ESSAY - How To Critique Art
14 years ago
General
[Elsewhere: [ Flickr ] ~ [ Hentai Foundry ] ~ [ Slushe.com ] ~ [ SoFurry ] ~ [ Weasyl ] ~ [ Wikifur ]
Live life to the fullest, love with a full heart. There have been a few things that I've seen here and there on the web that prompted me to write this. Before I get going, though, I want to make it clear that this is not prompted by any commentary or feedback I've received on my own artistic or writing endeavours.
The first thing that strikes me, since I'm as guilty as anyone else of doing it, is that most of the feedback artists and writers get is a squee. To use a somewhat exaggerated example, a comment of "OMG OMG OMG this is so fucking hot I love it I love it!", while definitely an enthusiastic endorsement of popularity, is not critical. The mirror of that, which I've also seen, are comments such as "Meh, don't like boobs" or "Gurls wif cawks suxx0rs". These are also not criticism but (at best) an expression that the commentator's personal taste does not jive with the artist's. Most artists I know of would more likely classify them as trolling. In either case, however, both the squeeing and the trolling are less than helpful for an artist's development. Curiously, the usual reaction I get when I point this out, particularly from the latter type of commenter, is "What, if we can't say anything nice we should just STFU?" Well, in a nutshell, yes. Because one of the key points about critique is that it's not an attack. It can and should be couched in polite language.
Good criticism concerns itself with the strong and weak points of the work. For visual art, this means the most basic elements such as inking being crisp and clean, perspective guidelines being removed and so on; for writing, such things as spelling, punctuation and syntax being correct. The next higher 'level' addresses elements like plot, characterization and narrative flow in writing; in visual work this would be composition and proportions of body parts and objects in the image. Above that would be such things as how well did the artist or author do in expressing themes? Every piece of art - even pornography - has these elements. It matters not a whit whether the critic likes the theme of the story or image; what matters is was it done well?
Next, good criticism is couched in terms that encourage the artist or author to continue working and developing their skills. Consider the following: "You have no sense of rhythm or pacing, everything seems to be happening all over the place, like the scene in the bedroom, I thought Jill was fucking Mike and then it was Christine fucking Jill while Mike watched, when did that happen?" The statement is harsh and judgmental and contains not one iota of positive reinforcement. By contrast, here is the same thing written in a positive manner. "The changes in pace and flow are interesting but can be distracting as well; for example, the scene where Jill and Mike are fucking. It was unclear to me just when Christine arrived and took over with Jill, leaving Mike to watch them." This identifies the problem - a lack of clarity - without denigrating the writer. The same principle applies to visual art.
Last, good criticism restricts itself to what should be there. As an example, statements such as "You could have made this so much better by colouring it" aren't useful, because not all art is meant to be coloured. Similarly, don't fault a 1000-word short for a lack of novel-like character development. It's not a novel.
The last thing I want to say about criticism is directed to artists, and that is this: A good critique may identify many faults with your work, particularly if you're new to making art. It's not an attack on you or your worth as a human being. Comments such as the no-likey-boobs example aren't critique and should be ignored, but if someone takes the time to sit down and critically examine your work, then provide you with feedback, do them the courtesy of reading what they have to say. If something is mentioned that was deliberate on your part, then by all means respond and say so, but don't take it as a condemnation of you.
Now... that said, if anyone has any feedback to offer me on this little essay, please do! I might well re-write it with your comments in mind
The first thing that strikes me, since I'm as guilty as anyone else of doing it, is that most of the feedback artists and writers get is a squee. To use a somewhat exaggerated example, a comment of "OMG OMG OMG this is so fucking hot I love it I love it!", while definitely an enthusiastic endorsement of popularity, is not critical. The mirror of that, which I've also seen, are comments such as "Meh, don't like boobs" or "Gurls wif cawks suxx0rs". These are also not criticism but (at best) an expression that the commentator's personal taste does not jive with the artist's. Most artists I know of would more likely classify them as trolling. In either case, however, both the squeeing and the trolling are less than helpful for an artist's development. Curiously, the usual reaction I get when I point this out, particularly from the latter type of commenter, is "What, if we can't say anything nice we should just STFU?" Well, in a nutshell, yes. Because one of the key points about critique is that it's not an attack. It can and should be couched in polite language.
Good criticism concerns itself with the strong and weak points of the work. For visual art, this means the most basic elements such as inking being crisp and clean, perspective guidelines being removed and so on; for writing, such things as spelling, punctuation and syntax being correct. The next higher 'level' addresses elements like plot, characterization and narrative flow in writing; in visual work this would be composition and proportions of body parts and objects in the image. Above that would be such things as how well did the artist or author do in expressing themes? Every piece of art - even pornography - has these elements. It matters not a whit whether the critic likes the theme of the story or image; what matters is was it done well?
Next, good criticism is couched in terms that encourage the artist or author to continue working and developing their skills. Consider the following: "You have no sense of rhythm or pacing, everything seems to be happening all over the place, like the scene in the bedroom, I thought Jill was fucking Mike and then it was Christine fucking Jill while Mike watched, when did that happen?" The statement is harsh and judgmental and contains not one iota of positive reinforcement. By contrast, here is the same thing written in a positive manner. "The changes in pace and flow are interesting but can be distracting as well; for example, the scene where Jill and Mike are fucking. It was unclear to me just when Christine arrived and took over with Jill, leaving Mike to watch them." This identifies the problem - a lack of clarity - without denigrating the writer. The same principle applies to visual art.
Last, good criticism restricts itself to what should be there. As an example, statements such as "You could have made this so much better by colouring it" aren't useful, because not all art is meant to be coloured. Similarly, don't fault a 1000-word short for a lack of novel-like character development. It's not a novel.
The last thing I want to say about criticism is directed to artists, and that is this: A good critique may identify many faults with your work, particularly if you're new to making art. It's not an attack on you or your worth as a human being. Comments such as the no-likey-boobs example aren't critique and should be ignored, but if someone takes the time to sit down and critically examine your work, then provide you with feedback, do them the courtesy of reading what they have to say. If something is mentioned that was deliberate on your part, then by all means respond and say so, but don't take it as a condemnation of you.
Now... that said, if anyone has any feedback to offer me on this little essay, please do! I might well re-write it with your comments in mind
Taasla
~taasla
I like to think of concrit as a sandwich. For every fault that there is, I try to surround it by two good things that I see.
GingerM
~gingerm
OP
Heh - that's a familiar term. On leadership courses, we're taught that developmental interviews with our junior personnel should be a sandwich as well, with the bread slices each being a good thing and the filling a bad thing (or, as we call it these days, "areas for development"). By contrast, a disciplinary interview, which is typically part of the proceedings prior to a summary court-martial, is a 'reverse sandwich'
fc32
~fc32
Well not everyone has the technical terminology to get into the "why" something works.
GingerM
~gingerm
OP
True. Critique is not easy to write, and I don't have a problem with people expressing opinions, so long as it's done politely. But the "ew boobs are gross" actually happened to one of my favourite artists, and the person who made the crack first tried to say it was criticism and she needed to grow a thicker skin, then when called on it tried to make her the villain of the piece with such excuses as "it was just a joke, you don't have to be an ass about it" and so forth. And I've seen other instances of similar mindsets when someone feels that saying they like or dislike something intensely should be treated as valid critique.
fc32
~fc32
OK, now that is a valid point. personal bias should not be considered critique.
FA+