A critique of a critique

[Jason Rainville]

Kev ferrara recently posted something about the crit center in this thread (http://conceptart.org/forums/showthread.php?t=101951) I thought was interesting.

A Critique of a critique

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is just my opinion about the situation, but...

Eric had an idea for an illustration, but didn't imagine it clearly enough to get it down to his satisfaction. He presented it here to get some help.

The help he needed was the right questions to ask of himself that would draw out of him the answers or solutions he had not arrived at in his first rush to get his image down. Thus would he be able to return to his original state of conception and complete the picture with the same mind-state under which it was started.

But what he got here was others' solutions instead. And now this work is no longer Eric's work.

Are you trying to help Eric? Are you trying to make the picture work for the sake of art? Or are y'all just havin' fun!

If you're trying to help Eric I would suggest that you tell Eric to sit down in a dark room and try to recapture in his imagination what his original dramatic impulse was. And then hold it in his mind's eye as tightly and clearly as he can.

Then, Eric, once the image is clear in your mind's eye, trace it off onto paper. If the image is good, the symbolism will not have to be tacked on. It will be inherent.

Are we teaching Eric to fish for a lifetime, or are we just giving him a fish to eat tonight? That is the question.

Best,
kev

I somewhat agree with the idea that switchng this-and-that every so often is not only annoying but might stagnate the creative proces while not doing much for the piece. Some people also just take crits, don't conciously consider it and just run with it. Doing that does, in a way, make the art less of their own.

The counter to this would be that the knowledge imparted during the crit process is taken into account and the next time around the artist in question has a better chance of getting the creation process correct right off the bat.

I'm on the fence on this one. Just like Tolkien, Kev believes in the "if somethings wrong, tear it down and start again" frame of mind, while the crit section (or rather the people in it) believe that changes here and there can improve a piece.

The only thing I feel strongly about is that with regards to the "crits make art less yours" idea, it depends on the artist. Would using a reference make the art less yours? would setting perspective lines make it less yours? The crits given could be specific or ambiguous, but both can easily be interpreted by the artist, thereby (in my opinion) making it theirs.

Discuss :blahblah:

[Seedling]

Giving a critique seems straightforward to me.

Step one: identify what the artist is trying to achieve.
Step two: give the artist feedback that will help him to get there.
Step three: stand back.

[daveneale]

hehe, interesting discusion topic....my 1st impulse is to get on my high "fine art/flow from withing bullshit is stoopid" horse but I shall refrain. I get where Kev is coming from 100%, BUT you have to have a balance. We'd never get better if we just sat down, let the creative juices flow and then had whatever came out at the end as the result. Self improvement is long, hard, and benefits IMO from as much [good] input as possible. Its pretty tempting to get into the critique center and let others "do the work", on the other hand sometimes you just don't have a freeking clue what the hell to do to improve the piece. I think painting, repainting, seeing improvements (and even seeing it get worse) may or may not benefit said picture, but will for sure give extra insight into things to do in future work. As far as the whole getting in the mood and just shitting you brain out onto a canvas-people can do it, but I'd be reluctant to say this is the way forward until you have an intense comand of anatomy, colour, environment design etc etc (having said that-I do this now and again-albeit for more cartoony type stuff-I have knowhere near the skill to do if for a piece like we're discussing).

[Jason Rainville]

Giving a critique seems straightforward to me.

Step one: identify what the artist is trying to achieve.
Step two: give the artist feedback that will help him to get there.
Step three: stand back.

Usually that's true, and I agree with that, but the main 'issue' to be had is that the crits are litte tits and tats that just put a band-aid over the main problem, which could be the lack of a creative process (or a 'faulty' process)

[Seedling]

Usually that's true, and I agree with that, but the main 'issue' to be had is that the crits are litte tits and tats that just put a band-aid over the main problem, which could be the lack of a creative process (or a 'faulty' process)

Sounds like a bad critique then. If the artist is clueless about what they are trying to achieve, a good critique should address that.

