Constructive Criticism Where does one draw the line?

I'm fairly thin skinned and I won't ask for a critique unless I'm well and truly stuck or I'm satisfied with my initial attempt. I know that if I got a critique that didn't start with a mention of something I did well or that I showed promise in, I'll have a hard time listening. Why? I'm probably telling myself over and over that this is not a critique of ME but of my work, it's not a personal attack, and that I should calm down. That in itself is something people just have to learn. -shrug-

Positive criticism to me is any critique that contains specific substantive suggestions for change and is focused on the object, not the creator. The idea is to help the artist improve. Negative criticism is an critique that does not contain specific substantive suggestions for change; it may also contain language that focuses on the creator instead of the object in question. I consider a comment of "Wow, what a beautiful face-up!" an example of a positive statement but a Negative critique because it does not suggest any improvement or further clarification of what made the face-up beautiful. What specifically did the artist do to make you say it was beautiful?

Positive criticism: Language is geared to the object of criticism, not the artist. If there is anything well done or promising, mention this FIRST and mention why you think this. Any suggestions for improvement/encouragement ought to be immediately followed with clear, strong verbal or picture examples of the suggestion. (ex: I love how finely you made the hairs on the eyebrows, keep doing this!; the blue color over the lids makes the eyes stand out but I would suggest blending the edges of the color so that it looks more natural.)

Negative critisism: Language may be geared to the object of critisism but may also be extended to the artist as well. Suggestions are either absent or non-helpful (ex: What pretty eyebrows!, Fix the eyebrows, you shouldn't paint dolls, lol)

 

Unfortunately, the "kid glove" treatment tends to give an unwarranted sense of accomplishment to those whose talent or effort doesn't match up. They just throw any old thing out there and expect slobbering praise. The worst part is, they often get it! And, I hate to use the word, but these sorts of people feel entitled to praise, and only praise, and even the most carefully phrased constructive criticism, intending to be helpful, is viewed as a personal attack. Then the friends of the perpetrator will descend and tear you to shreds.

Something that's helpful; if the eyebrows on a face up are crooked or uneven, pointing it out and then offering tips on how to correct them, is. Just describing the problem without offering a solution, is not.

This is unfortunately true. The one experience (out of many) that I had: this artist had created a piece for the assignment that went outside his usual technique and comfort zone. Apparently his attempt to experiment did not suit the "in crowd" during the critique, because they tore him to shreds. The rest of the class was just as uncomfortably quiet during this "critique" as I was. I have no idea why the professor called on me next, except to put me on the spot. But I asked him if he was happy with his work. When he said "yes," I replied "then that's all that matters." Years later, I ran into him and he still remembered that I stuck up for him.

Artists tend to be their own worst critics. That old saw, "Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach." needs this addition, "Those who can't do or teach, criticize."

 

Ah, good! I was hoping I made it clear!

 

As a writer, I've had some harsh critizisms before. I've been explicitly told "This is shit." I've had books knocked back because they 'weren't good enough.'

As a teacher, I've been the one in the position to give out critizism - telling students why they didn't get the mark they wanted, and how they can do better in the future.

It is a delicate line between good crit and bad crit - but I've always been of the opinion that in the long run, being harsh but fair is better than being falsely sympathetic. Focusing on areas that one can improve on, offering suggestions as to how to improve and highlighting the positives of the work always are the best ways to go about critizism. You can't just say 'this is bad' without stating why and suggesting methods of improvement.

Also, if someone on a forum or in a public place explicitly states that they don't want critizism - don't give it. It's only polite.

 

Constructive Criticism Where do you draw the line?

I feel that constructive criticism shouldn't include strong words that indicate strong negativity, such as saying something's awful. I think being told that someone's work is awful tends to bring anyone down, and I think there are a lot of better ways to help a person out without making them feel like a failure. I wouldn't want someone to tell me my work was awful - if in reality it was terrible, I wouldn't ask for them to lie and say it was fabulous, either - because that doesn't also help me any. At the same time, what help does telling me my work is awful do, exactly?

I am not an art student, nor do I intend to be, so I have no idea how things are done there. Sometimes, though - because I've toyed with the idea of going to school to write - I wonder if some of the professors are just jaded. I don't believe I've had those people teaching me, whether it was for my one creative writing class or my main psych courses, but it's not an impossibility elsewhere. Someone's bound to have an art teacher who's downtrodden, and jealous that his students can produce something better.

A good critique focuses on the subject at hand, and not the person behind it. It's objective, rather than subjective. If there's someone you dislike on the forum, and they're asking for a critique of something they've created, it might be a good idea to just leave their thread alone if you think you can't see past your feelings towards the member and objectively look at what they've done.

If you do end up discussing where someone could've done something else, I feel you should offer up - as a courtesy - a link or something about where to see it being done, or how to do it if it involves a certain technique. I think good criticism can discuss where you went wrong, but it should also discuss how to fix it (if the person doing the critique knows how).


