Repost - How To Critique Someones Work

:o)

What ever do you mean Beth?

JC i really like your image but I would suggest if you had uses a little more saturation on the : it would make it pop a little more. I took the liberty of editing it and this is what i came up with :o)

One of the detriments to posting on line is there is no emotional quality coming through. So even though someone is speaking in an every day tone of voice, if they are direct and to the point, their intentions might come across as being mean. That is not necessarily the case. I mistook that attitude from someone here and I was wrong.

"A restaurant critic enters the establishment and the owner hands him a list of rules, of how he is "allowed" to form his/her opinion."

The purpose of a restaurant critique is not to help the restaurant improve, but rather to help potential customers decide if they want to go there or not.

If you're writing art critiques with the same aim, you're doing it wrong.

I think you know this but I just felt it worth pointing out.

Honesty is important, but how you say something does matter. I'm glad Beth posted this.

When one decides to take their time, experience, knowledge, and expertise to criticize, it is my opinion, that one should first, find something RIGHT in the images in question, and not just saying, "nice, cool, pretty,etc.".... Words with meaning, and then work from there....To me, this is the only way to help...... Isn't that we want to do?

If one can't find anything to work from,....I ask, "Why bother?"

Isn't mentoring what we are really looking for here?

@JC,

I agree with you. I think mentoring is what most of us come to the forums for. However, Beth has laid down the rules for "critique", when an artist has specifically asked for it.

A critic will completely separate themselves from the artist and is not there to mentor, teach or "personally" help the artist improve.

That is up to the artist, to take what is written and apply it to their work.

"It is the mandate of the critic to be entirely honest, and in his/her "professional" opinion, formulate their critique in a way that adheres to the expectations of the market."

Why? This strikes me as an entirely arbitrary definition. And I don't know about you, but I'm not a "professional critic" -- I'm just a photographer who knows a thing or two and tries to help other photographers when I can.

I believe you just had a new baby (congrats again). Your first I believe? Well, someday she (I think it was a she) will come to you with some mostly-dreadful scribblings that she's incredibly proud of and ask you what you think of them. Are you going to be "entirely honest" with her? I hope not.

Now, we are not children, and our egos are not so fragile, but the same principle applies.

Again, it comes down to intentions. This is not a school for teaching people how to become professional art critics. It's a place for artists to help each other. If you're writing a critique that is not aimed at helping the artist, and you're obviously not getting paid for it (because who would be paying here?) then you're doing it for only one reason: you like the sound of your own voice. And sorry, but nobody here is going to respect that.

It is very difficult to find a true mentor, as most people are scared to hurt. It is equally true to find people, who "truly" want to be mentored.

As a side note: A professional critic does not have to use sarcasm or be demeaning, in order to get his/her point across. Their level of expertise will show. in how they handle both the negative and/or positive aspects or a persons work.

I have seen people on this site, be extremely sarcastic and demeaning, all in the guise of "helping". Even if the advise is spot on, it will be lost to the viewer, who is reeling from the lashing.
That is neither "mentoring" or "critiquing". It is simply a power trip.

@Tiny - you said, "A critique is meant to be critical. It can either go well for someone, or the opposite. Critical does not always mean negative, but a critic will also not force themselves to find something good, that is not there."

Then perhaps some art critics are not going to be polite but may come across as a smart a$$. Doesn't mean they are wrong, does it? Having interacted with artists in NYC who have been exposed to this, many of them are unpleasant. However, since we are here in a different environment, there are rules that are being set down. And as Charles noted -

"Again, it comes down to intentions. This is not a school for teaching people how to become professional art critics. It's a place for arts to help each other. If you're writing a critique that is not aimed at helping the artist, and you're obviously not getting paid for it (because who would be paying here?) then you're doing it for only one reason: you like the sound of your own voice. And sorry, but nobody here is going to respect that."

I couldn't agree with him more.

@Charles,

"Then again, that brings up the question...... Who is qualified to be an "art critic" and form a "professional opinion" related to the current market?"

