Constructive Criticism Where does one draw the line?

I think this is an interesting question, but I think the answer is more complicated.

I have learnt several creative skills/arts/crafts (take your pick of whatever noun pleases you) in my life. Here's two: writing and spinning. The answer to the question, "At what point must the student start paying close attention to advice on technique?" differs wildly for these two crafts.

You can only succeed in spinning wool and cotton and other fibres if you pay attention to what experienced spinners tell you from the very beginning. If you don't follow their techniques and practise, you can't spin. Period. The answer to the question "Is it yarn?" will come back: "No, it's a heap of fluff on the floor." This is because spinning is a craft governed by physics and zoology and botany and tradition. A certain amount of twist holds the yarn together -- too little, it isn't yarn, it's fluff; too much, it isn't yarn, it's wire. That's physics for you and nothing you do will change that. Experienced spinners explain over and over to eager beginners how to get the wheel or the spindle spinning the right amount; how different breeds of sheep produced different fleece that require different techniques (zoology); how cotton and vegetable fibres are different again (botany). Experienced spinners draw their technique from centuries of spinners in Western Europe, Eastern Europe and North and South America and Asia.

Writing isn't the same that I can see. There's no physics here. No zoology or botany. Once you've learned language, followed by reading and writing, you can make a story. In oral storytelling you can dispense with learning to read and write if you like. A child can make up a play-story about what he did with his imaginary friend, or how a little wooden cat is running away from a Dalek. All that's in play here is language and the deep-seated human need to tell stories. Later on, the child can study Shakespeare and Melville. But he doesn't need them to make the story about the little cat being frightened of the Dalek. In other words, there's plenty of tradition in writing, but, unlike spinning, you can ignore all of it if you want.

Yes, if the child grows up and goes to creative-writing classes and asks a question like "What are the advantages and disadvantages of second-person narrative?", then someone can tell him quite straightforwardly. But no one can tell him, "You should write in this particular way," or "You should write about these sort of subjects." Only he can decide that.

To return to your question: does there come a point when the creative student must follow advice about techniques to advance?; my answer for the writer is no. He or she can reject or ignore all advice about writing and still progress and create art by following his or her own inner voice. Some people will think he or she is wrong; some won't. My own feeling is that some writers (and other artists) with a strong inner voice won't want to pay much attention to what other people are doing at all, and will be better off for it. They will be better advised to pay attention to their own inner life, their dreams and so on.

Are face-ups and things more like spinning, or more like writing? Well, if a newbie wants to paint careful, natural-looking eyebrows, then yes, it's a good idea to listen to people who've done it because they have worked out techniques to achieve it. (Though this is NOT to say these are the ONLY techniques we will ever have for doing natural eyebrows). However if the newbie paints one side of the doll's face black and one side white and sticks jewels or tiny gearwheels on the face, then no one can say that's not a face-up. (Well, I suppose they can, but I think they'd be wrong.) Doll-making or doll-modifying is, to me, like writing or painting. You can make your own rules.

 

Really interesting question and answer. It's giving me a lot to think about. So the beginning writer can ask "Is it writing?", but if he took it to his creative writing teacher, he would be asked, "Is it effective writing? Does it accomplish what you intended?" And that would be where technique came in.

I keep coming at this from the faceup perspective because that's what I do. If I were able to talk to the newbie artist in person, I would be asking, "What do you like about your faceup? What don't you like? What are you trying to accomplish?" This kind of dialog is difficult on a forum, especially with a lot of other critiquers posting in the same thread (all contradicting each other, as was pointed out. )

I think technique (art or writing) is universal enough that a person experienced in one genre can give advice in another. The materials are the same (paint or words) and there are rules for their application. Of course you can break the rules and be a great artist or writer, but I think you need to know what they are in the first place.

Sorry, I seem to be rambling off the subject here! Too much philosophizing before my second cup of coffee.

 

Psammead you bring out some really great points. Not everyone discounting a certain critique is doing so because they just wanted a pat on the back, but simple because they may already know that it won't work for them or it just doesn't make sense to them. But maybe Susie Q said something that does and they go with that.

Although I would hesitate to say that in writing one could completely discount all critique about technique and be successful. Maaaaaaybe they could, but then one would have to ask themselves as Alewife brought out, "Is it effective writing?" and "Does it accomplish what you intended?"