What is your definition of positive and negative critique?

Almost any kind of criticism can be seen as negative or positive when delivered in a certain way. The keyword here is tact. Creative criticism is not easy to do. Saying you don't like something tends to stick with people rather than when you say you do like something. When I critique - which I rarely do because I don't frequent the critique area - I tend to be sort of blunt about what I particularly like, and what I don't.

I think a positive critique is where there's a general praise for what you've done, and a negative critique is a general dislike of it.


It might also be difficult to fully understand what the person giving the critique means, due to the fact that you're not going to see people face-to-face. You're only going to see words on a screen, so - like others have said - you don't know who you're critiquing.

I think people post in the critique thread in-part because they want some positivity. I think there are people who will post in that section, expecting only good things, and feel insulted when someone offers a critique of the work. Like others have also mentioned, I think most people want to be told their work is good when they post it in that section. Some are also open to suggestions for improvement, or tips. Some just want to be told that they did a good job, without any sort of perceived negativity. I don't think the critique section is meant for that kind of posting. You can always do that in the gallery, since people aren't supposed to critique your work there.

 

I consider anything that helps me improve constructive criticism. I don't care how rude it sounds, because sometimes things come off as rude and it can't be helped. I never got why some people are so obsessed with the idea that crit has to be "one part bad and two parts good" or whatever that rule is, because sometimes there just aren't two good parts and sometimes it's ALL bad, and I like to know that so I can get better. I guess my opinion on crit is a little more thick-skinned than others, but I basically draw the line at anything that attacks the creator, or is just generally unhelpful. To be honest, I'd rather be told bluntly what's good and bad about what I do than just be told "it's good"

 

I prefer to take Bold critique and get to the Point,
As well as receive it the same way, Right to the Point.

However to not just be as bold as "You did Horrible" or "That looks awesome"
Bold As in, Whats wrong/right without overly milking the Text/Vocals about it.

"It looks alright but the eye brows look rushed"
"The lips look weird in texture, Like the gloss coat caked up"

Things like that.
I prefer Short compliments and Medium size Critique.
Or no compliments and Just Medium Critique.

I will read paragraphs if they happen to be there,
But if I had say id prefer it less dragged out, simply because I don't need
someone to RP Text format explain to me whats good/bad about something I did,
UNLESS I asked for it. If I asked then I would accept any length of Reply.

But I would only ask if I potentially don't quiet understand,
Or want more info on lets say, A product to help improve, that I asked for more Info on.

 

As a writer in the game industry, sometimes it feels that the only criticism out there is harsh. Mostly because my job is still considered an unnecessary addition to the game making process and as a result I don't get enough time to make something worthwile. May sound as an excuse, but there is only so much you can do in 6 days.

When I'm asked to give my opinion on a work of art, depending on whether she wants to sell her work or not, my crits might be soft or more direct.
If someone owns a shop, she'll come across harsh comments of her work sooner or later, so I think it's best to confront her with that before she gets knocked of her feet during business. If it involves someone who just want to enjoy the hobby, I'm usually a bit more lenient.

But even if my crits are not covered up by kittens and rainbows, I always follow a basic set of rules when giving them:
1. Always start with some positive things about the artist's work.
2. Follow up with something that may need improvement an give advice as to how to do this. Maybe even give her a few examples. Make sure these remarks are directed to the artwork itself: don't judge the artist.
3. ALWAYS end with something positive again. Otherwise the other positive comments will most likely be forgotten. (people tend to remember the negative)

Criticisms involving statements like "that sucks", or "worst thing ever" are not constructive, no matter how you put it. So, I think I'm drawing the line there. If it cannot be constructive, then re-phrase it or 'shut up'.

 

I'm really starting to see this in the critique forum now - people just posting the first thing they did, expecting praise for little effort. And when they do get crit on their work, they come up with loads of excuses about how even they think it isn't very good, but still want praise critique. And this completely baffles me. Whatever happened to 'you are your worst critic'? How can you put a piece of work out for evaluation if you think it's not the best you can do? Or is it because that's too much effort to critique your own work, so better get someone else to do that for you? It's almost impossible to critique something if it's not finished or it's not the best you can do. The most I can say to those is either "Finish it so we can help you the best we can" or "Practise a bit more, then our critique can really help you "

 

Constructive Criticism Where do you draw the line?

There are two signs of constructive criticism for me:

1) I prefer to give criticism if that is what the person is asking for. Truth is, many people don't want critique, be it positive or negative, in the actual sense of it - expecially on doll forums, many people simply want to share their doll and pictures of it with the community, to communicate with others who have the same hobby without getting a judgement of their skills. It is more in the line of: "Look how cute my dog is, I love it so much!" than of "Look at the great picture I drew!". So, for me, constructive criticism of a doll picture or customizing has to be wanted by the criticized person in the first place.