You did not read my entire post :)

I do not consider myself qualified to give a "critique" and would refuse if requested. I would give an honest opinion of how a piece of work makes me "feel", but that would be the extent of it. I would guess that more than 80% of the members here, are not qualified to talk about anything more than "feelings", when it comes to viewing art.

If my "third child" (boy) :) comes to me with a piece of art, he is not asking for a critique. He is asking for my attention and my praise, for doing the best he can. That is all I would ever expect from my children.... their best. :)

That is not the role of a critic.

What I expect from a critique is an honest opinion. If something works, say so. If something doesn't work, say so. I also expect reasoned opinion. Say why something does or does not work. Give a reason for your opinion.

"Oh, I like it, it's very pretty." Is about as useful a critique as "It's hideous, I wouldn't use it to line a birdcage." There is no depth to either critique.

"I like the colour harmony," or "the composition is unbalanced" is much more useful.

I also expect critiques to be civil. "You are a disgrace to the art world. If I did work like that I would never presume to call myself an artist. It seems FAA will let anyone sell anything these days. Your art has all the aesthetic merit of a drunken baboon playing with a pile of cat vomit!" Is hardly a civil way of saying "I really don't like your work."

Tiny, you seem to be engaging in a philosophical debate that's not applicable here. We're not professional critics, just artists trying to help each other (in most cases).

@Roseann,

"This is not a school for teaching people how to become professional art critics. It's a place for arts to help each other."

I completely agree with you.

HOWEVER, if someone asks for a "critique", then they need to be prepared for reality. The critique should also be performed by someone qualified to do so.


"If you're writing a critique that is not aimed at helping the artist, and you're obviously not getting paid for it (because who would be paying here?) then you're doing it for only one reason: you like the sound of your own voice. And sorry, but nobody here is going to respect that."

I have not written a critique of anyone's work, since joining this site???? I would not be qualified to do so. However, I do know the difference between the role of a critic and a mentor.

LOL, David - I've seen comments like that here. It was quite a while ago, and that person has not been seen or heard from since. I think Beth may have them buried in her garden.

"We're not professional critics, just artists trying to help each other (in most cases)."

@ Charles,

EXACTLY!! :)

And Beth has given some great guidelines above, for how to go about "helping" and "mentoring" our fellow artists.

My only point, is that you can't call it "critique". Mentoring/Helping are not one in the same, with Critiquing.

@David and Mary,

No, I still see comments like that, quite often on this forum. They are better disguised, but just as demeaning.

"I don't see any reason why that is up for sale on FAA"

"Who would possibly buy this"

I have seen this and worse, written to new FAA members, who have asked for "opinions" of their galleries in order to help with sales. "OPINIONS OF THEIR GALLERIES".... that somehow turn to attacks on their "art"

Those new members are asking for "OPINIONS" of their profiles and artist website, not a "critique" of their art. Even if they were asking for a critique, the comments above are not "critical", they are demeaning, hurtful and do nothing more than create animosity and an atmosphere of hierarchy, here on FAA

This is the sort of thing, I have been fighting, since being here and I have been labeled "angry". Hell yeah... it does make me angry.

Tiny, you're arguing with yourself.

A critique is simply a criticism or feedback on something. Beth never said anything about "professional" critique, you added that yourself to the discussion.

If critique is limited to "professionals" then nobody here will ever get any help from anyone on anything. I think we're all better off with polite, helpful "non-professional" critiques than everyone remaining silent because they're "unqualified".

@ Charles,

Look at the title of this thread : Repost - How To CRITIQUE Someones Work.

That is what I am going off. The rules posted, do not outline how to "critique", they outline how to mentor and help.

I agree with you completely. This site is better off, with opinions that are meant to help and mentor. However, if someone asks for a "critique", the above rules do not apply. (in my opinion)

@Tiny - you addressed Charles post to me. I didn't post what you replied to. I reposted it because I agreed with him.

But you did bring up an excellent point to question - How do you determine if someone is qualified? I can tell you from experience, if someone has attended a college or university for art, you are taught how to critique. It's part of the cirriculum. If you don't learn to critique properly, you will not pass your courses. And that means analyzing the technical aspects of the work, as well as feelings.