[Brendan N]

I always try to give long-run critiques instead of more specific ones - I try to address recurring flaws rather rather than isolated errors. Telling someone "his legs seem wonky" (when the rest look fine) is often useless because too often the artist realizes it the following week (if not the following day). If he's been doing it for a month, a critique like "revisit your anatomy where legs are concerned" will be more helpful.

And yes I think it is healthy to take a critical look at critiques. I've seen quite a few really really bad critiques (well, bad in my humble opinion at least).

[Micaiah Nelson]

Yeah thats one thing I didn't like about the critique thread. Along with the sugestions, people would take the image and work on it themselves, add things on or off someone elses work then post it. Then its not there work anymore. Other than that suggestion never hurt. He doesn't have to accept all criticism.

[kev ferrara]

Figuring out what to say and what not to say is a delicate balancing act. But I think unless it is specifically asked for by the artist ("paint over please!!!") a paint over is an invasion.

Another thing is, we all have egos. And when somebody asks for help, people want to feel good by helping. Its like asking for directions. People who have no idea which way you need to go seem just as willing to give you directions as those who do.

This map/directions metaphor is good.... Because only the original artist knows where he's going. And only he can find his way to his own personal solution to the picture. Once somebody else comes along and begins to find the way, the journey has been taken over. Or maybe the two artists are working side by side now. And that's fine. Lots of artists collaborate. But usually not for long! :) It always seems like no two collaborators stay at the same level for long. Like Hale and Berry. Berry was Hale's mentor, but very soon Hale was way better and Berry was left in the dust. And then, there goes that collaboration!

That's sort of the way it is around here. The crit-collaborations usually end up with.. Yerlock totally rocking the work in like 3 hours!! :)

Anyhow. I think the solution is just to be respectful of that artistic space the people need to grow their talent. Be the sunshine and the water, don't break into the greenhouse and be the gardener too.

kev

http://www.conceptart.org/forums/showthread.php?t=101106

[brianhamner]

If you post here in the critique section, then you are asking ADVICE from ARTISTS. Sometimes your idea sucks. Sometimes you need others to push you in a new direction, because if you sit there in the dark and draw only your ideas, you may never reach the next level in concepting and planning. Art is mostly idea and secondly skill, right? So who says the skill part is the only thing we should improve, or be critiqued on?
You want people to give you empty praise go post at elfwood.
You want to rethink your ideas without others imput, then keep it in the dark room and out of here.

[Seedling]

Yeah, I have to second what Brian says.

Art is made as entertainment for or communication to an audience. That audience will (hopefully) have an opinion on the art. They may or may not voice that opinion. A critique from other artists is a chance to hear those opinions while the art can still be changed. The artist needs to suck it up and get used to hearing such feedback – either by accepting it as true or rejecting it as false. (Both of those things are necessary.) The alternative for the artist is sticking his fingers in his ears and then wondering at the end of the process why the audience ignores his work; or being emotionally unprepared when negative feedback starts rolling in from the audience, when it is too late to do anything about it.

[kev ferrara]

No one is criticising good helpful criticism, I'm criticizing paint overs and artists coming here for quick and easy answers that aren't theirs! Mental discipline is what makes an artist reach his potential. It takes discipline to sit there with a blank page or a screwed up image and do the hard imaginative work. That's what seperates the men from the boys. I say the best way to help an artist is to say whatever it will take that will make them get back in there and fight and train their brain and discipline themselves to do the hard mental gymnastic required to imagine a picture clearly in their head.

To speak euphamistically, if a friend's detoxing from crack addiction and they ask you for a crack hit because it'll help them feel better, do you do it? Or do you back away and say, "listen man, its painful but you gotta finish what you started. It'll be much better for you in the long run. "

Or you're spotting a friend in the weight room and you see him struggling like hell with a weight. But you know, you just know, they can lift it. What good spotters do is touch the bar with their fingers pretending to help, but **without actually putting pressure on the bar** and magically, the bar seems to go up. It's psychological help, not actual lifting that serves the weight lifter's ultimate goal. The point is when you discuss principles with a struggling artist (like those aphorisms found in Harvey Dunn's notes for instance) you are just lightly putting your fingers on the bar.

kev

[Seedling]

No one is criticising good helpful criticism, I'm criticizing paint overs and artists coming here for quick and easy answers that aren't theirs!

