fchan

Well, if we look at the topic we can see the main focus of this thread is “Whether harsh is the same as good”.  That’s nice and simple, right?  Let’s look at this:

“You suck”

Can we all agree that that is harsh?  If so, the only question left is whether it is good or not.  I don’t think it is, but this is some disagreement.  Maybe I’m just too ignorant to see how something like that is helpful; could someone please explain how “You suck” would help an artist improve?

And at this point Raven has just made the 30th reply to this thread, and it occurs to me that I’d rather not get kicked out of this community.  So I want to make it clear that I intend no offense towards anyone and just want the /crit board to be used to help artists better.

Now, I can’t make any guarantees because I’m not omniscient but I think a good deal of artists would benefit more from well-written and non-insulting review.  I agree with the points brought up in >>28 and >>26 , and I must say I highly approve of the Bambi reference.  Yay, Thumper!

Anyways, if anyone still thinks harshness improves the quality of a critique, I have an idea that I think might help solve this problem.

Since there are many artist looking for critiques on /crit, why doesn’t everyone write a critique for the same artist?  Then they can come here and state which critique helped them more and why.  That way, not only do we further the discussion but we also help an artist in the process.  Does that sound like a good idea?

Thanks to everyone again for taking time to settle this matter and hopefully make fchan a better place to get critiques!

Okay, so assuming this thread did spark from that one in /crit/, the critic that sparked this whole thing is:

>>33

If people cannot handle that level of criticism, which, let's be honest, is pretty damn mild compared to things I've heard emplyers say, how are these people going to function if they ever try to apply their art professionally in the 'real world'?

Out in the field, most clients don't pull punches and will tell you in no uncertain terms how much they dislike parts of art or graphical work, and give little advice on improving it other than 'it looks wrong'. The artist does need to take a little responsibility when a person says 'this arm looks wrong' to go and look at a real arm for reference, or whatever they need to do - not everyone can hand out a redline correction on a silver platter, and not everyone is well enough versed in anatomy, colour theory, balance theory, etc. to offer more than they KNOW it looks wrong, but they themselves do not have the technical knowhow to fix.

The biggest hurdle for artists is to take all critisism as a chance to improve, not a personal attack. The difference between an artist who improves and one who stagnates is the one who improves can take even vague or aggressive comments and turn them to his or her advantage.

>>35

Ah, the "builds character" approach.  It's not petty and demeaning, it's "toughening them up for the real world."  Well, by that token, everytime I disagree with someone, I should start off by calling them incompetant morons, and then litter my argument with thinly veiled insults... because after all, the real world is a bleak place, and they need that kind of "tough love" to thicken that skin of theirs.

And so, by that token, the reason we disagree is clearly because you're retarded.  I suggest, perhaps, that you should go back to grade school and learn some basic thinking and communications skills, and then if you don't screw up, you'll come to the same comclusion as I have (the right conclusion obviously, since I'm forceful about my points).

Am I doing it right?

>>36
No, that was opinion about the artwork. Keep in mind that critique's are more often than not the direct opinion of the person writing them.

>>37
Nope, you're directly insulting him. Go on and see what happens if you keep it up. :)

Ladies and gentleman, time to watch me get myself banned.

But before that, I (as “the person above”) obviously failed in my attempt to make it clear that I don’t intend any of my remarks to be personal attacks.  I bet it probably because the past few times I’ve said it I’ve made it part of a paragraph.  So now I’ll make it a stand along sentence.

I don’t intend any of my remarks to be personal attacks. 

There.  I’m not trying to hurt anyone’s feelings.  Alright?

Now then, to address the current concern about, about…look, I’m not an artist.  God, I am trying but I just can’t get three dimensions to fit on a 2D sheet of paper.  But I’ve had people review written works and other things I’ve done before and I try to remember what parts of what they said were helpful and why.

I won’t choose any examples, since mine aren’t appropriate, so instead I’ll use other’s examples.

“The anatomy is wrong” is a bad critique.  It doesn’t tell the artist how to improve; it just says they did a bad job.  It is harsh, yes, but that doesn’t make it good.