It makes me think of Pablo Picasso and cubism. I think that one of the reasons why his and many artist like him paintings were so successful was because they did have an understanding of the fundamentals of drawing. From anatomy, positive and negative space, lighting, and composition, even when on the surface it may look like they didn't. They used the techniques they learned in "classical" drawing to make something interesting and different and many times turned those rules on their heads. But they still had to know how something should work before they could use how it didn't work to their advantage.

I also don't think someone needs to be an expert in a certain style to be able to give a critique, but I do think people should have a general understanding of what they are critiquing. Which could be as simple as I saw this done before and it seemed to work for so and so, or someone just showed me, so now I'm showing/telling you. I also think this helps the person be more specific with the advice they give. Someone telling me that the perspective of the leg based on the rest of the drawing looks off is more helpful then someone telling me the leg looks off. Well there could be a lot of things off with the leg, the anatomy, the lighting on the leg, etc.

The discussion from earlier with Agnes and Luka does make me think of something though. The difference between style and technique, which should be critiqued and whom should do it.

To me a technique is anything used to create a certain effect, look or style, and as such can be used across different genres within a field of study. Anyone with a bit of knowledge can critique or give advise on a technique. But some techniques require that one takes into account the effect and style that the person is going for. A person who paints in the style of realism telling an impressionist depending on the circumstances that he/she needs to add more detail, may not being giving them the best advice. But telling them that using so and so brush technique may help them to achieve the look they're going for better is far more useful.

So I don't think that someone who sings, paints or writes a completely different style from someone else can't or shouldn't be able to give advice, just that if they do then they need to focus on that persons specific style or the technical aspects that may be useful for them.

 

Style versus technique can be hard to judge, mostly because I think they're related. Your technique will eventually help you find a style of your own. Both will change as you grow into whatever art form you're trying to perfect.

I have seen hundreds of faceups using paint for details but I still like to use watercolor pencils because I can make that look more like my art style. The technique I use to draw can't be reproduced by a paint brush and I don't think it looks like "me" if I use it.

Personally I feel that if someone is just starting out doing anything at all let alone faceups, they have yet to have a style. Learning the basics first is so important. Example; if your grasp of anatomy is poor it will reflect on your art when you attempt to draw a human. Once you've got anatomy down, you can branch out into a more stylized form of drawing and it will still look right and proportionate. Just like in faceups, learn how to do eyebrows well, and the faceup will look better...somewhere during the countless hours of practice, a style will start to rear it's head. I've been doing faceups for about 3 years, and I think I've only just found my style. I can finally point to my dolls and say that's it. That's what my faceups look like (still better than drawing. I have been drawing my whole life, I went to school for it and a million years later, I only just now think I've got my style down).

This is actually why I don't put my own stuff up for critique here. I have seen too many people in the past get torn apart for their style, and I just don't see the point in offering up something just to hear "his eye-makeup is too dark!" Or "he's too girly with red lips" a thousand times, because that's not going to change. I like dark on my dolls XD
I've already heard enough times that my faceups are too "dark" and that is not what I would want to be critiqued on. I would want to know if they're technically ok. Are my eyebrows believable as eyebrows? Are the lashes too crazy?? Is the blushing done well? Is it grainy or messy? How are the lip lines? the eyeliner? How is the shape of the mouth vs the mold (i have trouble with that sometimes lol)???

The issue of someone using a perm marker on their doll and calling it style or technique is a little different IMO because that is a substance that can damage a doll. If the person doing it is asking for critique it should called attention too if only because if said person is planning on taking commissions they should a) be aware that perm markers stain dolls and b) disclose that this is what they're using on dolls so that any unsuspecting customer knows what they're getting into. There are a surprising number of people out there who just don't know what is or isn't a good idea to put on the doll. If they're (politely) informed, they might change.