No, actually what you said is this:

I think unless it is specifically asked for by the artist ("paint over please!!!") a paint over is an invasion.

You can argue both points if you want to, but they are two very different arguments to make.

[Micaiah Nelson]

Yep, thats my only problem with the thread, I haven't been there resently though. The sugestion are always ok just don't paint over to get a point across. They might as well add there signatures on it to. But critique wise. Say everything you think is wrong about the picture. Anatomy, lighting, measures and stuff like that or whatevever needs to be added. And leave the "It suck" out.

[Cthogua]

Critiques are useful for a whole slew of reasons, a big one of them being that often times after spending some time on a piece you become "too close" to it and your judgment becomes clouded. Here a second (or many more in the case of a forum) pair of eyes can be ENORMOUSLY helpful in pointing out flaws that you missed, looked to long at or frustratingly labored over for too long to think clearly about. Others opinions also can yield ideas that you simply hadn't thought of because they know something you don't. The whole issue of it being "less yours" seems totally ridiculous to me. Who the fuck cares? It seems as people are taking it to mean that your "concepting skills" arn't ninja enough to think of something on your own. This is a foolish and detrimental idea. We are all learning ALL THE TIME. No matter what your skill level is, theres always more to learn, theres always ideas you didn't think of, thats part of the magic of being an artist. Excluding others ideas for fear of sullying your own is contrary to the whole principle of culture and teaching. You know very little that you learned entirely on your own. What then to do with those ideas? Should car designers stop designing cars because what "is" a car is an idea that's been handed down to them? Sure challenge those ideas, but don't just shut them out for fear of staining your own false concept of originality.

I also disagree with, "sit down in a dark room and try to recapture in his imagination what his original dramatic impulse was." First of all, thats never going to happen. He may be struck with a similar awesome idea, but its never going to be the same. On top of that "tracing it down out of your imagination" is just going to be an exercise in frustration. Our imaginations are not pieces of paper, or pixels on a screen. Chances are the image that struck his imagination had qualities that are impossible to translate with the same potency as they appeared in his imagination...smells, movement, sounds. From the moment you make a mark on the paper, canvas, or computer it becomes about you and the piece you are working on. The original imagined idea is the seed, but it's not the tree.

All that having been said...An artist only hones his craft by DOING IT. All the knowledge in the world can be dumped on him and if he doesn't know what to do with it, than it's useless to him at the time. Thats not to say that it won't later become relevant or useful, but it won't be until he is ready for it to become so. By doing paint overs and giving critiques, you certainly arn't "doing the work for him" Unless he's foolish enough to try to pass the paint over as his own. However if he were to attempt to copy the paint over then the potential for learning explodes. The analysis required in copying something is exactly the kind of mind set he needs to be in to learn, and by accompanying said analysis with attempts at execution the student is maximizing his learning potential. The fact that the solution to his unbalanced composition, weird anatomy, or poor color choises were provided by someone else is INSIGNIFICANT when compared with a lesson learned. Whether or not the piece came out good, bad, fantastic, banal, or masterful is unimportant. What matters is what is brought from that piece to the next.

[kev ferrara]

Seedling, I was implying that there was a heirarchy of goods with respect to critiquing...


It is best to encourage an artist to solve the problem himself.
It is second best to offer specific bits of art wisdom that may cause something in the artist to "click" and get him to solve the problem himself.
It is third best to offer an artist some ideas to solve the problem.
It is fourth best to "show" him the ideas on another piece of paper.
It is fifth best to "show" him the ideas ON his artwork.
It is last best to actually do the changes for him.

kev

[_ J]

I think a more balanced approach on crits is better, ie talk about both the good and the bad, what works and what doesn't work.

If a piece is basically good but have some mistakes and everyone talks only about the mistakes, the impression is that the art is really bad.....

If a piece is not so good and have many mistakes, some encouragement like it is a good start may help too...:)

[Seedling]

Seedling, I was implying . . .