If you were critiquing a movie, you wouldn’t just say “The plot was wrong” would you?

Now, I don’t know what the original poster was thinking, because I can’t read his mind, but one of the art majors on my floor is working on a charcoal portrait in our lounge and I took the opportunity to use the original example from the original post.

“As for the ears (I used ears instead of detail because I needed to make sense)…egh”

His response was: “What the hell does that mean?”

Obviously, it didn’t help him out at all.  Oh, I guess that only makes it a bad critique if critiques are supposed to help the artist.  Critiques are supposed to help the artist, right? >>24 (first 4 paragraphs)

Now a few personal remarks:

Xenofur, a set of guidelines for the critique board is a great idea!  I’m glad you are willing to take such a step.  If you’re going to accept input from board members, would you like me to copy and paste mine or just refer back to >>24 ?  Since you don’t care enough to carve out the time, I need to know which way would be more convenient for you.

Also, I don’t think we should give people bad critiques just because other people do.  I think it’s better to do what’s right even if it’s not very popular.

Which brings us to this point that I’ll try not to get too worked up over.  Everyone realizes we’re on a furry porn board, right?  The reason it’s so important to improve the level of critique here is that there’s really not that many other places furry porn can be critiqued.

It might bear repeating that just because someone in power does something it doesn’t make it right.  Without bringing up any cliché examples, we can all agree on that, right?  Therefore, just because other people, in whatever position they may be in, do something it does not mean that it is just or appropriate behavior.

Are most of the people would read through this angry now?  I certainly hope not.  You see, I don’t get the sense that either side of the discussion is trying to insult the other, we all just have opposing viewpoints.  So, I’m going to go a jog because it’s good exercise and usually helps me calm down.  Maybe that’s a good idea for everyone.

Thank you for your time, and have a good night.

As a side note, it seems that there's an idea going around that people who believe in being nice won't "make it" as artists.  May I refer everyone to >>26 , where Wookie makes some very excellent points? 

Well, I consider Wookie to be an accomplished artist.  I guess it is a matter of opinion.

Alright, now we seem to be getting somewhere.  Since it seems the three rules for critiquing are suitable and simply lack guidelines for the artist, the next logic step is to formulate those guidelines.  So, I submit the following for the community to review and improve upon:

Artists should:

1.    Respect the opinions of the critics.

Everyone is going to have a different view of things and it’s important to be accepting of different points of view.

2.    Examine the critique, not the critic.

That is to say, an artist should look at the critique and if something is not clear it’s appropriate to ask “What does this mean?” or “Why…?” but not “You must not draw” or “You don’t know what you’re saying”

3.    Take the critique with a grain of salt.

After all, even the best critique is still someone’s opinion.

And since that seems to be the only outstanding point, once the community comes up with a set of rules we can all more or less agree on, we’ll have an official set of rules (Xenofur willing).

Finally, before I conclude this message, I’d like to see how well this works by running the critique “The anatomy is bad” through these rules (from >>24 ).

1.    Address the artwork, and not the artist.

It does this great; the non-existent artist isn’t even mentioned.

2.    Provide advice and ways for the artist to improve.

This is does less great.  Even if there are many things wrong with the anatomy, it’s better to provide advice the artist can use.  Like “The tail is bent at a weird angle, the muzzle looks kind of flattened, and the character is unbalanced and looks like he’s about to fall over (try repositioning the feet)”.  Even if the critique missed something, the artist could go through several stages of a work.  Certainly you agree if 5 things were wrong it’s better to correct three of them than none at all.

3.    Take into consideration the artist’s intent.
 
Well, I don’t think it does great here, but it would depend on the picture.  Again, everyone has a different definition of anatomy.  For example, maybe someone thinks all furries should be digitigrade and the picture is plantigrade.  Or maybe somebody’s not a hyper fan and doesn’t want things oversized.  The artist could have even meant the picture to be cartoonish and gave it improper anatomy on purpose.

There, that seems to work, right?

Thanks again for everyone willing to spend time on this, and have a good night.

>>46

What the hell man? I don't care how many TV personalities talk like that.  You're just being ridiculously arrogant there.  Fingerpainting and Van Gogh indeed.  Who the fuck are you, the reincarnation of Michelangelo?