Are these official rules, or just Beth's suggestions? I honestly don't know.

I found this simple definition of "critique": "a careful judgment in which you give your opinion about the good and bad parts of something (such as a piece of writing or a work of art)".

That's all we're doing here. I have no idea why you are making such a big fuss.

Anyone can critique anything. It's up to the one hearing it to decide if they find the criticism valid or not.

In fact, you've spent most of this thread critiquing Beth's post. What are your qualifications? :)

@ Charles,

I think we first need to agree, on what a "critique" is in the art world. LOL. or else we will be talking in circles.

When an artist asks for a critique, I don't believe they are asking for help.

A critique, from the right person/people, can make or break an artists career. An artist has already asked for the help and mentoring from other peers, long before being brave enough to request a critique.

Regarding the restaurant critic, it works the same way. A restaurant critic can either drive people to, or away from an establishment, depending on their circle of influence and level of respect in the market.

It is no different for an art critic. A critique from someone highly regarded in the art world, will either drive the artist business and popularity or kill them.

RE: "When an artist asks for a critique, I don't believe they are asking for help."

Tiny,

If not, what is the value of a critique?

"In fact, you've spent most of this thread critiquing Beth's post. What are your qualifications? :)"

Good Point!! :P (kind of)


"Whichever they are it is always important to follow the UNSPOKEN RULES for stating what you think. If it is done properly then you can speak the truth without any fear of hurting or annoying."

That quote is from Beth's OP. I am pretty sure these are rules. Trying breaking one and see what happens :P

"When an artist asks for a critique, I don't believe they are asking for help."

Then what are they asking for?

"A critique, from the right person/people, can make or break an artists career. An artist has already asked for the help and mentoring from other peers, long before being brave enough to request a critique."

Again, you seem to be having a debate in your own mind. This isn't a place where people look to get professional critiques from professional critics that can "make or break their career".

It's an Internet discussion forum populated mostly by artists. When an artist asks for critique here, they are looking to get advice and help on their images, nothing more.

Venue matters. Think about where you are and then why people ask for critique here will become obvious.

You are NOT off topic. The conversation is going well

Mike, since you're so fond of honesty and bluntness, here's some for you.

I think you are entirely capable of moderating your statements so they are less hurtful and more constructive, and you deliberately choose not to do so, because you really don't care.

I also think you absolutely love being at the center of these discussions, regardless of your protestations to the contrary.

the conversation is going well... a little too well perhaps.... but this is all a part of my evil plan... moooo haaa haa ha haaa..

charles, i've seen you time and time again critique my critique, without adding one of your own. even when asked, you still didn't add one, in fact you wait until everyone has said something before you lay a generic statement on their entire gallery.

if you do enough of these critiques and not just choose the ones that look good to you, you'll find they all fit a pattern. it's very easy to critique something well done, but much harder to do stuff that isn't that good. and from what i remember you saying in another thread, which honestly insulted her backwards, was that you never critique someone if you don't think their work is very good. or something to those words. so that really doesn't help them improve at all. there are many ways to describe something that are good or bad. everyone has their style, and i have mine. it's direct.

there are times when someone wants to tell me something and it goes like this:

ummm... mike, i have something i want to tell you, but i'm not sure how i should say it, and i hope your not mad at me for looking or telling you this. and i want you to know that it's ok for it to happen and.... to which i say ---- GET TO THE POINT! - oh your fly is open.

what should have taken seconds to say, people get all blushy for dumb things. and they fluff it up. or they don't say anything. like hey, you, you have something green in your teeth, thought you should know. instead of "embarrassing" them on the spot. so i guess it's better to just let them find out they've been like that the whole day. which would explain why people kept pointing to their own mouths like it was some kind of new gesture.


---Mike Savad

As I remember there were two or three weeks when Mike and a few others were silenced by Sandy. Between Sandy and the FAA server issue one week, activity on the discussion boards ground to a halt and people went begging for reviews of their work. It was boring around here!! It's true Mike isn't always the most gentle but for the most part he's on target and his comments aren't that rough. People that ask for comments should expect to get different takes on their work and then pick between those they feel are most relevant.

