Fine Art America - Art - Prints - Canvas Prints - Framed Prints - Metal Prints - Acrylic Prints

Every purchase includes a money-back guarantee.

312-238-9009

CART

SHOP

SELL

CREATE

LIMITED

TOUR

Fine Art Discussions

Keyword Search  | Main Menu

Search Discussions

 

Take No Offense

Posted by: Michael Hoard on 01/08/2013 - 10:44 PM

As a member here at FAA, no one should be offended by a comment made about a piece of Art, or Photo, its called critique, and the number of votes received on a photo does not determine if that particular object sells or not. Just about the majority of work here that is displayed as sold on given day either bought by a private individual collector or art gallery, The pieces chosen if you look at the votes collected the marjory is 0 votes. Also don't forget to update your copyrights on your work, Cheers Michael Hoard

 

Oldest Reply

Posted by: Jeff Kolker on 01/08/2013 - 11:14 PM

Well, my philosophy is that critiques should only be given if asked for. Not all comments are critiques.

 

Posted by: Angelina Vick on 01/08/2013 - 11:24 PM

I am not sure it's my...yours...or anyone's job to determine what is or isn't offensive to someone else.

If someone places a critique under my work...it will be deleted immediately. This is a business website, artists rarely want their work critiqued in comments.
If I want a critique...I ask for it. In my group for critique.

 

Posted by: Wendy J St Christopher on 01/08/2013 - 11:29 PM

Agreed, Jeff and Angel.

Any page where an artist is offering their work for sale is inappropriate placement for a critique -- unless specifically requested by the artist. Imo.

Votes, on the other hand, can help move an image to higher placement in the FAA search. I always vote for images that I really appreciate; not to help sell them, but to boost their visibility a fraction.

@ Michael -- that's a very cool avatar! ;-)

 

Posted by: Jenny Rainbow on 01/08/2013 - 11:32 PM

Im with Angelina. If somebody ask me to say the critique, I'll tell ONLY in a private letter and never under the selling image, or anywhere where the buyer could read it. This site is for business.

 

Posted by: Glenn McCarthy Art and Photography on 01/08/2013 - 11:40 PM

What Jeff and Angelina said... multiplied a couple of times over.

As far as the commentaries and votes and favoriting etc,etc, etc, those issues, in the magnitude we see today, were never really there until just recently. Now it is in an abundance of threads and groups. Almost overwhelming the amount of notifications coming down the pipe for these things. In a sense it takes some of the joy out of the thing when it turns into codes and pass-by commentary.

Like someone said in another thread... it's a business. This is evolving into part of the underbelly.

 

Posted by: Michael Hoard on 01/08/2013 - 11:42 PM

Thank you for the correction, how can I go back and delete my comment, I think in private would have been better choice. Michael

 

Posted by: Angelina Vick on 01/08/2013 - 11:49 PM

You're welcome. We are a melting pot in here. Different ideas and thoughts on every subject. How things work one place does not apply to other areas.
Some artists do welcome critique in image comments, but not many.

You can't delete it.

Only the artist can.

 

Posted by: Michael Hoard on 01/08/2013 - 11:57 PM

Well I personally, did use the wrong wording a critique is a critique neg or pos. and a comment, is just that a comment. Thank you all for the feed back, Michael

 

Posted by: Michael Hoard on 01/09/2013 - 12:05 AM

Agree Glenn, I had been getting email. after email, all of this is not about how many votes you have on a photo, its what the individual wants....the majority of all work posted sold everyday those pieces have no votes and if they do its very few. The voting aspect in the different groups is starting to be a three ring circus....I will personally keep voting at my pace....and though I belong to alot of groups I do pick individual artist at random and view and comment and vote and you know what. it seems just about everything I have voted and comment on that particuallar person work has only recieved more and more comments and I am glad of that....cheers Michael

 

Posted by: Mike Jeffries on 01/09/2013 - 6:35 AM

@ Michael, I don't know where you get the idea that an artist has to update copyright on his work. Copyright exists and is held on an artist's work automatically for his lifetime plus 70 years after his death by his heirs.

 

Posted by: Mike Savad on 01/09/2013 - 7:21 AM

as a general rule a critique is only given in private or in the forum and only when asked. it's not given as a comment because it looks unprofessional for both sides.

