To Those Of You Afraid To Give Critique (Please Sticky, This Is Very Important)

[Frostgage 7,977]

 

 

Indeed it do, indeed it do.

 

If I may say one thing in my defense, drawing on a laptop is hard as hell.

[Zhortac 1,475]

If I may say one thing in my defense, drawing on a laptop is hard as hell.

 

I kinda understand. I did something with a mouse once, and this is how it turned out...

http://zhortac.deviantart.com/art/RANDOM-175258656

[Nit Pick 247]

I know what you mean, I don't aim to be as good as some popular artist; but I aim to better myself.  Like when I posted one of my OC's to a Google Plus page that rates MLP OCs.  I posted my OC Scoop Itup and after some critiques; he's significantly better don't you think?

 

 

On a side note, I keep searching for efficient ways of drawing backgrounds because I feel like I get to meticulous with them.

 

"Oh Nit Pick you silly bitch, beautiful backgrounds take a long time to make."

 

Well how does five or more days to make an MLP style background sound? Knowing fully that other digital artists can create a fully detailed background in thirty minutes to a couple of hours.  I just need to only use the pen tool to make backgrounds or something.

Edited May 30, 2014 by Nit Pick

[Flash Fire 386]

I've seen threads asking for critiques and tips remain silent too. This forum seems to praise awesome art and crappy art, but mostly ignore everything in between. 

[Onylex 2,837]

I think the problem with critiquing people specifically on this sight is due to the lack of how strong the art community is here. Many people don't know what to say other than "it looks bad and it could use some work" because they are not artist themselves. They know its bad but, don't know specifically what to say to the artist to help them, its more of a generally made statement. 

 

Sort of like the saying "it takes one to know one".

Usually people have a lack of knowledge on the subject thus, praising it like there is nothing wrong or, just not saying anything.

 

I think if the art community specifically to this sight was a bit stronger and more well held together we may not have that problem.

For now the your best bet to get a good critic is to find a sight that has a section specifically for it (an art web sight).

 

I have a relatively fare amount of knowledge when it comes to visual art and I do give critics and try to tell them whats working and what isn't. Then from there tell them what they could to to improve sometimes even giving examples but, a lot of the time I cant tell if it actually helps people or not.

 

Most people seem to ether get offended by it or just ignore me as if I was just hating on them. In the end I think if someone really craves to get better they will try and find multiple ways of doing so. Now in days I only critic people if they ask for it or, if the art piece is really suffering and could use some work. 

Edited May 30, 2014 by Onylex

[Guest90210 3,569]

Who are you to tell me what I consider "Good" or not? If I want to compliment an artist, I can do that. And frankly, I don't appreciate you claiming I and others are "bullshitting, stunning artistic growth, false-praising", among other insults, just because you don't personally agree with the assessment of someone else's art.

[Sir Wulfington 276]

Who are you to tell me what I consider "Good" or not? If I want to compliment an artist, I can do that. And frankly, I don't appreciate you claiming I and others are "bullshitting, stunning artistic growth, false-praising", among other insults, just because you don't personally agree with the assessment of someone else's art.

 

I'm sorry, but there's a certain point where it's extremely hard if not impossible to believe that one actually like's a certain work of art. Maybe you like the idea, but not the execution? Also, I wasn't insulting you or anyone else here, but it is very serious to fill a bad artist's head with a false sense of competency. There are right and wrongs in art, it's the types of art that's subjective (like fantasy, sci-fi, cartoons, realism, etc., some hate cartoons but love realism, for others it's the exact opposite). I honestly think some people just don't care about quality in art, tho.

I think the problem with critiquing people specifically on this sight is due to the lack of how strong the art community is here. Many people don't know what to say other than "it looks bad and it could use some work" because they are not artist themselves. They know its bad but, don't know specifically what to say to the artist to help them, its more of a generally made statement. 

 

Sort of like the saying "it takes one to know one".

Usually people have a lack of knowledge on the subject thus, praising it like there is nothing wrong or, just not saying anything.

 

I think if the art community specifically to this sight was a bit stronger and more well held together we may not have that problem.

