiquer to second guess what the artist is looking for. The artist should have worked the piece to a point where they can't go any further and need to seek assistance.

Sometimes an artist thinks they've finished it but isn't sure if it works - I've posted art with the phrase "You know the drill, tear it apart." It doesn't mean I'll agree with everything or even correct it on that work, but can bring in what was said into a future work. Showing that you as an artist are willing to listen is a big plus.

Growing a thick skin is another plus. Sure, it can be hurtful having your work torn apart, but isn't that part of the learning curve? Kudos posts do nothing but help the self delusional and do nothing to help those wanting to improve.

[Keith Russell]

I have posted a few times that I only critique works--here--that I like. Mainly, I don't have time to offer feedback on everything, and in part because I'm not knowledgable about everything, and thus cannot really help an artist working in media, or with techniques, that aren't familiar to me.

(it was my hope that by doing this, folks would understand that, if I'm commenting on their work, I already like it, so they're not going to hear--from me, anyway--comments like "I really hate abstract work, but--", or "I don't get why artists are still making paintings like this...", etc.)

Further, I have given several critiques at WC (not only in this forum) lately where I felt I was being carefully constructive (in all these instances, the poster stated "C & C welcome") only to find myself and my own work personally attacked as a result.

So, I've been more than a bit reluctant to offer "real" critique at WC lately, since it is so clear that most here don't really want that, and/or can't really handle it, anyway.

It's a nice idea--offering sincere, constructive criticism on a forum such as this--but I don't think the vast majority of WC members are ready for that.

[Black Spot]

Okay, I just put a picture in the Open Critique section as it allows everyone to critique it. I believe that even those learning can learn a lot from critiquing work that is superior to there's as even the lay man in the street can see something is wrong, and by trying to a critique the student can learn themselves. Out of the mouth of babes etc...

[Candra H]

Hey Black Spot!

I havent read the thread, just spotted your name and had to come say hello. Hope you don't mind. I know you from CA.org, and it's nice to see a familiar name here.

I actually feel the same as you about constructive critique, though maybe not so harsh, heh. I've been a member here for a while (havent been around much since I joined CA though) and I see Wetcanvas as more of a showcase and supportive community for artists rather than a place to get/give good solid critique. But I'd forgotten that and was surprised to see everyone being so nice all the time. I think I'll have to tone down my own comments in future, or maybe just stick to the structured/open critique sections...

P.S. I looked for the piece you posted in open critique but couldnt find it. Is it still pending? I've forgotten how things work there.

[Black Spot]

I like people saying hello - the internet is a small place I've thrown hissy fits, only to realise later that people were correct. I have a short memory, so I don't bear grudges. It's hard being nice when I'm used to straight talking, but I'm trying.

[cabbage1]

I am a little leery of those who have arguments that some work can be regarded as art, 'albeit not good art'
hate to think I've dashed the hopes, dreams and aspirations of a budding Rothko. Motherwell, etc and turned them into a Kincade [sic]

Have to add that I didn't realise there was considerable more comment after page one...sorry