Welcome to Gaia! ::

So What Is Criticism?

Criticism can be defined, in short, as the understanding and appreciation of the work of art. By understanding, we mean to ask why does a work of art have the precise characteristics that it does? and by appreciation we mean to ask what is the value of art? The two questions overlap, and any attempt to answer one of them without the other is fraudulent criticism, for any attempt to answer questions concerning how art works must carry with it the critic's own social, religious and aesthetic experience, while answering the second cannot happen without mention of the specific aspects of the work and how they affect the viewer (taken from Richard Dutton's An Introduction to Literary Criticism).

Neither understanding nor appreciation can tell how art should be done. Criticism deals with art as a fact. A work of art is an existent entity that has a form. The question is why does it have that form?

Artists incorporate elements in their art, whether visual, written or acoustic for whatever reason they may have. Elements might have a function, a meaning, a significance; they might come from absolute craze; or artists might do things just because they enjoy it. It is wrong, as a critic, to call an artist wrong. You may as well play the artist instead. Criticism is the artist's justification of his own work, or the receiver's reaction to it.

It is not about telling whether you like or dislike a certain aspect. You may like a work of art for a reason that is completely out of the artist's scope. However, within criticism, it is important to say why you like or otherwise dislike whatever it is you have in mind.

Just where exactly does that take us? I mean, c'mon!

It takes us just exactly where it says it does; to the understanding and appreciation of art. But what good is that? Isn't that all theoretical? Be it so. By attempting to understand art, you are attempting to understand the psychology, the social background and many other things of both the artist and the recipient. Hence is where criticism borrows from other social sciences.

Hey hey! Wait a minute! That's not the kind of critique that I want here!

And I am not defining the kind of critique you are getting here. As visual artists, most of us, we ask for notes about anything other experienced artists think we did wrong, in order to learn more and enhance our skill. Most such comments deal with technical issues that correspond to the general style you are using, whether realistic, anime, abstract, photorealistic, etc, etc, etc, and are therefore stylistic, not criticism (theory, theory, theory…) This is where you can tell an artist the eyes are misplaced when the whole drawing is drawn in realistic mode but the eyes are anime.

But then again, how can a critic judge that the eyes are wrong if we are to believe the artist does what he wants? It is the same thing that distinguishes between an image of caricature and an image of stylistic realism with an absurdly huge nose. In the first, everything, while out of any apparent proportion, still delights the eye and works well together, while in the other, it is annoying and out of context. The key here, I believe, is consistency.

… okay, other than sounding like a wiseass, I can't see what you want. We're here to help and throw art at each other.

Thanks. I know I sound like a wiseass. The sense is temporarily enjoyable, until the flaming begins. I cannot interfere with the art throwing part, but otherwise… What I want here is to make two or three points that should help us help each other. By understanding a concise, brief, abstract on the theory of criticism, I hope that certain kinds of comments, not meant for help, would stop.

The first kind is when a critic points out that something should be done some other way, without giving any clear reason for why he thinks that, and more importantly, without giving notion to what the artist actually wants. Rarely does an artist express, or even have the ability to express, what he wants from a drawing to do. His thoughts may or may not find a form of expression when questioned about it later. As said before, criticism may not ask what an artist wants, but would rather speculate on the reason why something exists the way it does.

The second is when a critic thinks that liking or disliking something is the sole factor that gives them the absolute right to express it abruptly and disrespectfully, again, without any clear reason why. A strong version of denying other people's intellectual existence is found here, with chili on top.

Learning theory should teach us (and I believe we all should be older than to think we're too old to learn) how to express our thoughts in a thoughtful way, which will, in turn, indulge us in a kind of debate about a work of art, from which everyone will likely end up with one bit more of experience and knowledge about the others, without anyone losing respect for anyone or risking to have their own respect compromised.

I'm definitely not getting into another "What is critique?" discussion, because it always ends up with "WELL THATS THEIR STYLE HOW CAN YOU JUDGE OMGZZZZZZZZZZZ fffffffffff"

Art is judged for the mere fact of either 1) stylistically looks good (abstract), or 2) is realistic/reflects realism.