2) The choice of words should be positive, or at least neutral. We are all human, and our feelings can be hurt. There is no use in offending someone. Stress hormones tend to rather impair learning. So I keep in mind that if I tell someone that his work is horrible, chances are that the result will be the person just turning away from my critique, forget the constructive part of my sentence, and maybe just give up on this branch of art altogether.

What is your definition of positive and negative critique?

Positive critique is not simply the constructive kind in my opinion. Positive critique is the person approving of, negative critique is the person disapproving of the piece of art. It is simple like that in my mind ^^ Both kind´s of critique can be done constructively or destructively. And destruction of any kind is not acceptable for me. No matter how famous the art professor is, if he sets my picture on fire without me allowing him to do so, he'll have to talk to my lawyer.


I suppose my disclaimer would be that I don't endorse overtly negative critiques but I also don't endorse ones that are coddled either.
Well, I only give REAL critique if I know what I want to say in it, expecially if I have some advice for the artist. If I don't, I prefer either to express my feelings - as in "Oooooooh I love it!" (which is actually a pretty legitimate practice too, it is just not critique), or to keep silent. Sometimes I don't say anything, even if I love the picture/skill/art, because I am lazy and just want to look at it, or because too many people already said that it is great/cute/wonderful/etc. I wouldn't ever say to someone that I think their art is horrible, neither - because as I already mentioned, I don't think it helps most people to improve. I am a fan of the motivational approach.

 

I'm seeing it the other way as well - someone genuinely offers a critique, and then another poster says something along the lines of "I don't think that! Don't worry! That feature is fine and you should be pleased with it!"

Honestly, the Critique forum is called the Critique forum for a reason! If it was just for fluffy praise, it'd be called the Fluffy Praise Forum!

 

^This is actually the main reason why I stopped asking for crits here on this board and some other boards. When I'm asking you to be honest and say if something's off, I'm not looking for "ZMG SO COOL!!", I want to hear something constructive.

It's frustrating, 'cause I know that my work can't be THAT perfect and I want to improve, but without any honestly constructive responses, I can't.

 

Ah, but is that because the first critique is a personal opinion critique or an impartial critique? I know what you mean though - Although it's hard to differentiate between opinion and impartial, sometimes it's just not a personal preference. Like the difference between "I personally prefer thicker eyebrows for guys" and "I think the paint lines need to be thinner, to create a smoother look."

 

Please remember that once a thread is begun on this forum - especially in the Debate subforum - it no longer "belongs" to anyone, the original poster included.

I prefer a very honest criticism IF IS ASK FOR IT. I have a pretty good idea of what my work is worth....and don't seek a general overview of how it affects reader/viewer....but if I do ask for critique, I stress that it is impossible to hurt my feelings or injure my own perception of the work but that I am looking for specific feedback. It can be hard to get that sort of critique.

 

I don't have the book to hand, but I do remember getting an a-ha moment when reading The Artist's Way, and the author said that artists (of all stripes) can take any criticism when it makes sense and seems fair to them. I tend to be thin-skinned but have had those moments where somebody gives a criticism about something I've produced, and my reaction to that is actually extremely positive -- it's the "Oh, THAT'S what was wrong with it!" moment.

That said, personally I give no criticism on this forum because I'm just not good enough myself at anything to do so. I don't ask for it either, because I'm not a deep believer in getting criticism from people I don't know -- I don't know their level of expertise, I don't know if they're good at criticism, etc. And while I do try and improve a little all the time, this is just a hobby for me. I don't need the sort of soul-searching and feedback-absorbing that I do in my more serious pursuits. It's more enjoyable for me to try to learn by observation than by seeking direct analysis of what I'm doing.

Criticism should be unflinching but fair. I think there is a lingering cultural aspect going on in the sort of Simon Cowell I'm-tearing-you-a-new-one-so-I-must-be-telling-the-truth that buries whatever might be useful in socially unacceptable behaviour, and anyone giving criticism in that manner frankly just strikes me as childish. Not pointing out potential improvements when asked can be unkind as well, so the kid gloves approach isn't much better. If someone asks you for criticism, both "I liked it" and "I hated it" are equally useless things to tell them. Ad hominem attacks and grandstanding by being as mean as possible are both well over the line for me.

 

From the comments I gather that a lot of folks, particularly those with developed artistic skills, often shy away from critiquing other people's work. Understandably, it's quite an effort to mentor someone (because that's what thoughtful and kindly commentary is, mentoring), and nobody is obligated to do so. But everybody also agrees that without good analytical critique there is no progress.

Fluff and squee notwithstanding, perhaps, we all could make a commitment to offer one piece per week/month/year of thoughtful, pointed and constructive criticism to make the Critique thread even more active and helpful. The subforum guidelines are actually pretty explicit and self-explanatory. You gotto give some to get some, right?