Er, no Kev, what you were doing was saying you’d said one thing when in fact you had said something completely unrelated, which makes having a discussion with you surreal and frustrating. You have good points to make, and I’ll be delighted to have spirited discussions with you once you get your different arguments untangled.

The whole issue of it being "less yours" seems totally ridiculous to me. Who the fuck cares? It seems as people are taking it to mean that your "concepting skills" aren’t ninja enough to think of something on your own. This is a foolish and detrimental idea.

Quoted for emphasis! To all you folks who are wanting to make a career of concept art, or illustration in general, keep in mind that everything you do will be a collaboration, whether it is a movie, a game, a comic book, or a flying purple theme park. Getting feedback and having your work altered by other people are both part of the job. Even if you are writing and illustrating children’s books solo, you’ll still be working with an art director.

In some types of jobs it becomes very unclear where your own art ends and the next person’s begins. Such teams can be vibrant, fertile places of creation, but only when the mystical big artist’s ego is kept out of them.

I heard of a lovely quote that was being passed around some company (I think Pixar, if I remember correctly): the idea doesn’t care whom it came from.

[Seedling]

I think a more balanced approach on crits is better, ie talk about both the good and the bad, what works and what doesn't work.

Definitely a good strategy when giving critiques!

[kev ferrara]

Seedling, I think I clarified my feelings in my "heirarchy of goods" post. If my views still seem confused to you, please let me know.

Best to you,
kev

[dose]

Paintovers: A picture is worth a thousand words...

Teach them to fish is a nice idea, but is not a good blanket statement for teaching and communicating about how to make art. We are, after all, doing something very complex- something that doesn't boil down to words nicely. It's often better to show than to tell with art.

That being said, there are a lot of masturbatory (for lack of a better term) paintovers and critiques that are not worth their salt. But if anybody posting for critique here is smart, they'll take Da Vinci's advice:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/aor/dv/0532.htm

[Micaiah Nelson]

Nice one Dose

Seedling I have to disagree with half of what you said. Being a concept artist your drawing other peoples Ideas. It CA job to convay it in their vision. Other than that, Painting over anothers art work is not going to help the artist, just the picture. Ive seen paint overs that just used lines to tell the errors. Thats Ok but you can just say it. Then I see the ones where its completly another mans work.

[_ J]

Seedling: I'm glad you like the crit strategy I mentioned!:)

Regarding paintovers, I personally like them. Like Dose said, some errors are much more easily to understand by some redraws than in words.

Regarding paintovers which look like completely another man's works, if explained clearly, it can be interpreted as some kind of case study or tutorial. In case it cannot truly benefit the original artist for now, it may benefit him or her in future, or other people who read the thread!:)

[chazanoble]

Kev ferrara recently posted something about the crit center in this thread (http://conceptart.org/forums/showthread.php?t=101951) I thought was interesting.


......If you're trying to help Eric I would suggest that you tell Eric to sit down in a dark room and try to recapture in his imagination what his original dramatic impulse was. And then hold it in his mind's eye as tightly and clearly as he can.

Then, Eric, once the image is clear in your mind's eye, trace it off onto paper. If the image is good, the symbolism will not have to be tacked on. It will be inherent.

Are we teaching Eric to fish for a lifetime, or are we just giving him a fish to eat tonight? That is the question.

Discuss :blahblah:


Generally speaking, I believe the best approach is providing the person with as much information as you can and it's the responsiblity of the person to effectively use that information to better themselve. So if you can help the person best with words, then go ahead. If you feel you can help them with pictures, do it! With that, I have to say...

This sounds arrogant, but from what I've seen of the critiques, I have to say most people who ask for help are partially clueless when it comes to comprehending what semi-experience artist are saying. (Either that or they are not humble enough to accept the objective criticisms of their work.)

You can be dead-on about your comments of the elements that they are missing to take their work to a satisfactory level, but it will just go out the other ear if it's too verbose. Most people are picture oriented and visual aid is a far more effective method to help them. As far as the degree of how much visual aid a person should get, I think if you got the time, make it as great as you can to make those dimwitted noobs feel inadequent.......uh..I mean help them understand where you are coming from... yeah. :P

[Seedling]

Seedling, I think I clarified my feelings in my "hierarchy of goods" post.