If they have no intention of changing, it might be time to engage the back button. XD


I think I got way off track from where this post was intended to go...I should stop before it gets worse XD

 

Just because a person gives advice doesn't mean that that advice will always line up with what the artist wants to do. Advice can be very helpful, but it's still up to the artist to decide whether it's something they want to do or not -- remember, the artist has their own ideas about what they want the end result to be. Not all criticism, no matter how constructively given can help if it for instance, pushes going in a stylistically different direction, it covers issues that are of much less importance to the artist than that particular viewer (this can be pretty subjective territory at times), or involves using media that the artists doesn't want to use (just some examples off the top of my head). That doesn't mean that the advice is completely useless -- it can still provoke thought, or perhaps the information will be stored away to be used for a future project.

Sometimes people who like to give critiques don't always seem to remember that the artist isn't obligated to take their advice and may have perfectly good reasons for not doing so. The most frustrating experiences I have had posting art on the net (this isn't doll related, btw), was having people come in and give a critique (sometimes constructive, often not) and then be really pissy because they came back later and found that I didn't do exactly what they wanted me to do. The viewer can have great suggestions and catch things the artist missed, but they aren't always right -- especially when the matter at hand is fairly subjective. I'm not saying you are guilty of doing this, I just wanted to give you another perspective as someone who has been in that boat before.

This can sometimes get tricky -- especially if the critiquer really isn't familiar with the style. However there are some things to consider that might help -- nonresin friendly items isn't really a stylistic choice -- the same effects could be gotten with other media. Also another thing to consider is did the artist's work get across what they were trying to get across? Is there something that got in the way of that? Obviously you're not going to criticize a natural looking faceup for lack of profuse dark eye makeup, but maybe there's something really off where they eyebrows are very uneven or poorly shaped and it's interfering with the expression they want on the doll. Perhaps the way the painted on the eyelashes is very distracting from the rest of the faceup. Ask yourself whether or not anything seems really out of place. If someone wants their doll to look less doll like and uber realistic, then clearly you can give them advice on how to achieve that look, because you're going to be able to tell if something is working or not -- basically keep in mind what the artist is wanting to do, and help them to reach that goal. It can also be obvious at times that the person was having a difficult time applying the media where things are coming out uneven, clumpy, streaky etc. where it probably shouldn't. If you are unclear where they are coming from and wanting to do, you can always ask them and have an actual dialogue about it -- you might be able to learn things from each other.

 

Right, how does one judge the difference between "a painting that my 6-year-old could have done"-- critiques heard by the likes of Pollock and Rothko-- and "a painting actually done by a 6-year-old"? If somebody's deliberate style goes against your own personal expectations for style, who's to say who's wrong? If it's viewed in a vacuum, there can be many critiques & reactions that do go against the artist's actual intent.

I'm reminded of Dollmore's wonderful Halloween Party LEs from a couple years ago; these guys had "face-paint" style faceups, crudely rendered skull-features painted like white greasepaint. They were largely decried as "ZOMG sloppy! Ridiculous! Doesn't even look like a real faceup!"... etc. etc. Because they were meant to look like Halloween makeup that the guys had applied by themselves, for a party. A lot of people totally missed the point on that one; you could almost hear the *whoosh* of it going over their heads. xD

Absolutely, yes, if material damage is at issue, that demands intervention!

But if somebody just likes to paint eyelashes that look like they were done in permanent marker-- likesay, if the artist is just really into A Clockwork Orange, y'know?-- then it's a style issue again.

At which point, I'd say that if this artist is looking for an honest critique, instead of a lecture on proper technique, then s/he would do well to have a dialogue with putative critics about intent vs. result. For example, an introduction before your photos, just to get viewers in the right mindset, like: "So here's my faceup, I was going for a sort of Clockwork-Orange-inspired look here..."

Anybody who then reacts with "Eww, the eyelashes look like marker" is clearly Not Getting It, & you know you can write them off. Which brings us to....

Sometimes you get a lot of useless crap that you didn't ask for, that's why. You can't obey it all. I'd say there's nothing wrong with choosing your critics-- to some degree. Listen to those who you know Get It about your intention, because those are the reactions that will actually help you improve. Weed out those who Don't Get It + will just waste your time with random unconstructive opinions (i.e. VampireAngel has license to ignore everyone whose review starts with "it's too dark!" ^^).

 

Style is most evident when there are two styles fighting on one faceup. You see this sometimes when a person is still trying to figure what they want to do.