For now the your best bet to get a good critic is to find a sight that has a section specifically for it (an art web sight).

 

I have a relatively fare amount of knowledge when it comes to visual art and I do give critics and try to tell them whats working and what isn't. Then from there tell them what they could to to improve sometimes even giving examples but, a lot of the time I cant tell if it actually helps people or not.

 

Most people seem to ether get offended by it or just ignore me as if I was just hating on them. In the end I think if someone really craves to get better they will try and find multiple ways of doing so. Now in days I only critic people if they ask for it or, if the art piece is really suffering and could use some work. 

 

Yeah, along with what you said about why there's a lack of critique here, I've figured that the reason good works of art are so extremely rare on this forum is because this just isn't an art site. It's a social hub for people who are fans of a tv show, and most of them are only drawing because on an interest in the characters, not because they're actually artists. They wouldn't be drawing if it wasn't for their love of the show. Contrast that with deviantart, a site created for the sole sake of art, hence why there are countless great works of art there (but also countless terrible ones). It's naturally attracts people who make art for art's sake.

[Guest90210 3,569]

Also, I wasn't insulting you or anyone else here

 

Oh but you were. Look at the language you used. You're painting the picture that anyone who compliments something you don't like is an awful person and is causing an artist's downfall.

 

 

 it is very serious to fill a bad artist's head with a false sense of competency. 

 

You know what's also counter productive? Telling someone their art is straight trash time and time again. No one is going to want to continue drawing if they're just mocked repeatedly for how bad their stuff is. If you want to provide constructive criticism, then fine. Just don't be incredibly rude about it. Again, if I like something, I can say so. You are not the ultimate judge on what is and what isn't good or worthy of praise. Your idea of "competency" isn't necessarily shared with mine.

[PE Brony 1,712]

Oh but you were. Look at the language you used. You're painting the picture that anyone who compliments something you don't like is an awful person and is causing an artist's downfall.

 

 

 

You know what's also counter productive? Telling someone their art is straight trash time and time again. No one is going to want to continue drawing if they're just mocked repeatedly for how bad their stuff is. If you want to provide constructive criticism, then fine. Just don't be incredibly rude about it. Again, if I like something, I can say so. You are not the ultimate judge on what is and what isn't good or worthy of praise. Your idea of "competency" isn't necessarily shared with mine.

There is absolutely no cause for these explosions.   Sure, Wulfington feels strongly about this too, but is simply making a plea for everypony to be more realistic with their praise, criticism, or critiquing. Perhaps what can help is if people give praise, they can try to specify why they like it, or parts of it. However, as has been thoroughly discussed here already, it seems that many here don't have an idea for what could be helpful critique, or deciphering what it is they actually enjoy about a piece of art. We already talked about the differences between shutting somepony down with negative criticism vs building them up with positive critiquing.

 

Wulfington didn't make this a personal argument, and neither should you. When did he ever claim to be the Ultimate Judge? I never picked up on that vibe. I felt like he was just trying to get a general message out here to encourage others to encourage others helpfully and honestly. There are better ways to say you disagree with somepony than misunderstanding their purpose and getting bent out of shape about it.

[Onylex 2,837]

Yeah, along with what you said about why there's a lack of critique here, I've figured that the reason good works of art are so extremely rare on this forum is because this just isn't an art site. It's a social hub for people who are fans of a tv show, and most of them are only drawing because on an interest in the characters, not because they're actually artists. They wouldn't be drawing if it wasn't for their love of the show. Contrast that with deviantart, a site created for the sole sake of art, hence why there are countless great works of art there (but also countless terrible ones). It's naturally attracts people who make art for art's sake.

 

Im going to be completely honest with you and anybody else who my read this comment.

I wouldn't always trust critiques you get on DeviantArt to a full 100%.

 

Reason being that the number of novice artist and non-artist massively out weigh the number of intermediate to professional artist. I try to make it habit of not critiquing an artist I find to have a much grater skill level then me but, not everybody on DA follows that logic.

 

Most of the novice and non-artist will blindly critic complement an art pice, not even giving a real critique. Sometimes its really obvious to see who knows what they are talking about and who is just a bumbling bafoon. 