Oh good! Now that you’ve settled on an argument we can get down to the fun stuff.

Your hierarchy is pretty good. I definitely agree with the lower end: a teacher who does the students’ work for them is not accomplishing anything. But the upper end of the hierarchy is flawed: carry it to its absurd conclusion, and the best teacher is one who doesn’t show up.

My question for you is this: once you have taken away the tools of showing and telling from a teacher, what tools does the teacher have left to teach with? Would that be books? Isn’t a book just the showings and tellings of yet another teacher? Would you take away all books and reproductions away from a student so as to encourage him to solve the problem himself?

By “teacher”, by the way, I mean anyone who steps in to offer a critique or knowledge or otherwise assist with another person’s learning process.

What exactly is necessary to “teach someone to fish”?


Seedling I have to disagree with half of what you said.

Excellent! Which half do you disagree with?


This sounds arrogant, but from what I've seen of the critiques, I have to say most people who ask for help are partially clueless when it comes to comprehending what semi-experience artist are saying.

I don’t think that’s arrogant, though “clueless” isn’t the kindest way to put it. Someone who hasn’t yet learned what value is, for instance, is likely going to be a bit lost if the critiquer starts talking about atmospheric perspective or using value to direct the eye around a composition. In order to help somebody who is a much lower level of experience you have to figure out where they’re at so that you can then help them to get to the next level.


Regarding paintovers which look like completely another man's works, if explained clearly, it can be interpreted as some kind of case study or tutorial. In case it cannot truly benefit the original artist for now, it may benefit him or her in future, or other people who read the thread!:)

More wisdom from J!

[Micaiah Nelson]

[/QUOTE]To all you folks who are wanting to make a career of concept art, or illustration in general, keep in mind that everything you do will be a collaboration, whether it is a movie, a game, a comic book, or a flying purple theme park. Getting feedback and having your work altered by other people are both part of the job. Even if you are writing and illustrating children’s books solo, you’ll still be working with an art director.[/QUOTE]
I don't know how to qoute right, But whatever.

Just the understanding of what you were getting at. Your getting paid to convey what your clients ideas. All those ideas and rights are the clients. He gets to change whatever, because its his.
Now what we're talking about was talking about is altering the pic where the artist really doesn't have anymore to do . Instead of "heres what you need to fix" It's "See now it looks better this way". Or whatever I was tryin to say. You can show The person if they ask for visuals. I just read a post where the kid says "Paint over are Ok with me". There, you got their permision. Now will you finish their work for them or show them whats wrong.

[kev ferrara]

Seedling, where I come from one is allowed to make several parallel arguments at once upon a single theme, in this case a critique of a critique, not all of which are mandated to run "neck and neck", as it were. One usually assumes that an intelligent commentator is proceeding from a larger philosophy that will become clear in time. Since this thread was begun from a previous one, there may be some subtext that either has been lost or you have missed. I should point out, and this may be an obvious point, that just because you do not perceive an implication or some bit of subtext, does not mean it isn't there or that an attempt is not being made to establish it. (Then again some implications are just too opaque, I admit.) Either way, I submit that your attempts to tease out and spotlight some lapse in my conversational style serve no larger purpose. If you need to prove that you are the most intelligent, talented and sensitive person in the room, you'll have to do more than snark and subtract style points at your whim. My words don't need a paint-over, thank you very much.

(my apologies to the rest of the board)

[Micaiah Nelson]

Wow, Kev. :O

[kev ferrara]

Yeah, I did this: :xpld:

Sometimes ya jus' gotta do it!

Anyhow... To the point of the thread...

There is no doubt that sometimes a drawover or paintover is necessary. But if the point is to train artists to be better artists, the best training an artist can get, IMHO, is the training of the imagination. And to train the imagination requires the artist himself do the heavy heavy lifting.

Originality is what should be most emphasized in teaching. Better thinking. Different thinking. Anti-cliché. Unafraid of experiment. Unafraid to follow a muse to a very strange pictorial conclusion.