Style vs. technique-- maybe technique could be defined as the methods you use to achieve a certain style. So to use VampireAngel13's example above, she could achieve a dark look by going heavy on the pastels, or by her choice of paint colors and application, etc.

This made me think of another question, but I'm not sure if it's wandering off our subject. After you've been painting or writing or modding for a while, you develop a style. At what point does a style become a template? I mean where you're doing a faceup with exactly the same colors and technique and look every single time. If you're a professional faceup artist, this gives you a "brand". Is this a bad thing or a good thing?

 

Yay! *brandishes license*
Actually this whole post is pretty much what I was trying to get too before I veered so far off the road I only just got back. Plus fabulous examples....

I have to comment on this because it happened to me with faceups. Luckily I noticed it, but for awhile it didn't matter...I couldn't make myself get out of the "template" I was stuck in either, which was worse. I was unhappy with all my faceups and was seriously thinking I'd hit my stride and wouldn't get better. What got me to break out of my box was a faceup I did on one of boys that was something I hadn't tried before...going in that new direction was the push I needed to improve, lose the template, and further develop.

I considered being stuck with my template a bad thing...I really hated what I was doing at that time, and a lot of my dolls got redone later. Now, I think all my faceups look alike because of the style and techniques I use (lol anyone else tired of those words XD), and the faceup itself doesn't really look similar to the others (I try to get different eyebrow shapes on different dolls when possible). The colors and details are not identical however (um, unless they're supposed to be the same. which several of mine are).

 

Whether consistency ("template") is good or bad is totally up to the artist. If your faceups have a Certain Look that's just so distinctive that people deliberately seek it out, or if you feel your faceups are bringing all your own dolls to life in the best possible way-- and more importantly, if you like to paint that way all the time!-- then it's a good thing. Many people strive to GET to the point where they have a style that they can repeat, and polish, and excel at.

But if you feel you're in a rut, or if you just basically hate to repeat yourself, then it's a bad thing. Some people dig uniformity, and others do not.

So a constructive critic wouldn't resort to "it looks just like your last faceup", unless you specifically said that you're trying to break out of the style of your last faceup.

 

But ultimately it is the artist that decides if they are helpful or not -- unless you are being paid to teach them, it's not really something that you should worry about too much, IMO. You gave them information, it's up to them what they do with it. You don't know whether or not or how it might help down the line or their reason for disregarding it (unless they actually tell you, of course). People look at the same stuff and see totally different things all the time, it happens *shrug*. Or maybe at that point they aren't ready to use it. If you gave a constructive crit that they asked for and then they got nasty with you, that's something else entirely. But quietly deciding what is of value or not is completely with in their rights to do -- that's part of the process of making stuff. What I mentioned earlier about the folks that wouldn't take no for an answer? I'm sure they were convinced that they were right and should've been listened to, but that doesn't make it so. This is very subjective territory, remember.

I think it really depends on the situation. There's nothing wrong with having a very distinctive look that people will recognize -- it can be a good thing in fact. It's bad when you feel it's holding you back from improving or trying new things that you're interested in doing.

 

Everyone develops a certain style and for an artist it's a necessary thing to have. That's why it ususally takes a few years before a writer or painter has a repetoire he's able to sell; he has to find out who he is, before he's able to show it to others. But there's a difference between having a distinct style and using a template.
When I think about style I think about someone using overly verbose descriptions, or short, analytical sentences. With template it's more about using the same characters archetypes, the same themes, the same story-types over and over, I think.

I think it depends on why you use that template. Is is a conscious choice, then it's okay, but if not, then that template has become one of your personal clichés and I believe it's best to avoid that.

It's like when I write a story. The first two ideas that pop into my mind get discarded, because they are usually clichés. Now, sometimes I use these clichés consciously and I try to twist and turn them into something new, and these ideas turn out to be quite interesting. But, at the same time I have caught myself using the same-old-same-old themes without thinking. Those stories tend to be a little boring. They're not bad per se, but I haven't surprised or outdone myself and I've kept myself at a safe distance. As a result, the stories themselves were safe, flat and a little uninspired.

It's not so much about if you're using a template, but why. An artist should always question his methods and ask himself if the technique used will benefit his work.