 

Not all but, most of the professional artist seem to stick to themselves and hardly ever critic other works.

 

If I had to make a list of art sights your better off getting a real critique from:

ConceptArt.org

Sycra.net (forums section) 

Permannoobs.org

 

Though sometime the critics can be quite brutal. 

[Guest90210 3,569]

Wulfington didn't make this a personal argument, and neither should you. When did he ever claim to be the Ultimate Judge? 

 

He goes on and on about how awful people praising "bad" art are, when he's missing the point that what is "good" or worthy of praise is a matter of opinion. I can praise whatever I want to if I feel it is worthy.

 

 

 I felt like he was just trying to get a general message out here to encourage others to encourage others helpfully and honestly

 

All I got from his rant was that he thinks he can tell people what to think. There's being honest, then their's being obscenely rude.

 

Again, he's flat out insulting people who appreciate something he doesn't.

 

 

There are better ways to say you disagree with somepony than misunderstanding their purpose and getting bent out of shape about it.

 

There's also better ways to telling someone you disagree with them than saying they are "doing the wrong thing", that they're "bullshitting", that artists feel "anger" towards you if you "falsely praise their work", that "bad" artists wouldn't have wasted time if it wasn't for "false praisers" like me, that they're "lying", and so on. All of these are insults hurled by OP. And I'm the one getting "bent out of shape"? 

[PE Brony 1,712]

@, sure, Wulfington could also have better delivery, granted, but I do agree with him based on what he's trying to say overall.

 

I didn't see him mention you as a "culprit" of giving flimsy praise. You took it personally, showing (me) that you might actually fit what he's talking about.

 

I've been given false praise before for stuff I know was bad; so when I got legitimate praise for legitimately good work I didn't trust it as much. And I'm not talking just art--I mean in sports, at work, school essays and other assignments etc. I've experienced it in each of them. I agree with him that people shouldn't be so quick to give ample praise unless they legitimately believe it is reasonably good and/or has potential to become good, and they're also willing to give suggestions as well.

 

I agree with you that people can also legitimately like works that may or may not be considered "good" when held up to a professional standard; but, like what was said before, there's a difference between artists producing amazing pieces of fan art, and others producing art purely as a result of loving the show.

[Zhortac 1,475]

Oh but you were. Look at the language you used. You're painting the picture that anyone who compliments something you don't like is an awful person and is causing an artist's downfall.

 

 

If all they give are compliments on something, that could use work, then yes they are causing downfall. Unless people know what's wrong, they'll never improve. But we get so many people, who think that pointing out flaws, is some attack on the person who made it. It's like like they're going, "OMFG THIS SUCKS GET RID OF IT!".

[Guest90210 3,569]

If all they give are compliments on something, that could use work, then yes they are causing downfall. Unless people know what's wrong, they'll never improve. But we get so many people, who think that pointing out flaws, is some attack on the person who made it. It's like like they're going, "OMFG THIS SUCKS GET RID OF IT!".

 

OP's argument is completely redundant because the opposite of what he's saying can be just as harming to the artist. If everyone's going on and on about how garbage your art is, you might just give it up entirely. Each person is different. You want to critique someone's work? Fine. Just don't tell me how I can critique people's stuff. Your way isn't the factually "right way". OP's post is full of assumptions and insults for no apparent reason other than to make people feel bad about being positive towards someone's work that he doesn't personally like.

Edited May 31, 2014 by Rivendare

[ghostfacekiller39 23,860]

You want to critique someone's work? Fine. Just don't tell me how I can critique people's stuff. 

Aye. I gotta be on team Rivendare with this one.

 

One of the things about art is that a lot of it is personal speculation - while one person may find something deep, enthralling, and perhaps even reminiscent of a time in their life they want back or a lost loved one, art is ultimately up to personal speculation rather than cold, concrete facts. Sure, you can go and analyze color schemes and brush strokes, but ultimately, in art, nothing is really objective. What you can perceive to be a flaw in a piece is something that someone else can really enjoy.