This is not a matter of craft, the is the quickening of talent. Craft will come over time. You just say, go take a life drawing course. Do Bridgman's books. Make sure the darks and the lights read as seperate. Think volumetrically as well as graphically, etc. These are just little bits of bite size knowledge that can be applied like spackling.

But the over-arching "something" that makes an artist unique cannot be "demonstrated" into fruition. As great as Yerlock is, we don't need a hundred Yerlocks! We need everybody to be everybody!

I understand that many people are commenting from the position of an industry where there is no such thing as "yours" or "mine" so stop worrying so much about individual artworks as being sacred. Besides the fact that it is obviously not "so" that every artist coming into the crit section will eventually be a gaming designer, every artist including gaming designers will be most helped professionally by having something uniquely thiers to offer in the marketplace.

best,
kev


http://www.conceptart.org/forums/showthread.php?t=101106

[Micaiah Nelson]

Thats what I was trying to say but mines was less :jawdrop:. I was also looking for your Sb. Plus One Groupie favor would be If you could leave one of your strongest critiques in my SB. I'm talking tips and stuff. I haven't posted in a while but it would be worth it. I promise.:teeth:

[Seedling]

Good grief, Kev. I know how to have a debate. You blundered, I called you on it, and you pretended like you hadn’t blundered. And now you are ignoring my attempt to actually debate your points. I’m not trying to prove I’m better than you. I’m trying to have a good and productive debate with you. Please, prove my points wrong. I love a good exchange of ideas. If you didn’t have good and well-articulated ideas then I wouldn’t be bothering to talk to you.

[Micaiah Nelson]

We cannot prove how your OPINION is wrong. Its just an opinion. I think the reason why Kev blew up there is that your not attepmting to understand what hes saying or really telling your side on why he's wrong. Your just asking questions on how your wrong. What is more constuctive for the artrist Telling them what they did wrong and let them fix it or telling them what they did was wrong and correcting it for them.

[Hai]

Seedling, even if it's not intentional you do come off as a bit pretentious. From your posts it seems like your belittling the people you are arguing with to win an arguement which you've changed from a discussion about something to a fight between you and "the other side". It may very well be unintentional and subconsious, but maybe you should read through your posts again and see if you can see what I mean?

Oh good! Now that you’ve settled on an argument we can get down to the fun stuff.
Can you honestly tell me that you don't think that sentence is belittling? It sounds like you're trying to establish your superiority by treating the people you are talking to as rookies or newbies.

I guess that with this post I am contributing to changing this from a good discussion to a fight between sides, so maybe I should try to pull myself back in.

I've been lurking the C&C section a bit (not contributing because of insecurity about my own knowledge and skill), and after reading a few threads it's surprising how often I end up with the feeling of how the original posters work has been taken over by other forum members. So it was refreshing to see Kev saying something about it. I agree with him a lot, though not 100%.
I don't know what it's called in english, but directly translated from norwegian: There is a thing called "problem-oriented learning". Basically you present students with a problem, and you ask them to find the answer. The point of it being that students learn a lot more from actually finding the answer themselves than just hearing or reading the answer. (I find it very hard to collect and write down all the thoughts in my head at this point, so excuse me if it all becomes a ramble)
It's much easier to remember things you have done than things you've been told.

Students who work with subjects brought up at school at home learn more, and perform better in tests. While students who just read what they're told and listen to the teacher might forget everything when they no longer have use for it (like right after a test), students who work at home, do searches on the internet and question what people are telling them are likely to remember it much longer, if not their entire lives. This isn't necessarily because they simply work more with the subject matter, but because they do it themselves, without help.

I'm getting tired here and before I start saying things I haven't thought through thouroughly I'll stop. Looking forward to getting some more replies in this thread and that I can come back with a clearer head.

[_ J]

Different people have different opinions, it is natural that a consensus cannot be reached in many cases, especially over the, internet! Also, the answer to which approach is better is often kind of "it depends". In my opinion, it is often not necessary to make everything absolutely clear, or to determine who is more right and who is more wrong, especially when people are still going to meet each other in the same place (in this case CA forum) from time to time!:)

So, take it easy!:D

[Seedling]

Can you honestly tell me that you don't think that sentence is belittling?