>>45

Psych major eh?  Cool.  I only took the intro course as an option, but I think I remember the bit about attitude and receptiveness.  Something about saving face right?  When an individual feels confronted, it becomes a matter of power and pride.  They can't "back down" anymore, because they were given an order rather than a suggestion, and they don't want someone they don't like having power over them.

We all do that I think.  I sure as hell do.

>>32

What?  Xenodude, I see more insults on this board than porn sometimes.  Don't sweat it though.  I mean, there's pictures depicting corpse fucking in some of the threads on this site.  Ain't no polite people here.

Slight clarification:

In >>49 I said, "And if the picture is bad, then the crit will be harsh simply because it can't -not- be so." This was meant to mean with plain, honest crits, not harsh ones, though it applies to both.

>>48

Your point is moot because the examples you cite involves insults, which as Xenofur had said, was never allowed, much less encouraged.

Please insert more coins and try again. :)

>>52
Or it's brutal honesty. Sometimes, the truth hurts. Cheer up, emo kid.

>>54

We must be looking at different boards then, or your standards are exceedingly low. And stop taking it so personally. You're rather upset about this, aren't you? You're going to get an ulcer.

>>55

Upset?  What the fuck?  I read this board after I finish jerking off.  I'm just vulgar dude.  And my standards are just fine.  I don't know where you get your attitude from.

>>56

Quit being a dipshit.  You can not like someone's art and not be a dick about it, and unless you got some credentials, your critique is based on your opinion.  You unremarkable, unhelpful opinion.  Get over yourself, and let people with skills or education pass the snotty judgements.

Jesus... what ever happened to the shades of gray?  Why's it gotta be "Well if I can't be rude, then the other option is to cuddle em and kiss his ass"?  Try telling the truth, and leaving your inferiority complex out of it.

>>57

I demand that you produce a movie that wins an Oscar, a book that wins a Pulitzer, a piece of artwork that everyone on the internet likes, and are elected President with a 90% approval rating.

Until then, you are not qualified to say anything. Ever. So get off the internet.

>>60

I'd rather have artists than critics.  If harsh critiques drive off fledgeling artists, then I think harsh critics are pretty much causing more damage than good.  You don't need a thick skin to be able to draw well... and not all critics know how to give advice that can lead to improvement anyway, so it isn't a harsh critique so much as harsh blustering.

If that doesn't sit well with you, think of it this way.  As a critic, what, exactly, is it that the artist owes you?  You think it should be put upon them to be more stoic and take the heat... so they can what, draw more free porn for you?  I don't know about you, but that sounds like a raw deal to me.

Learn some manners.  If you wouldn't like someone saying it that way to you, don't say it that way to them.

>>51
At this point, miss, you've dropped to the point where Xenofur had to come ask me to stop speaking badly about you, and other people who agree have asked you what you're talking about. Since you seem to be so determined to not talk sense, leave me an email, and we can talk about in private. You had made a good point, then you waste it by following up with this post. *shrugs* If you have anything else good to say, I'll comment to it, but I'll ignore these kinds of things, alright? Thanks.

Everyone else... PLEASE stop fighting each other? Nobody is telling artists their art is flawless when it's crap, and no one is ripping every piece of art over mistakes... nor should they have to.

The direction we're trying to go now is this one: What do we do about the crits that aren't just harsh, or rude, but -pointlessly- so. Should we just ignore it all, so the trolls and asses can act out as they feel like, wasting the purpose of asking for crits in the first place, or is there some kind of median point between insult and critique that both sides can agree on? I think there is.

Awesome, we’re back on track.  Following Xenofur’s example, we’ll go down the list again, hopefully not hurting anyone’s feeling along the way (because any offense certainly isn’t intended and I apologize in advance).

>>60
Hurray! Someone made some good and discussable points.  Let’s start with the first one:
“If you take great pains to be nice with your critique, it's extremely easy for them to think "Oh, well, they told me so many good things about the piece and were so nice, it can't be that bad. I obviously don't need to worry about fixing it too much."”

