|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 1:07 pm
I am actually tackling criticism as a subject, as it has been made so since the rise of theory in 1960. The little thing I'm playing with is a combination of literary criticism and comparative literature, so I'm actually working on something here, but I am trying to get responses as I move on. My paragraphs in the first post aren't yet finished.
It has been "marred" by that fact because practitioners of other disciplines are used to consider whatever answers they have to be final and fixed forever. Scientific theories, when proven, are taken for granted. However, throughout history, theories have died and new theories took their place. Copernicus was condemned of heresy when he claimed the sun was the center of the universe, not the Earth. His theory was later adopted as true, until Newton, who only lasted until Einstein. So on. It will not be uncommon for such a thing to happen again sometime in the future to some theory that we all take as an established fact.
The main difference between criticism and other disciplines is that the nature of the former does not make that claim. Criticism simply doesn't offer answers as final, and therefore leaves the door open for more and more contributions to the critical debate.
Criticism, not critique, does derive from social sciences like psychology, psychoanalysis and sociology. It is much more obvious in literary criticism, though. I have input, but I will try to organize it first. I apologize for being slow.
As for the dictionary definition: "to review or analyze critically". What is "critically?" You'll have to look it up again. wink
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2008 3:13 am
No worries about being slow, I'm only on gaia while skiving at work so happy to have a distraction <3
If you want to define critically as well the definition becomes "to review or analyze inclined to find fault or to judge with severity, often too readily." smile
I still don't understand why history is 'marred'? Which is fairly emotive language to use, was someone upset that someone else thought an answer could be fixed? Who?
You haven't said who within the social sciences (or what ever these other disciplines are) thought their opinions were final and fixed forever? Since when? You are mentioning lots of history without reference and the use of emotive language just makes it confusing.
As far as scientific theories go we are back to acceptable truths. If you can say its 10:16 or 10:14 within art critique and not be a 'fool' they why can't you say 'the universe is 'X' million miles big' if that is as accurate a number as you have with science?
I don't know what makes you believe people think everything is fixed? The difference between subjective and non subjective is not the same as between fixed and unfixed. Indeed it is very hard to come up with things that are 'fixed' but not things that are 'non subjective'.
Criticism is not a subject, it is not a field of social science because it is a part of debate in any field. It is a tool for communication of ideas and opinions?
You can make criticism of *something* a subject like 'critique of creationalism' or of an era, an essay, an artist, a paper critiquing an artist, a history of critique in a particular field. But not as simply critique because you would have to incorporate the opinions of every one on everything.
So are you tackling literary criticism since the 1960s?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2008 9:03 am
The nature of the field and the utility of expression does that, whether intentionally or unintentionally. When scientists, by means of observation and experimentation, reach a certain conclusion, the conclusion is offered in affirmative and final language. It becomes 'wrong' to call a theory 'wrong' because it has been proven.
I am starting from literary criticism. I don't know if this has been done before, but I, myself, am experimenting. See if I can get anywhere. =3 Better than doing nothing at work. wink
The dictionary definition you have offered represents the current use of the day. I am not quite comfortable with that definition given to criticism, and that is probably my utmost goal here: change the definition.
My biggest mistake here is not citing references. Yes. I am trying to keep it general. Perhaps because I'm experimenting. I want people to suspect the credibility of what I'm saying. This leaves more room for discussion. If I were to be called a fool, I'd rather be called one for my own mistakes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2008 10:39 am
Well your first post suggests that this is about helping other artfags understand the meaning of critique to benefit this community so I think you should also mention that its a work in progress and that its actually a study into literary critique since the 1960's.
Otherwise to me it sounds like a vague opinion dotted with unreferenced history and sudo-facts rather than a serious look into your subject matter.
With each scientific discovery the boundary of acceptable truths is changed but I doubt any scientist would tell you his/her theory is set in stone because that goes against the inquisitive nature of science? It's not a subjective field in the way art is but it is in no way fixed.
The very fact that scientists 'prove' theories wrong regularly demonstrates this, if they thought all 'proven' theories were set in stone, they wouldn't hunt for further evidence that they aren't.
Also I don't think 'on critique' covers the topic of my personal work habits wink I'm not doing 'nothing' at work, I am responding to your post (while cleverly being paid) as a break from thinking about work <3
I'm not calling you a fool, I'm just saying what I think on the topic smile
I think you are a good crit'er here by the way, but I am so far not agreeing with your experimentation into redefining the word critique.