For the pack that goes from thread to thread picking fights out of boredom, if you don't agree with a review then leave what you consider to be valid comments to offset those you don't like and let the person receiving them pick what they find useful. Don't make this so personal, this constant infighting reflects poorly on both the people participating and on FAA and probably scares off new members.

"charles, i've seen you time and time again critique my critique, without adding one of your own."

No, you haven't.

I do post critiques where I feel I have something valid to contribute. But I'm not on here 24/7, and if a thread already has a bunch of comments on it and I haven't got anything new to add, I'm not going to post just for the sake of it.

that's great charles, and yet all the time you had to critique my critique, when you should have been writing your own? and so what if it has comments already? add what you think you should add, but be very specific, i haven't seen you actually take an image from their bag and say something. i just see a generic reply that could fit any number of images. people want to here what you have to say on the topic, even if it's something about ethicalness.

you seem to post against other people for the sake of it. what's so different about this? or is it that your afraid of being in the line of fire, and defending your critique from other people?


---Mike Savad

"that's great charles, and yet all the time you had to critique my critique, when you should have been writing your own?"

Except I haven't been "critiquing your critiques", Mike. At most I've made the general comment that they are needlessly rude.

For someone who is so happy to be blunt and unkind to others, you're awfully thin-skinned when anyone criticizes *you*.

"add what you think you should add, but be very specific, i haven't seen you actually take an image from their bag and say something."

I posted a specific image critique just today.

"you seem to post against other people for the sake of it."

If Beth has instituted a new rule requiring everyone to agree with you, I'm sure she'll inform me.

(Note, that was an example of me saying something far softer than I would actually prefer to.)

Repost - How To Critique Someones Work

Posted by: Elizabeth Edwards on 12/14/2012 - 8:17 AM

who criticized me? is this about that tripod again? i don't use them. that's not thin skinned, i don't use them.

most of the time, through my observations, your usually the one questioning the other people in the thread and not rating the shot. it's good that your finally pointing to specific pictures... that's progress, would you like a muffin from this basket? come here the light is better up here for choosing....

but mostly i see you telling others your thoughts over and over and over like a skipping record. i have a way that i speak and i type and it works for me. if someone wants a critique, i don't really care if there are a hundred things on there already because all you need is that one gem, and that's the one that may be the keeper, where as the others were all fluff.

no you don't have to agree with me, but the constant arguing - that's rather annoying. i remember a time where we got to the point and that's that. but now it's like, no matter what the thread is, some how the thread veers back into a mike thread, oh look it's that orange leaf again, and look i'm mentioned yet again for something i might have said or did, and look how sweet, he took it totally out context again, how nice.


---Mike Savad

"no you don't have to agree with me, but the constant arguing - that's rather annoying."

You're right Mike. The arguing is entirely, 100% my fault. I'm the only one arguing, there is nobody else arguing with me.

In fact, it's true even in this thread. Only I am arguing, there is nobody else involved.

Mea culpa.

In the future, when I disagree with you about something, I will clearly have to find a way of expressing it so that I actually am agreeing with you. Otherwise, an argument might ensue, which, of course, I would be 100% responsible for, because there's nobody else arguing but me.

Excuse me, I'm off to self-flagellate. I hope someday you can forgive me for my sins.

you can disagree all you want, but for you it's an endless look of quoting what people say, and it's more arguing of how i said something then what i said. when you had nothing real to add to the conversation. you can also simply view your own ideas without putting some elses down.

when your done self-flagellating be sure to rinse the effected areas with alcohol to keep from infection, just pour it on there. are you sure you don't want a muffin?

---Mike Savad

I joined the Raw Critque Group and offered up a sacrificial painting for critique. I actually really liked this painting overall. The comments came fairly fast and furiously... and I was initially taken aback at what they were seeing, that I hadn't. After reflection, and a good sleep, I looked at it again... and guess what? For the most part, not all, but most, their comments were correct. I reworked the painting and as a result of those changes, it is a better painting. More importantly, I learned how vital that kind of input can be, when you are working somewhat in isolation.