 

When a beginner-writer begins to write, often they don't have a clue what they intended -- they are feeling their way, getting an idea down on paper and seeing where it leads them. Even experienced writers, who have plans and a style they want for their story and a mental list of characters, hope that the story will take over and go places they weren't expecting -- that's the fun part. (Of course some beginner writers and experienced writers do know very clearly what they hope to achieve and intend to stick to it, but I don't know that this makes them better artists.)

In bjdmagazine Caroline Seales (icchaeyo) was talking about doing face-ups, she said this:

http://bjdmagazine.com/2010/12/09/bjd-faceups-by-caroline-seales-of-viridian-house-part-2-of-2/

That's the same sort of thing. Having fun. Letting the process take over and see where it leads you. Allowing your unconscious mind to do the heavy lifting. Giving the conscious mind a break. All creative work, I believe, is much closer to dreaming than we think.

Of course this is exactly what makes it difficult to talk about creative process. The unconscious mind has no interest in explaining what it's doing (and couldn't if it tried -- it's a veiled being in a trance in the shadows in a cave), so the conscious mind has to come along and figure out what the unconscious (its older, wiser, much more talented brother) actually did.

I'm honestly not sure about this. Alfred Wallis was a Cornish fisherman and scrap metal merchant who started painting "for company" when he was over 70 and his wife had died. He made pictures from cardboard and paint, and was discovered in the 1920s by a group of trained painters and enthusiasts. It's not clear from his biography that he ever knew or cared what the rules were, but his paintings are beautiful.

When asked what he did he said:

Which I interpret as meaning he had been a fisherman and knew ships and sea, so he could paint ships and sea, and the ways other people thought they ought to be painted was entirely irrelevant.

Alfred Wallis's biography and paintings are here: http://www.andyblair.co.uk/alfredwallis/


I want to say some more but I have to go and meet my financial adviser now.

 

@psammead: I only half agree with you. If you have a deadline and/or work in a team you will need a story structure to work with and you can't let the unconscious completely take over, otherwise you there's a great risk you'll end up with nothing.

Most professional writers I know do have an outline or beatsheet or whatever, before they put words on paper. Pre-production is the most important part in the writing process - if done right it could save you a lot of time when you start rewriting - but it doesn't mean that rules and structure rule out the unconscious mind. You'll need both.

 

Who's Susie Q? My immediate thought was Suzi Quatro and I was trying to think if any of her songs were about creativity versus technique. But on reflection I think you mean someone else.

Here's an interesting distinction. I think in certain crafts (painting, writing) you can ignore -- if you wish -- other people's opinions or advice about technique, but this is quite different from saying you can ignore technique itself. You have to learn technique; you don't have to learn it from the people around you.

If you want to learn the craft of storytelling you could do any or all of the following:

• go down the pub and listen to people who have interesting stories to tell (jokes or stories of their lives) and analyse how they use language, how they put a story together and how they keep an audience engaged. This would be particularly good if they spoke a dialect or distinctive form of language.
• do the above with a great stand-up comedian
• read lots of novels and stories by authors you like and analyse them, or simply let them sink into your mind (become the furniture of your mind, as someone once said). This, I suspect, is how most writers of fiction learn their craft. The art of storytelling is much older than writers' workshops.
• go to the theatre or a puppetshow or a movie; watch an excellent tv series
• watch a really terrible tv series or movie
• read the Bible or the Koran
• study ancient myths and folklore
• pay attention to your own inner and outer life and what you know of the lives of others

If you want to learn how to do face-ups for your doll, you probably do need to ask about materials and their effects on resin. Once you've done that, you could try a face-up and ask for feedback. Or you could:

• study photographs of face-ups by icchaeyo or sdink
• study actual human faces (a bit out-of-leftfield, this one, I realise)
• study animal faces
• study illustrations of animal faces
• look at the work of Brian and Wendy Froud
• study saints' faces in Russian and Greek Orthodox painting
• study pre-Raphaelite paintings
• study the work of Faulty Optic or other avant-garde puppet company
• well, you get the idea....

The point is that, in writing and face-ups, there are lots of ways to develop your own technique that don't rely (or at any rate don't rely exclusively) on getting advice from other people. By looking outside the immediate area of your own craft, you may help to expand and refresh that craft.

