demicoeur
patreon
Thoughts on Critique
🕑 Added 2019-08-21 14:01:00 +0000 UTCOne of the things I learned sharpish in college was that constructive criticism is a good thing. Lots of us struggled at first with it. In life drawing class, our professor would do the rounds, and if he saw something off he would take the conte from our hands and draw on our picture, either to correct the mistake or make a joke. In one such instance, I'd drawn the shoulder blade like the point of a triangle. He said, "this isn't a scapula, this is a mountain," and began drawing more mountains, some clouds, and a little river on it.
This might seem cruel, and to be honest I don't entirely recommend doing this yourself. Though I found it funny personally, others were pretty upset by this sort of critique. We hardened up pretty fast though, and even began to enjoy his criticisms and jokes. We were improving by leaps and bounds because of it, so we acquired an almost masochistic desire for more.
One thing is for certain though: the world of criticism on the internet is a totally different kettle of fish to classroom criticism. It can be far more personal, or it can lack visual context or subtlety of expression. All this to say, the internet makes communication of critique harder! So I thought I'd talk a bit about that.
The first thing I want to lay out early on: what is critique, and what isn't critique? If I were to lay it down to its bare bones, a critique comes from a desire to help the artist improve, not from petty cruelty, jealousy, or the desire to take that artist down a peg. Recognizing which it is of the above is the first real hurdle. If it's the latter, you're better off ignoring it all-together. I've seen this plenty of times (and experienced it myself): the artist protests the cruelty of the comment, and the commenter's knee-jerk response is, 'you just can't take criticism.' Let's be real. If the comment includes swearing, attacks on the artist personally, nasty adjectives to describe the work's faults, and zero suggestions for how to improve these faults, it isn't criticism, it's just a jerk. Recognizing a jerk from a critic is pretty instrumental. I've had (rare) conversations with these types where they eventually acknowledge they were just having a bad day and took it out on me, but most of the time these days I just ignore them. If their comment's purpose is only to hurt you, not help you improve, it isn't criticism.
Another thing that isn't criticism: comments that amount to, "I'd prefer this creation if it wasn't the creation that it is." Comments like, "this would be better if it were straight/gay," or, "I'd prefer something more realistic instead of fantasy," are pointless. They want the work to be something it isn't and was never intended to be. It amounts to telling the artist 'this elephant should be a lion'. An elephant is an elephant, and if that's what the artist meant to create, then the commenter is trying to foist their personal desires on the artist's shoulders. Real critique is intended to help the creator improve upon their original vision, not change it to conform with the critic's vision and personal preferences. Comments like this are more common than the former, because as viewers we can't help it. We have our personal likes, dislikes, preferences, and we crave the stories to which we best relate. It's important when encountering these sorts of comments not to take it personally. It has more to do with the commenter's wishes and dreams than it has to do with your actual project. Again, better not to respond to these, or if it's in person, to tell them you'd love to see them bring their vision to fruition themselves. Some of my work is inspired by stories that were close to what I wanted, but missed the mark for me. It's a great impetus for creativity, so if you find yourself in this camp, seize upon it and start making the things you want to see/read!
Real critique comes from a desire to help, but that doesn't always mean it's easy to take or understand. Communication over text is flawed. It can be harder to convey positivity or gentleness when critiquing via text, and sometimes even harder to communicate what you mean visually. This is why redlines are invaluable. Just to clarify what I mean by redline: it's when someone draws over your work in red to show where an anatomical error is or how to improve upon a drawing. If, during a critique, someone has taken the time to give me a redline, the only appropriate response from me is 'thank you.' Even if I may not have the time to implement it, redlines take a degree of time and attention that deserves appreciation. It was a gift of that person's time that they went to those lengths to communicate what they meant and give you an idea of how it could be done differently.
The best response to any helpful critique is usually 'thank you.' Regardless of whether you agree or not, the critique took time (and usually a degree of anxiety) to communicate and came from a good place of wanting to help you achieve your vision. Actual critique is so rare because it's pretty common for artists to react badly to it. That's not a great incentive for anyone to offer help, so receiving critique with gratitude is something I'd openly encourage.
If you see a mistake or area needing improvement, a good rule of thumb to follow is the 'shit sandwich' technique. You sandwich the critique in between two compliments. Start with a positive about the work, explain where you think it could be improved, and follow up with another compliment. It reassures the artist that your intent is to help and not hurt them. Whether we want to admit it or not, artists are usually pretty sensitive about their work. They put a lot of time into it, so positive slants to criticism will cushion the blow.It's also just polite to acknowledge the positives along with the negatives.
Some artists have different views of criticism depending on circumstances. Some say that unasked critique is rude. Some say it's fine, so long as it isn't on a commission (because it could inadvertently insult the commissioner's idea or character design, or make them unhappy with the result). Others feel that, by the time they've posted artwork, they're not going to return to it for revisions, so the critique is pointless.
My personal ethos on most of those is: give me the critique, I can handle it. If I can't apply it to this work, I can keep it in mind for the next. If it's something I can revise, that's awesome. The only one I'm a bit unsure of is the commission front, because it is, in essence, a collaboration between the commissioner's characters and vision, and the artist's execution. I don't want to force my openness to critique on the commissioner too.
What are your thoughts? All this talk of critique does have me feeling nostalgic about my college days. If I had the time I'd love to do some kind of critique circle, but oh man do I never have much time anymore T_T Why must I spend 8 hours of my day sleeping??? -_-
As always, thanks for reading my little rambles and please feel free to join in the conversation! <3
