Constructive Criticism Where does one draw the line?

Re: media/social snarkitude, there's some balance there as well. There are a great many things that were entirely acceptable to criticize about a person when my parents were young that are considered utterly scandalous now. They might not have thought twice about commenting on 'a woman doing man's work', while we'd cringe at such a statement today -- and conversely, the same person who would cringe at that comment might offer up the same amount of snark about someone's appearance in ways that were considered unacceptable behavior then. People still do snark about the 'unacceptable' things now -- but it doesn't get a warm reception from the public at large as it once did. It used to be the height of fashion to crack racist jokes, for instance -- and I suspect pretty much everyone here would cringe half out of their head at such things.

As a species, I think we just have a set social snark factor. It's going to express itself. Forbid one thing, it will find another outlet to rip to shreds. I'm a cynical person in this regard, admittedly, but it's certainly something likely worth considering.

 

Which was why I steered away from it as soon as possible. The problem, though, with a topic like 'constructive criticism', is that it's hard to stay solely focused on dolls, when this is something that touches every aspect of our daily lives. You loose touch with the original topic before you know it. (btw, I didn't think your post was directed to me, it's just something I wasn't entirely happy with myself)

Back on topic: it's a question that accured to me when I was reading xtal's post and the replies to them. How is the feedback we give to someone influenced by the opinion we have over someone? I mean, if I'm convinced the person posting in the critique-forum is only doing only because he wants attention, well - I have to be honest - I'm probably not going to be very nice to him.

No matter how important it is, giving objective constructive criticism is hard.

 

This is so true. I remember a trollfest regarding one of last year's anniversary photo contests. The challenge was to take a photo of your doll looking as human as possible. A few people took beautiful studio-portrait style photos, with minimal set dressing. Some snarky folks in the discussion thread slammed the portraits as being too "easy". They actually used those words, "plopping the doll down and taking a quick shot".

 

Many times, those things that look 'easy' take a lot of time to do. The TV-show Supernatural has a relatively 'easy' concept - two brothers are searching for their father, while hunting monsters in the mean time - but it took the creator ten years to shape, twist and turn it into the story it is today.

I think it's easier to make a doll-picture with a lot of clutter in it, than a clean, almost minimalitic one, because when you can only show one or two things besides the doll, you really have to think about what you want to say with the photo and how you'll have to pull it off so others will understand.

 

This is so much truth!

You know, it's wonderful that you use that example -- I've showed that program, usually with a lot of wheedling and pushing and whining required beforehand -- to some incredibly picky people... all of whom love it to pieces the moment they see it and get past the idea they have constructed of what it is, rather than what it actually is.

There was a great article many years ago about the mac OS along similar lines. One of the principle concepts behind the piece was that 'easy is actually very, very hard'. The theory was that in most cases, the easier something is to use (or in the case of the photographs described, perceived as 'person'), the more time, effort, and planning was involved to make it that way.

The appearance of simplicity is often pretty much anything but.

At 14, I had an art teacher who adored Cy Twombly, a great example of 'simple is likely more complex than you initially think'. All of us in her class -- part of a summer program from a variety of schools in the state -- absolutely did not get it. About ten years later, seeing his works in person again, I got it. My jaw dropped; I was utterly amazed. The people with me then? Some got it, some didn't. And that's fine, really. It could be argued that if people don't get it at a glance, the artist has failed -- but only failed at demonstrating effort, not getting their idea across. For me, it's more about the idea, and not the effort, anyway, but I suppose different people have different priorities there.

 

I don't have the means to create a background that isn't distracting within my home.
However, I can spend quite some time getting my doll to pose the way I want him to and any props where I want them.
You may not always tell that by the photos I take. "Effort" can't really be measured by the way a photo looks.

 

I also have a really hard time finding a spot in the house that doesn't look like "oh here are Kay's dolls in Kay's house." Which makes me pretty reluctant to do much photography --

But knowing Xtal pretty well and knowing that she has an artist's eye, I would venture to guess that she'd be able to see the effort that went into your posing and so on. Even I could see it, I'll bet, and I am decidedly not an artist. There's something hard to put a finger on to express clearly enough, but when someone has made an effort to portray the dolls in a particular way it does shine through. "Non-distracting" is relative... "Nothing in the background that grosses me out" works for me.

It's like I was saying to JennyNemesis up above -- she may just take a shot of one of her guys sitting. Just...sitting. But he will always look like he's sitting purposefully, or thinking deep thoughts, or about to pull something on one of the others -- sometimes just the slightest tilt of a head or positioning of a hand can convey a world of meaning (like those "simple but not-so-simple" artworks). That effort shows through even if the background is not the most beautiful thing ever.

 

O my. I just accidentally gave a critique (and a very positive one) in the gallery forum. Did not mean to do it, but something in the text of the op prompted me to do so.

 

You mean perhaps you shouldn't have because it was the gallery? I see nothing wrong in giving positive critique in the gallery. I think that's lovely and useful to other people viewing. It's negative critique that doesn't belong there. Would I like it?

trots off to see

 

I don't know if this really counts lol but here's an example of where criticism is unwanted ^^;;.
I painted one of my doll's lips light pink in acrylics. It turned out all bumpy so I posted and asked how to fix it. Instead, I got a bunch of "It would like better if you BLUSHED the lips instead" and "oh sweetie acrylics dont look as pretty on lips! just blush" and "it will never be as pretty as blushing".