 

That's why, when I write up a critique on a piece, style is not taken into account. Sure, there's improvement to be made most of the time, and I usually tell them what I perceive that they need to improve on, but whether or not they agree and make the change or want to keep it that style is ultimately up to them - and who knows, what I found to be a fault in a piece could be something entirely beautiful to someone else.

 

Feelings about art is entirely personal speculation - while some things in life are concrete, art isn't, and you shouldn't tell someone how to feel about something in a market that's strictly subjective in terms of personal enjoyment.

[PE Brony 1,712]

Aye. I gotta be on team Rivendare with this one.

 

One of the things about art is that a lot of it is personal speculation - while one person may find something deep, enthralling, and perhaps even reminiscent of a time in their life they want back or a lost loved one, art is ultimately up to personal speculation rather than cold, concrete facts. Sure, you can go and analyze color schemes and brush strokes, but ultimately, in art, nothing is really objective. What you can perceive to be a flaw in a piece is something that someone else can really enjoy.

 

That's why, when I write up a critique on a piece, style is not taken into account. Sure, there's improvement to be made most of the time, and I usually tell them what I perceive that they need to improve on, but whether or not they agree and make the change or want to keep it that style is ultimately up to them - and who knows, what I found to be a fault in a piece could be something entirely beautiful to someone else.

 

Feelings about art is entirely personal speculation - while some things in life are concrete, art isn't, and you shouldn't tell someone how to feel about something in a market that's strictly subjective in terms of personal enjoyment.

Now this is well-put. I would consider this a critique about a thread about critiques. Can we still say Picasso was a weirdo?? Please? 

Edited May 31, 2014 by PE Brony

[Zhortac 1,475]

OP's argument is completely redundant because the opposite of what he's saying can be just as harming to the artist. If everyone's going on and on about how garbage your art is, you might just give it up entirely. Each person is different. You want to critique someone's work? Fine. Just don't tell me how I can critique people's stuff. Your way isn't the factually "right way". OP's post is full of assumptions and insults for no apparent reason other than to make people feel bad about being positive towards someone's work that he doesn't personally like.

 

Why did you quote me, if you're going to argue with someone else? I dunno if what he said was intended to be pure hate, but what I said wasn't. I don't know who's way you're talking about, I was stating common sense. If someone says, "the scaling is off, and the appendages seem kinda odd" doesn't equal, "omg your drawing is garbage".

 

Alot of people in this day don't understand that, and people back that belief, so it spreads, and no one can ever critique without a small army, going apeshit.

[Silverwisp the Bard 2,354]

He, I've been thinking about making a topic like this just the other day.

 

Well, I've been posting both my art and critiques on here for longer than most and I wholeheartedly endorse this message.

 

 

 

OP's argument is completely redundant because the opposite of what he's saying can be just as harming to the artist.

He is not advocating the opposite. Tearing a piece apart and insulting the artist would be the opposite.

Constructive criticism is pointing out the good and the bad and giving suggestions on how to improve the latter.

[Sir Wulfington 276]

Aye. I gotta be on team Rivendare with this one.

 

One of the things about art is that a lot of it is personal speculation - while one person may find something deep, enthralling, and perhaps even reminiscent of a time in their life they want back or a lost loved one, art is ultimately up to personal speculation rather than cold, concrete facts. Sure, you can go and analyze color schemes and brush strokes, but ultimately, in art, nothing is really objective. What you can perceive to be a flaw in a piece is something that someone else can really enjoy.

 

That's why, when I write up a critique on a piece, style is not taken into account. Sure, there's improvement to be made most of the time, and I usually tell them what I perceive that they need to improve on, but whether or not they agree and make the change or want to keep it that style is ultimately up to them - and who knows, what I found to be a fault in a piece could be something entirely beautiful to someone else.

 

Feelings about art is entirely personal speculation - while some things in life are concrete, art isn't, and you shouldn't tell someone how to feel about something in a market that's strictly subjective in terms of personal enjoyment.

 

If they failed to accurately represent the subject they were attempting to draw, than they did an objectively bad job. And before you say it, yes, I know there is a type of art that's all about doing it wrong, but the good artists of that field do it in an artistic manner. If you're gonna do it wrong, you gotta do it right......if that makes any sense. You have to do it wrong, in the right way.