I hope you realize I am a good enough writer to know when I am being insulting.

We cannot prove how your OPINION is wrong.

I said “points”, not “opinions”. A debate is all about making points and defending those points. Ideas are brought into focus and tested for soundness in debates. Solid, well-defended ideas stand their ground. Poorly-thought-out ideas are left by the wayside. Rarely is one idea perfectly right, but through a good round of debate the silly clutter at least gets weeded out.

You may not be able to prove that my opinion is wrong, but you can make me change my opinion; and if you can change my opinion I’ll admire you for it.

[Seedling]

Seedling! We love you anyhow!! I'm a jerk too! You're art is beautiful! Come home!!!

:)

kev


Thanks for the laugh Kev. :)

[Micaiah Nelson]

Yeah, I'm finished, I need to sleep.
Ironically Davi declared it Critique week.

And I've comeback to say what is your point Seedling We made ours already and responded to your off topic comments why can't you just sleep:$. Like what your depriving me of. Game Over Seedling Game Over.....:zzz:

[Micaiah Nelson]

Seedling just answer this one question I repeat.

What is more constuctive for the artrist Telling them what they did wrong and let them fix it or telling them what they did was wrong and correcting it for them.

[Dan.v.D.]

this is a highly interesting topic with a couple of great points.
to bad that the discussion lost it's primary thrust due to some pedantic dissecting of single lines without adding anything of value to the whole thing.

[Hai]

to bad that the discussion lost it's primary thrust
I tried, but it seems no-one's interested. Do you have any views you'd like to share Dan.v.D?

[Dan.v.D.]

i kinda agree with you. fishing for a life time is basically what it's all about but yes, if your mother doesn't feed you a bit here and there in your childhood years you might just starve...

edit: sorry hai!^^ i thought you had written this:

kev, i agree with you in principal
but haven’t you just made the case that the crit center is inherently flawed concept? thus an ineffective teaching tool?

i wont disagree.
but perhaps all these ideas we are putting in his head will coalesce and he will approach future drawings with these issues in mind. Visualizing as you suggest, before putting pencil to paper…having some of these battles already won.


the problem was hai - kingshaj ...
so what i quoted is what i agree with in first place.

[Seedling]

Seedling just answer this one question I repeat.

What is more constuctive for the artrist Telling them what they did wrong and let them fix it or telling them what they did was wrong and correcting it for them.

The former, of course.

[Seedling]

There. . . I've put my money where my mouth is for today in the Critique section. I look forward to seeing you all do the same. Happy crit week.

[Spiralfish]

The crit-collaborations usually end up with.. Yerlock totally rocking the work in like 3 hours!!

I'd like to mention that I specifically asked if any one would be kind enough to do a paint over for me in that particular thread, as I had prespective issues.

That was probably the best help Ive ever gotten anywhere online.

[kev ferrara]

Just to clarify... that line about Yerlock was a joke. I loved that demo and thought it was phenomenally informative. On vehicles in environments it is literally the best, most informative demo I have ever seen. Period.

Trying to be clear: if you ask for a paint over, it seems to me, what you should, as a hard working, conscientious student, really be asking for is "a demo". And Yerlock was smart enough (and generous enough!) to not just understand the subtext of the request, but to also oblige.

I would say a simple paintover without the demo aspects is just entertainment for the original artist and good practice for the guy who "Yerlocks" it. (New word!)

Furthermore, you are also saying when you ask for a paintover, "I hereby and forthwith disavow any and all ownership of this image now and into the foreseeable future" etc. That's fine if the artist decides to do that. But if he doesn't and a paintover "happens", again, it is an invasion.

In matters of perspective and correct musculature or form or accuracy of period costumes and such... these things are generally technical matters and I guess would fall under the heading of my second crit protocol "It is second best to offer specific bits of art wisdom that may cause something in the artist to "click" and get him to solve the problem himself."

Upon re-reading I would amend this protocol to read: "It is second best to offer specific bits of art wisdom or technical information that might allow the artist to solve the problem himself."