I did not ask for any of that. I just wanted tips on how to make it smoother but instead got tons of replies saying "blushing is better!!!!!". Looking back on it, I can see a couple people actually did tell me some advice while saying nicely that blushing may be better but I was so bothered by these other unhelpful comments that I just gave up on my idea completely! I'm just saying there are times when you are given helpful advice but it's drowned out by unhelpful "advice" x-x

Basically I run by the "start with good, end with good" critique. Start with saying a nice thing or two then tell them some constructive crit then end with a nice thing or two (or reiterate the first nice thing if you cant find another rofl). Can't really get too mad then right? xD

 

Psammead: no need to turn and see, i changed my advise.

 

I do not know everything that was said on your thread but unless you started out with saying "I want to use acrylics and acrylics only" I do not see how it could count as criticism if someone just told you to use blushing instead. It sounds like honest and helpful advise to me. Unless they said something like "Acrylics suck! You're an idiot for using it!"

 

Well all i asked was how to fix it so telling me that i needed to blush instead wasn't really answering my question. @-@ I didn't think I needed to say I wanted to use only acrylics but I can definitely see why it might've been needed! 99% of dolls' lip colors are done by blushing so maybe they thought i was some randumb noob not knowing what i was doing instead of someone purposefully trying an idea out! xDD oh well, it is too late now!

It's like I read somewhere in this thread, it's really easy to misunderstand a word here or there when you're on the internet. Since you can't see the person's face and the subtle hints going on, it is easy to accidentally offend someone (not talking about my example). What to you is a polite, nicely written crit is a snarky comment to someone else. It can be the way you type too.
if you type like this ppl will take what u have to say as more informal person-to-person talk.
If you type like this, people will recieve what you say in a more stern tone and they're more likely to think you're insulting them.

It's weird but it's kinda true! :O And I am not saying that everyone should start typin lyk dis or something *shudders*.

 

Roxxihearts: Your example of the text is one I don't particularly agree with, because when I see lots of typing lyk dis I just find it hard and annoying to read. It makes me think the person typing does not have a good grasp of English as a language, and that they don't care to improve their knowledge of it. As an English teacher and novellist this makes me weep a little as English is my baby and should be respected. Grammar and Spelling are fuzzy kittens with big eyes - you wouldn't ignore them, would you?

A lot of what gets said on the internet gets misinterpreted because of a lack of tone. But the wonderful thing about punctuation is that it gives us tone in our sentences! See - that last sentence sound happier and more excited than the one before it because of my exclamation mark.

This leads me to another point: critiquers need to be careful what punctuation and phrasing they use in their critiques because it leads to how the reader interprets what is being said. Phrasing things like they're questions can make things sound snarky - can't it? So do tag questions, and ", btw", at the end of sentences. Copy editing becomes really important when giving written critique as much as the critique itself, because a mislaid comma can change the entire tone that a sentence is written in. (This is also one that I often need to remind myself of. >_>)

 

Actually... it's quite the reverse for me. I find that kind of netspeak lazy, and in this case, rude since we're on a forum where it's actually in the rules to not use it. I figure if someone can't be bothered to write out proper language (not talking about spelling and grammar and second language errors, here), they can't be bothered to employ the proper critical thought processes to provide a critique worth a hill of beans.

Maybe it's just my age showing, since if I was ever caught writing that way, my father (a former journalist) would string me up by my toes and thwack me until all the missing y's and o's fell out of my fingertips onto the keyboard, but it's not something I can help. It simply comes off, well... stupid, immature, and downright dizzy-witted to me. Lazy, lacking in seriousness, lacking in thought. None of which are elements I want involved in a critique. I had to work with a product tester once that did these things in a job setting. Talk about a place where it's really not at all appropriate! Yeesh.

 

LOL! I was totally agreeing with you guys! I'm by no means a grammar nazi but the "typin lykke dis" is something I have always thought was kinda dumb and took more effort than just typing normally. That's why I added the "*shudders*" to show that I didn't mean to take it to the extreme.

This ---> "if you type like this ppl will take what u have to say as more informal person-to-person talk." is what I meant by a bit more informal. because you wouldn't say "Hello, friend. How is your day going so far? I hope everything is well." (Well i wouldnt, but everyone is different so...yeah) You would say "Hey friend's-name-here! How's it goin? Hope everything's good.

It's okay if you don't get what I mean, I'm not all that good at explaining myself. I'm trying though!

 

But I do talk with full grammatical sentences to my friends and they do reply in full grammatical sentences. Even in text messages. 'Hey, How's it going?' Is a full English sentence. It's just an informal one. The difference between 'hy wats up 2day' and 'Hey, what's up today?' Is that one (in my eyes) shows more respect for the person you're talking to. Shortening words and using 'fast typing' shows that you really don't have the time or decency to talk to the person you're messaging correctly. Or at least that's my view.

This just goes to show that interpretation is in the eye of the beholder, I suppose.