Mike -- you know what you can do with your muffin.

and just curious @ Lynn... but why would you think most newbies have never been in a formal education situation?

put the muffin in your mouth to keep you silent, then shove you down the stairs? or do you prefer chocolate?

see charles you can give your own opinion without putting down others, but that pattern, i only saw it once or twice and then when i thought we had an understanding and were talking like professionals. then it went back to same old charles and all his arguing. just say what you need to say in the threads. if someone asks for help, go ahead and do it. if you offer something and they say something back that isn't - like - wow that's a great idea, a tripod, why didn't i think of that? don't assume i or anyone wasn't listening to you or couldn't take it. just say it and leave it alone.

---Mike Savad

Catherine your experience illustrates exactly what we should get out of a critique. Even if a critique is padded with nice comments, they can sometimes be hard to take. Its that emotional attachment I mentioned in one of my earlier posts. I've had critiques that made me scrap what I was working on because it really was crap. And I've had critiques that I walked away from because I felt the person saying it was blowing hot air. Either way, I've learned to at least consider everything before either dismissing it, or seeing it as something I can incorporate into the final product.

Charles and Mike, stop talking to each other in this thread. Seriously. Otherwise you will see what I can do with a muffin!

i probably shouldn't ask, but i'm intrigued about what you can do with a muffin. does the muffin have fruit cake status?

---Mike Savad

>:(

dreaded duck face...

quack.


---Mike Savad

If I may add, Beth,

An art critique is an evaluation of a work of art. While it is true that artistic taste is relative, there are certain characteristics of artwork that can be assessed as a means of measuring the artist's success at conveying the intended message or meaning of the work in question. Art criticism is considered by some to be an art within itself, but, although each art critique may approach a work of art uniquely, there is a defined protocol for the discipline of critiquing a work of art. You do not have to be an art history buff or museum curator to learn how to critique artwork. Just follow these steps.

1. Describe what you see. This is the objective portion of the art critique. It involves a technical description-nothing more. It should include things like:
- Artist's name.
- Title of work.
- Type of artwork.
- Subject of the painting (scene).
- Objects in the painting.
- First impression. Note the characteristics of the artwork that first jump out at you.
- Colors used.
- Shapes, lines and texture.
- Light saturation.
- Sensory qualities. Identify the predominant mood and visual effect.

2. Analyze the artwork. Evolve the art criticism from a technical description to an in-depth examination of how the technical elements were utilized by the artist to create the overall impression conveyed by the artwork. Technical elements you need to analyze when you critique artwork include:
- Color.
- Shapes, forms and lines.
- Texture.
- Light and shadow.
- How each technical element contributes to the mood, meaning and aesthetic sensation of the artwork.

3. Interpret the artwork. This part of an art critique is more subjective than the others, as you are expected to use your analysis of the technical aspects of the piece of art to apply your own supposition to the artist's intended purpose for the artwork. Try to accomplish the following things when formulating your interpretation:
- Communicate the artist's statement. Describe what you think the artist is trying to say through the work of art.
- Expound on the feeling conveyed by the artwork. Describe what the artwork means to you, and why.
- Explain what you feel is the artist's intended purpose for creating that particular work of art. Examine why the artist made the choices in technique, materials and subject matter and how they relate to the intended purpose.
- Identify symbols in the artwork and describe how they relate to the artist's technical choices and contribute to the artist's execution of the intended purpose.

4. Evaluate the artwork. This is a summation of the art criticism process leading up to this point. Use your analysis and interpretation to draw conclusions and reach judgments about the artwork.
- State what you think the artwork's value is. For example, its value may be to evoke nostalgia, to incite anger or to impart beauty. Explain why you feel this way.
- Describe the artwork's relevance to the art community and to people as a whole.
- Explain where you feel the artwork has strong value and where you think it falls short.

http://www.wikihow.com/Critique-Artwork

You may, and thank you

It seems to me (a wishy washy qualifier)..that critique given, is often determined by the discipline, the critic works in.

Roger, yes, I think you are right

Thank you Jeff. Appreciated.

Bump

Bump