 

Even if you enjoy what the art says to you, you should still be able to tell if it's poorly executed. There isn't such a thing as a subjective flaw. Just because you happen to like it doesn't mean it's not still bad. Here's the thing about beauty, it's not subjective entirely. People don't find extreme physical and facial deformities to be attractive. There is not a human in existence that can find beauty in THIS:

 

 

 

(to be fair, both the versions of the two drawings on the second picture are poorly done. And yes, believe it or not, those actual published manga drawing guides that have been sold in stores. No, I'm serious. I've actually seen some of them, in actual stores)

 

When you're intent was, for example here, to draw a human, and it looks so horrifically wrong, it's objectively unappealing. It's like uncanny valley, when something gets so close to looking like us yet falls just short, it's looks disturbing. That's what truly bad art is, along with a lack of depth making a subject look flat when obviously that was not the intent, failing the make proper proportions results in your character looking hideously deformed. I'm not trying to sound elitist, but no one, and I mean no one, who isn't suffering from a serious case of krueger-dunning, would find either of these attractive. Imagine someone who looked any of these in real life:

 

 

 

Do you really believe anyone out there finds beauty in that? People find don't find severe deformities attractive, sure, some people like me can find anthro animals and FIM ponies beautiful, but that's because they're proportionate. I'm also almost certain sure humans naturally avoid deformed members of their kind as potential mates because deformities are usually a sign of a disease or disorder, which can be passed down to offspring and result in serious problems for them. Which is unfortunate for the deformed, but that's just how it is.

 

But that's not to say it has to be beautiful, I mean I love me some ugly characters, just that, there's a line between intentional distortions of anatomy and an obvious failure to properly draw a specific subject.

 

Again, there's a correct way of doing things wrong.

 

 

This creature is terribly deformed, but it's well drawn. How? Because the artist clearly understands how light and shadow work, giving it depth, and it's also obvious that he meant for it to look that. When you have failed to coherently represent your subject, you're art is objectively bad. If you can still find something to like out of it, okay, but it's still bad. It's the idea you like, but not the execution.

OP's argument is completely redundant because the opposite of what he's saying can be just as harming to the artist. If everyone's going on and on about how garbage your art is, you might just give it up entirely. Each person is different. You want to critique someone's work? Fine. Just don't tell me how I can critique people's stuff. Your way isn't the factually "right way". OP's post is full of assumptions and insults for no apparent reason other than to make people feel bad about being positive towards someone's work that he doesn't personally like.

 

What are you even talking about? Where did I say that you have to be a jerk to critique someone? I said be honest if someone did a bad job, and you somehow translated that into telling them they're stuff is garbage. I think that says more about how YOU feel than anyone else here.....

Im going to be completely honest with you and anybody else who my read this comment.

I wouldn't always trust critiques you get on DeviantArt to a full 100%.

 

Reason being that the number of novice artist and non-artist massively out weigh the number of intermediate to professional artist. I try to make it habit of not critiquing an artist I find to have a much grater skill level then me but, not everybody on DA follows that logic.

 

Most of the novice and non-artist will blindly critic complement an art pice, not even giving a real critique. Sometimes its really obvious to see who knows what they are talking about and who is just a bumbling bafoon. 

 

Not all but, most of the professional artist seem to stick to themselves and hardly ever critic other works.

 

If I had to make a list of art sights your better off getting a real critique from:

ConceptArt.org

Sycra.net (forums section) 

Permannoobs.org

 

Though sometime the critics can be quite brutal. 

Oh yeah, deviantart isn't exactly the best, but I'm sure I've seen more criticisms there than here (hell, they're's even a "Request Critique" feature for crying out loud, and yes I've seen people use it). I've also seen a lot of bad tutorials from proffesionals, (usually digital for some reason), that don't explain ANYTHING, they just show a few steps and don't explain exactly how they did it. I think a lot of the pros don't actually want to help anyone, since they don't want to risk losing their spotlight. Which is silly, because it's not like there's any one greatest artist, I'm sure there are a bunch of people on top of the skill chain who are equally great. My theory is that it's they're fans whom they want to remain terrible, because if a fan got as good if not BETTER than them, they'd cease to idolize, to look up to them, which is what some of these great artists want, to have a bunch of people forever idolize them but never get anywhere near their level, so they can feel "superior" to them forever. See it's not about losing spotlight, not entirely at least, but more so about a constant desire to feel better than someone

So yeah, DA isn't the greatest, but it's definitely better for getting honest opinions than here.