I liked what you said here. I don't know enough about Picasso and the cubists to say whether this is true or not, but I can easily imagine that it is true. Picasso & Co created the great school of cubism on the back of classical techniques. My point about Alfred Wallis is that not every single artist has to do this; he created art out of knowing about the world, instead of knowing about art. I have the greatest of respect for classical techniques; as a writer I am more than a bit "classical". I just think it's interesting to note that there is a world beyond classical techniques. If you could map "all of art" and then map "all of art created in accordance with classical techniques", the two areas would not coincide.

The art or craft of bjd-making, bjd-face-upping, bjd-modifying is very young. Sometimes, on this thread, it sounds as if there are set of tried-and-tested rules which beginners ought at least to consider trying to learn. But isn't it a bit early to start talking as if there were a "classical" method for face-ups? (I realise that no one's used that exact phrase.) In 10 years time we may be looking at dolls that are quite different.

Now I'm off to listen to Suzi Quatro's Devil Gate Drive' -- cos you reminded me -- and weep for my best friend when I was a teenager. She loved Suzi Quatro.

 

psammead, thanks for the link about Alfred Wallis. I think someone like him was following the rules, even if he didn't know it. But let me back up and define what I mean by "rules". I believe art started with what was evocative or pleasing to the mind and eye. The rules came along later and quantified what we already knew in our hearts. That is, a compostion is harmonious and peaceful if the elements are balanced, or it shows movement or disturbance if it's off balance, and so on. If an artist wants a certain effect and can't achieve it, he can consult the "rules" to find out why.

The heart (the feeling) came first, the head (rules and technique) came later. The rules are only there to help an artist express himself fully. A means to an end. (Although I'm sure there are plenty of teachers who think rules are the end goal, lol.)

I agree absolutely that you can improve your art, whatever it is, by going outside your usual circle. In the world of BJD faceups, there is a tendency to think that a "good" faceup is one that looks just like a factory faceup. It's a very specific look: dark dots at the corner of the mouth, vertical lines painted on the lips, tan shading around the eyes and so on. psammead, maybe this is what you meant by a "classical" faceup.

For an antidote to this, check out the DoA Triathlon subforum, the Shadow Faceup Voting thread. There are some remarkable and imaginative faceups in there!

 

I've learnt to keep my mouth shut mostly, sure, there'll be occasions where I think something's not to my taste but I love that this is a site to promote and support creative endeavours when it comes to dolls.

If I knew how something could be improved and someone was asking for help with it I'd certainly let 'em know but a lot of stuff I haven't even tried yet so how could I offer any constructive criticism? I've learned heaps about things I'd never even consider tackling like wigmaking, body blushing, face-ups so I'm happy to encourage someone even if it's not my thing just for being brave enough to give it a go.

 

From someone who didn't know that, I have a new appreciation for growly music. I think that because it's not considered refined or polished, that it's not as good as other music (which is more 'refined and polished' sounding).

Excellent point! Often because the expert knows a lot of actual knowledge compared to the armchair enthusiast, they may forget that others don't know what they know and can't use his/her mental pathway to understand (whew, that was crazy!). I'm reminded of my maths teacher, who was bemused why some of the class couldn't understand his reasoning. The people who could understand his reasoning could then turn it around and explain what he was talking about (aaaand then got told off for talking in class )

psammead; on Wallis' paintings, I think subconsciously he stuck by certain rules. I notice most of the ships and boats are immaculately detailed, and the details he missed out were things you couldn't see from a distance. He didn't say "Oh, I'm just gonna ignore most of the sails and masts, and just make all my ships bowl shaped with a triangle sail." He stuck with what he knew, and it's wonderfully obvious in his paintings. He also incorporated some perspective into his paintings, at the very least - it's realistic that people/ships/houses are smaller the further away you are, and he stuck to reality for the most part.

Admittedly, I have a problem helping 'crit' paintings like this - since the commentator can only guess (like I just did ) what rules the artist broke or did not break. To me, if I can see the knowledge the artist is demonstrating, then I can appreciate what they've done.

(JennyNemesis; paintings done by a 6 year old aren't cool anymore - it's the paintings done by teacup pigs/dogs/gorillas/elephants/horses that's 'in' )