---Mike Savad

 

Posted by: Michael Hoard on 01/09/2013 - 3:43 PM

Thanks everyone for the advice and suggestion I do appreciate it very much, and everything has been corrected, Cheers, Michael

 

Posted by: Alfred Ng on 01/09/2013 - 5:03 PM

Well, Michael I hope you don't get offend with this:
I went to check on your works but on your page All but one gallery are with the same icons of the eye. All 18 of them were starring at me! it just creep me out and I couldn't not go further. Buyers might react the same as I did you might want to change them.

 

Posted by: Michael Hoard on 01/09/2013 - 8:30 PM

Hello Alfred, thanks for the comment, sorry if the human eye upsets you but I have nothing to worry about sales because a buyer does not buy a piece of art or a product by your looks, my work will sell because of quality and 51 years of photographic art and fine art. Maybe you should read my bio and maybe you will make the connection such as so many other creative individuals here at FAA. It remains the same, and actually a Art Collector responded how original and creative my page is. Art and Photography is a creative process and I happen to be quite creative. Next time you pick up your camera to take that prize winning photo or that photo that got you a sale and remember it was your eye which you used....thanks and cheers to you, Michael Hoard.

 

Posted by: Michael Hoard on 01/09/2013 - 8:30 PM

Hello Alfred, thanks for the comment, sorry if the human eye upsets you but I have nothing to worry about sales because a buyer does not buy a piece of art or a product by your looks, my work will sell because of quality and 51 years of photographic art and fine art. Maybe you should read my bio and maybe you will make the connection such as so many other creative individuals here at FAA. It remains the same, and actually a Art Collector responded how original and creative my page is. Art and Photography is a creative process and I happen to be quite creative. Next time you pick up your camera to take that prize winning photo or that photo that got you a sale and remember it was your eye which you used....thanks and cheers to you, Michael Hoard.

 

Posted by: Michael Hoard on 01/09/2013 - 8:36 PM

For everyone who currious, the eye which I use is my business card logo "eye see COLORS" and an original quote by myself is "color is merely a re-fraction of LIGHT, without out light ART would be non-existent" copyright by Michael Hoard 2013

 

Posted by: Gregory Scott on 01/09/2013 - 8:44 PM

Regarding your last comment, Michael, you're mostly right about light/art, except that not all fine art is purely visual. I've seen sculpture designed for hand/tactile appreciation, for example, and of course truly mixed media can include other senses also. So it's a technical quibble, perhaps.

 

Posted by: Michael Hoard on 01/09/2013 - 9:14 PM

Its not quibble the decision is about my logo, its not mandatory you use your face photo, everyone here uses what they care too, I made a valid response a Buyer will not base what appears on your logo in order to make a sale. oh I like your logo smiling. cheers, Michael

 

Posted by: Gregory Scott on 01/10/2013 - 3:58 AM

I wasn't commenting on your "eye" avatar, but on the absolute and unqualified necessity of light for art to be art.

"Color is merely a refraction of LIGHT; without light ART would be nonexistent"

Also in a technical sense, yes, light and color come not only from refraction, but also from reflection, scattering, diffusion, diffraction and other light-modifying interactions.
For example, the amazing colors of hummingbird feathers are due to irridescense, which is a diffraction process, not a refraction process.

So while the heart of your statement is correct, it is technically wrong on a number of levels.

(I even corrected you spelling and punctuation. How picky is that?!)

}:-D

 

Posted by: Michael Hoard on 01/10/2013 - 4:24 AM

I sorta thought that, I think if I rewrite it to better define better, Color is merely a re-fraction of LIGHT, without light photographic art would be non-existent. anyway its something to ponder about.....cheers, Michael

 

Posted by: Michael Hoard on 01/10/2013 - 4:25 AM

Care to be my proof reader, lol

 

Posted by: Michael Hoard on 01/10/2013 - 5:02 AM

I like this, "color is merely a re-fraction of light, void of light MyPhotoImages would be non-existent" Void of light, Photography would be non-existent. thats is better.

 

Posted by: Lena Auxier on 01/28/2013 - 10:48 AM

I have had people to give me critiques in forums without my asking...I'm assuming they meant it by trying to help but it does kinda hurt a little when people do it without me asking for it. I think if someone is trying to help me out on something they see I could use help at, they should send me a PM instead of doing it publicly. Thankfully, I haven't got any negative feedback in comments on my works.

 

This discussion is closed.