Yeah you have a point but at the end of the day, 90% of art theory discussions do my head in. I chose to do art because I enjoyed it.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, its all part of freedom of speech. This shouldn't piss people off because it is part of what makes people interesting and conversation worthwhile. Its only annoying when people don't seem willing to reconsider their opinions, or, even worse, listen at all.

Ok I got sucked into the discussion despite what I said, every time xp

The only problem I have with criticism is when someone will tell me what's wrong or slightly 'off' and then leave it at that, without actually offering some sort of solution or guideline
If I clearly know nothing about puzzles, dropping a puzzle in my lap and telling me to solve it does not speed up my learning much at all, so that's not what I come here for

I just feel the need to throw in here that KingRoach and Doc Valentine both give really stellar critiques if you give them the opportunity.

I try (and my long, epic art critique thread in PP is what lead to the creation of the AFG), but I don't always have the energy. I'm very glad that there are people around willing to offer just about the closest there is to a 'fair and balanced' critique.

I would like to note that while angry, bitter critiques should be avoided by the person offering said critique, a person who receives said critique can still make good use of it - some of the best critiques I've gotten have been, sadly, from people with their heads so far up their asses that I wasn't sure they had ever seen daylight. I think this is largely due to them obviously being part of an audience who does not like my work - and lacking a bias in favor of it, they were able to point things out that people I like might never mention.

Even if that particular aspect of critique from an a*****e should fail you, consider this: Every opinion about your work is an opinion you should account for. Do you need to please them? No. God no. Not at all. But it is so useful to be aware that a certain type of person or a person with a certain type of preference hates your work for _______ reason.

EDIT: I thought I'd throw in what I said on the balls meme:


Critique, regardless of art form or genre. I care deeply about critique and have strong feelings about how it should and should not be done. My friend Ski and I are constantly getting into little shitfits over the fact that he feels art is untouchable critique-wise, as it is a form of expression. I see most work as a product, and therefore it is productive for yourself and for the artist/illustrator to take it apart and figure out what you can do to improve it. Everything about a piece is up for critique. To me, style is no excuse. If style is successful, the average viewer will not question it. If the average viewer sees it as an issue, then there is a huge likelihood your stylization has failed. Keeping that in mind, it is the critique giver's responsibility to have a good idea of what the 'average viewer' would and wouldn't percieve as problematic, and to overcome your own style bias.

The only reason I'll cite stylistic preference as a reason for some parts of a critique is as a service to whoever I'm critiquing. I accept that there can be good art that completely defies my general aesthetic, so it makes the distinction between something being weird on the level of what a normal person would think and being weird on the level in which I as a fellow art student personally render things differently

I would have thought a code of conduct for giving/receiving style critique was pretty obvious.

Try to be helpful, gracious and defo don't be a d**k about it? lol

Roach: As much as I enjoy your sudo-history lesson I have no idea what you are getting at.

Keep it up, I'm interested, just confused!

Why is history mere?

I really don't understand a lot points you have made. Like why has criticisms history been marred with the inability to reach any definite conclusions? Criticism of something subjective will never have a definite conclusion. Criticism of something non subjective of course can have a definite conclusion, like a scientific theory proved wrong?

Since when is critique derived from social sciences? Perhaps you are thinking of art history or art contextual studies? Critique isn't a subject in its self. To review or analyse something is to critique it, to critique the philosophy of Hume you are working within the field of philosophy. To critique a piece of art you should have an understanding of art or at least an opinion about art. Not an understanding of critique? Does that make sense? Manners however are priceless!

I also don't understand why you think art and art criticism has recent been made separate subjects. Unless you are criticising through a visual medium surely they have never been the same thing? To offer critique for some one else's art is to be part of the artists community offering your point of view.

Your last paragraph makes a lot more sense. The range of acceptable truth is not just peculiar to criticism but any opinion and in fact communication of most kinds. I don't really see what is wrong with the dictionary definition though.

"To review or analyze critically"

And if its good critique you are after... well then, To review or analyse thoughtfully and nicely please <3