Edited May 31, 2014 by Sir Wulfington

[Kay Dreamer 884]

I feel your tone is a tad blunt, but I agree with the overall argument. An artist who receives no meaningful critique will have trouble developing their skills. Plus, they will grow frustrated when they realise their own limitations but lack any advice in working past them. (Years ago on DA I was part of a group of mutual friends who all gave really good constructive critique. We've drifted apart over the years, and I miss the critique as much as I miss the comradeship. Nobody ever critiques my stuff anymore, and I certainly feel the lack of it sometimes.)

 

That said, there is a place for encouragement or praise. It's not inherently bad. Particularly when the praise-giver can pinpoint exactly what parts of the picture they like and why. Giving the artist an indication of what they're doing well is just as important as giving them an indication of what they're doing badly. It's all very well to point out things which need to change, but that advice is meaningless without knowledge of what should stay the same.

 

Also, much as you deride building up ego, you need ego as an artist. Not an overinflated one, certainly - but an artist must have confidence in their own skill, self-belief in their ability to improve, and the strength to take critique and work productively with it. You develop this confidence through other people responding positively to your work and encouraging you to continue. Self-belief is vital in any creative field.

 

I'd especially warn against giving unsolicited critique to a reeeeeeeal fledgeling. (Even when they specifically ask for critique, mind how you word it.) They're probably quite young, they don't know how to handle negativity, and their art is usually so, um... unpracticed, that it's easy to be far too harsh. That's where constructive praise comes in. Sentences like "I think you did well on the colours with this one," or "You bent the left leg in all the right places, your anatomy in that particular spot is accurate. Well done." It's positive without being utterly unhelpful. (If you're clever with words, you can even phrase this in such a way as to gently point out the flaws.)

 

Also, while a less skilled artist can still pass on helpful observations as critique to an artist of more skill, (such as "There's something odd about the way her mane sits, but I can't place what...") it's probably not the place of a blind novice to be pointing out flaws in a picture if they can't give detailed advice on how to make it better.

 

My advice: If you're not comfortable giving critique, but you wish to comment on a piece of art, let the artist know 'what' you like and 'why' you like it! It's immeasurably more helpful to them than generic praise.

[Creamy Arty 6,252]

Just a little FYI, this is getting moved to Creative Resources since that board is for requesting and providing advice.

[Arkane 270]

I've had tons of people criticize my music. Like I always say, when people throw shit at you, you convert those poop to fuel.

 

But like I said. I've had tons of people critique me that most of what they say contradicts each other. This resulted in me choosing the people allowed to critique me. Now, hear me out. I don't go looking for yes men. I vehemently despise the though of myself being surrounded by worshipers. It makes me cringe. I'm looking for harsh critics, ones that aren't afraid to say "Your music sucks and you should kill yourself!" But I make sure that they give me something beneficial to work with. A suggestion, hints and tips, how certain things go, and the like. I only let experienced producers and musicians criticize me. And when I say experienced, I mean those who have been exposed to the field for more than 15 years since they actually know what they're talking about.

 

With that said, It has gotten me alot of good things. Rather than trying to take everyone's critiques, I only take the ones who are legitimate. Not just some musician that happens to have 10000 subscribers or something. If I could compare my current self from 5 years ago, doing this sort of routine has done wonders for me. I currently work for film producers, indie game developers, commercials and whatnot.

 

What do I do about those criticisms who aren't in my field? I disregard them since they lack the legitimacy. I mean, its good if your an amateur musician and you take criticisms from everyone, but when your planning on entering the professional world, the best option to find proper and good criticisms is from professionals.