Home time for me <3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2008 1:00 pm
slopii to me it sounds like a vague opinion dotted with unreferenced history and sudo-facts rather than a serious look into your subject matter. HAHAHHhaaahaha! biggrin You are correct. My apologies. KingRoach I want people to suspect the credibility of what I'm saying. And that's what you're doing. And that's what keeps the discussion going. I did not think you are calling me a fool, but if no one else does, I might do that myself. wink The suggestion that criticism differs in terms of 'changing vs fixed' is about the lingual expression, the implied claim, and the psychological reactions to it. A theory becomes part of the acceptable truth and is therefore little challenged. Not because it is, I have been saying it ISN'T but it is PRESENTED as IS. slopii I'm not doing 'nothing' at work, I am responding to your post (while cleverly being paid) as a break from thinking about work <3 Oh, I was saying I'm not doing anything better at work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2008 8:07 pm
Don't forget about 'objective' versus 'subjective' subjects of critique. redface
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 2:57 am
Quote: Oh, I was saying I'm not doing anything better at work. My apologies! I miss understood <3 KingRoach The suggestion that criticism differs in terms of 'changing vs fixed' is about the lingual expression, the implied claim, and the psychological reactions to it. A theory becomes part of the acceptable truth and is therefore little challenged. Not because it is, I have been saying it ISN'T but it is PRESENTED as IS. So maybe the perception we need to change is the one that says objective things like science are set in stone. I don't personally hold that perception tho... Eitherway the language of an objective observation will be different to a subjective observation (it is vs I think) but that doesn't mean it is unchangeable. It hurts my head this early in the morning (its 10:00 am here and I'm back at my desk again... zzzzz) but isn't all opinion a mixture of objective and subjective? "The drawing shows little skill and so I don't like it" I can objectively decide if the artist has show skill and subjectively decide if it looks nice anyway? "My apple pie for breakfast looks a bit soggy from being kept over night but actually tastes AMAZING" True story!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 9:07 am
The Iconoclast Don't forget about 'objective' versus 'subjective' subjects of critique. redface Do you have anything to offer on that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2008 7:51 am
Everything I had to offer I already offered you on AIM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2008 9:46 am
The Iconoclast Everything I had to offer I already offered you on AIM. O_o!!! ... .. Total shock.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 18, 2008 3:17 pm
I have updated the first post. Sorry for being apparently vague.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2008 2:55 am
Are you not talking about critique not criticism?>
What is wrong with the dictionary definition?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2008 4:11 am
Your advice is good, your reasoning is bad. You don't need massive essays to say such a simple thing. I'd trim the whole post into
Don't:
Point out that something should be done differently without giving any clear reason.
Think that liking or disliking something means you should express that abruptly and disrespectfully.
Do:
Express your critique in a thoughtful way, to promote good discussion.
Respect the critique of less skilled artists (mountain pony's contribution)
Glean use from all critique, even head up bum mean critique (iconoclasts post)
......
Your whole post is a long winded reasoning in to what is good critique and manners.
You can't stop an artist being defensive about some harsh or unkindly phrased critique, especially when on the topic of what people like and dislike. It happens, it's happened to me.
You can encourage people to be mature about both good and bad critique when both giving and receiving it.
I think that already exists here. I don't think this guild suffers with too much immaturity (besides my own obviousleee) where critique is concerned. All these lovely, talented and helpful people wouldn't be here otherwise.
People will always get emotional about something they care about, its part of the passion. But if you are being unhelpful or refusing to be helped then people will tell you and hopefully that is the first critique you can accept.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2008 8:58 am
Oh, the dictionary definition. Here's what mine says... oh.. I forgot. Mine's at home. It goes along the lines of making careful judgments on the good and bad aspects of a work. Here's what another one of mine says: the art of making skilled and detailed observations on literary, artistic, or scholarly works.Nice. Quote: You don't need massive essays to say such a simple thing. I'd trim the whole post into Don't:[...] Do:[...] Yeah, and people will just listen and hail. Doesn't make much sense if you ask people to be reasonable without being reasonable yourself. Besides, for every argument, people can come up with a counter argument. In this case, it would be the who the F are you one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2008 9:30 am
No one said 'who the f are you' to your posts?
I don't think there is much sense to your reasoning... The attempt to define critique by embellishing it with lots of philosophy/history/fluff is unnecessary and make it a lot hard to communicate your points about etiquette for critique... which actually make sense amidst that essay.
17:30 at work.... I'm not sure I make sense... HOME TIME
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