While it certainly is possible for an artist to think that way, I don’t think they would be more likely to listen if you just told them someone was wrong.  Additionally, if an artist does value to opinion of the critic, that artist probably wouldn’t ignore something the critic thought needed fixing.  Take this example:

“Well, I like the shape of the muzzle and the way the ears are folded, but the tail looks too stubby for a wolf”

Does it seem like the artist would be more willing to fix the tail if the critique just said “The tail looks too stubby for a wolf”?  I think an artist is more likely to put more weight on a critique that also has some good points, because then they know the critic isn’t just “out to get them” or having a bad day or etc.

Furthermore, it’s not just negative points that help an artist.  If an artist is just starting out, they may try many different ways of, say, drawing tails.  Let’s say the artist tries ten different ways, and you only like one of them.  It’s at least as helpful, if not more helpful to say “I like the way that tail looks” when find the tail you like as to say “I don’t like the tail” on the nine that you don’t like.

On another note, while being harsh is definitely not always the same as being insulting, it certainly is closer than being nice.  Everyone has a different idea of what is harsh and what is insulting, so everyone has a different line in their mind between the two.  The critique:

“You need more drawing lessons”

May seem insulting to some, but may only be harsh to others.  If you tell people to be harsh, you are pushing them closer to the insulting line, and they may cross others’ “insult lines” since theirs is different. 

Using a diagram in which “|” is the insult line, “H” is a helpful critique, and “U” is an unhelpful critique, lets look at the difference between a “harsh is helpful” policy and “nice is helpful” policy:

Harsh: UUUUU|HHHHHUUUUU
Nice:   UUUUU|UUUUUHHHHH

Now, in both cases an insulting critique is unhelpful, but the harsh policy pushes people closer to that line.  And the closer you get to the edge of a cliff, the more likely you are to fall off.

Please try to understand that we are talking about good general rules for critiquing, not whether someone was right or wrong in one particular instance.  I fear that some people are still thinking back to a particular occurrence and may be feeling offended, but please be assured that we aren’t having this discussion to say someone was wrong.

Moving on, the thread kind of gets loud again.  Come on you guys, despite what politics says the only way to solve things is to talk about the issues and not about each other.  Actually, this is a good point for the issue.  Can you all see how people get mad at things that (hopefully) weren’t intended to be insulting?  Again, everyone has a different mind and will get upset over different things, so I think it’s best to stay as far away from being insulting as possible.

>>63
The last paragraph of this post brings up a related point.  What would be the determining factor of deciding what is justifiably harsh and what is pointlessly harsh/insulting?  How would you punish someone that was being insulting if they only thought they were being harsh?  Assuming it’s a judgment call for the administration, how do you balance wanting to avoid insults while still not censoring opinions?

I think we do need a set of guidelines that meet a general consensus.  While they couldn’t be perfect, they might help clear up a lot of gray areas, and maybe make it clearer to people what is acceptable and what is not.  Which brings us to:

>>64
Xenofur, you probably don’t hear this enough, but thanks for being sane.  Maybe a different thread for discussion guidelines is appropriate, just like making that new thread to clarify the /toon rules.

And I have IRC but I’ve never really used it; I’ll try it tonight.

Thanks for your time, and good night.

After some thought and discussion, I've come up with a couple of ideas for some rules that might help cut down on trouble in the future:

One would be that the artist state in the opening post wether they are looking for a full crit, a partial one, or rough ideas. This would come with the knowledge that any response would have to be taken as is, with no bitching about it.

Full crits would be the detailed ones.

Partial crits would be the 'I don't like...' ones.

Rough ideas would be just that... ideas about what can be done in a general fashion to improve the drawing.

The other idea for a rule would be that people critting a picture focus on THE PICTURE, and not comment on the artist at all, pretending that it's only the picture itself they see and nothing else, and giving a plain opinion of it. This means no directing comments, so the artist can't be mad about whats said.

What do you think? do you think these would work out?

These won't be **rules**, they are intended to be simple guidelines. A How_To that's written at the top of crit to give clues to the totally clueless and to give hints to those who'd like to be more useful. :)