[Sir Wulfington 276]

I feel your tone is a tad blunt, but I agree with the overall argument. An artist who receives no meaningful critique will have trouble developing their skills. Plus, they will grow frustrated when they realise their own limitations but lack any advice in working past them. (Years ago on DA I was part of a group of mutual friends who all gave really good constructive critique. We've drifted apart over the years, and I miss the critique as much as I miss the comradeship. Nobody ever critiques my stuff anymore, and I certainly feel the lack of it sometimes.)

 

That said, there is a place for encouragement or praise. It's not inherently bad. Particularly when the praise-giver can pinpoint exactly what parts of the picture they like and why. Giving the artist an indication of what they're doing well is just as important as giving them an indication of what they're doing badly. It's all very well to point out things which need to change, but that advice is meaningless without knowledge of what should stay the same.

 

Also, much as you deride building up ego, you need ego as an artist. Not an overinflated one, certainly - but an artist must have confidence in their own skill, self-belief in their ability to improve, and the strength to take critique and work productively with it. You develop this confidence through other people responding positively to your work and encouraging you to continue. Self-belief is vital in any creative field.

 

I'd especially warn against giving unsolicited critique to a reeeeeeeal fledgeling. (Even when they specifically ask for critique, mind how you word it.) They're probably quite young, they don't know how to handle negativity, and their art is usually so, um... unpracticed, that it's easy to be far too harsh. That's where constructive praise comes in. Sentences like "I think you did well on the colours with this one," or "You bent the left leg in all the right places, your anatomy in that particular spot is accurate. Well done." It's positive without being utterly unhelpful. (If you're clever with words, you can even phrase this in such a way as to gently point out the flaws.)

 

Also, while a less skilled artist can still pass on helpful observations as critique to an artist of more skill, (such as "There's something odd about the way her mane sits, but I can't place what...") it's probably not the place of a blind novice to be pointing out flaws in a picture if they can't give detailed advice on how to make it better.

 

My advice: If you're not comfortable giving critique, but you wish to comment on a piece of art, let the artist know 'what' you like and 'why' you like it! It's immeasurably more helpful to them than generic praise.

I agree with most of what you say EXCEPT the part about giving critique to young artists. Well, I agree that you can point out their flaws in subtle ways masked as praise, I still say that if they're asking for criticism, than be honest as honest can be. Be be polite, than again, be polite to anyone you're critiquing.

[Zhortac 1,475]

@@Arkane, 

You just contributed to the problem. By using "your music sucks and you should kill yourself" as an example of critique, people assume all forms of critique equate to that. That's the major problem today. In your example, if someone were to say, "your pitch was off at 2:43, and the first 30 seconds didn't quite flow well", people would think that pretty much is saying, "this is garbage, drink a gallon of bleach and slit your throat!" when it's not. So then, all critique is seen as absolute hate, and critiquers get treated like they're demons from hell.

Edited June 1, 2014 by Zhortac

[Jeric 46,869]

But like I said. I've had tons of people critique me that most of what they say contradicts each other. This resulted in me choosing the people allowed to critique me. Now, hear me out. I don't go looking for yes men. I vehemently despise the though of myself being surrounded by worshipers. It makes me cringe. I'm looking for harsh critics, ones that aren't afraid to say "Your music sucks and you should kill yourself!" But I make sure that they give me something beneficial to work with. A suggestion, hints and tips, how certain things go, and the like. I only let experienced producers and musicians criticize me. And when I say experienced, I mean those who have been exposed to the field for more than 15 years since they actually know what they're talking about.

 

Contradictory critiques are the worst time vampires. Back in 2005 I was prepping a short fiction piece for a regional writers contest, and I went through a full editorial cycle. It involved a structural edit, line edit, proof, and finally I sent it out to a circle of a dozen betas. I recall that two of my betas about drove me up the wall suggesting elements that would have broken the story. They included comments regarding how they didn't like character A and thought that B needed to be expanded -- all without detail as to what was missing or what was enticing. One wanted the entire POV and tense changed, thought there were cadence issues, etc. When I asked for particulars... nothing.

 

Eventually, I learned to keep my beta circle down to just a handful of people. It's weird to say this, but you DO have to be selective with those that you ask to look over your work.