By the way, I didn't think I had to write that one should praise an artist for what is good in his piece before offering critique. Similarly, I did not address in my crit protocols the "pointing out problems" phase of a critique. I was mostly addressing the offering of solutions as problematic. I think the identification of problems, if the artist simply does not know what is wrong except that something is wrong, is always a good thing. (Provided the critic is both competent, perceptive and humane.) And in a way, this is provided for in the second protocol above.

(I'm sorry if the term "protocol" sounds arrogant, I don't know what else to call it and I like protocol better than heiarchy)

But maybe a little bit more specificity is required...

I'm going to give the Crit Protocols another run through in my next post... If somebody else wants to re-write them, that would be cool too. Maybe we can mix'n'match a winner.

[_ J]

I’m glad when I wake up, this thread has not turned into 10 pages of flame war!:)

Regarding the question of ”What is more constructive for the artist, telling them what they did wrong and let them fix it or telling them what they did was wrong and correcting it for them?”
If this one is so important, I’ll try to answer, but I can’t guarantee my answer is right of course!:D
The former is generally better, but may be the poster has tried hard before posting it and still can’t fix it, then a demo is great. Some people don’t need much help, some people need a lot for a certain period, it depends. (In internet, you don't know which one is which type.:D)
I’m not worried that the paintover service will make people too reliant on help as everyone knows feedback in words or paintovers do not always come.

I think this thread is still under control but I would suggest the mods to watch it closely. Just in case it turns out to be a large scale flame war between 2 sides, after it, a number of good artists may leave and the reputation of some people may be severely damaged. No one can gain.:(

[Elwell]

I think this thread is still under control but I would suggest the mods to watch it closely. Just in case it turns out to be a large scale flame war between 2 sides, after it, a number of good artists may leave and the reputation of some people may be severely damaged. No one can gain.:(
Quoted for truth

[Spiralfish]

Some people don’t need much help, some people need a lot for a certain period, it depends.

I think this is very prudent.

Becasue, some people understand with verbal crit better, other are more visual thinkers and will benefit from seeing suggestions.

The value of verbal criticism and an a paint over will mean different things to different people, not to mention there's so many levels of skill here.

:^^:

Also, Im not sure if there's any difference.

Crits are verbal suggestions on how to improve the work, Paintovers are visual suggestions on how to improve the work.

But in the end theyre all suggestions.

I mean the artist is free to accept or reject the advice as they see fit. But a paintover isnt an answer, youre not finishing the piece for the artist.... it's just another suggestion on how you think the image should go.

Also, both paintover and verbal crit are often met with "But that's not what I was going for..."

All the time.



Haha... Im sorry, I dont really have any idea of levels of criticism, and Im not really too eloquent either...

But I guess what Im trying to say (or rather suggest,) is that, paintover and crits are both just suggestions, and different people will value them differently.

Personally, I think paintovers are more helpful for me, but personal preference is different for everyone.. :^^;:

Just in case it turns out to be a large scale flame war between 2 sides, after it, a number of good artists may leave and the reputation of some people may be severely damaged. No one can gain.

Good point, advice taken. Spiralfish out...

Cheers.

[kev ferrara]

The problem with thinking of a paintover (I'm not talking about a line drawing to indicate something) as a mere suggestion is that it is a very significant and powerful statement of opinion which could discourage the original artist from having confidence in his original vision or his artistic skills.

[kingshaj]

i have thought about the subject of this thread a lot
in fact, my first post was on the very topic.

I don’t have a lot of industry experience but,
I would like to see the crit process more closely mirror the industry workflow
Fostering the idea more, as kev touched on, that the “art” in this field is a group project.

And the while i agree that the individual artist’s uniqueness may be the most salient factor in his or her long term success…(great point kev) and I’d go further to say that homogeny = death in the concept field, the basic fact remains, we are here trying to gain employment in concept art (or this site is poorly named)

I think everything addressed on this site should flow from that central idea. From the technical to the stylistic.

I see a lot of crits that are too subjective or…that are wrong ( save the there is no “wrong” in art comment..your boss wont agree) or most often just devoid of industry insight.

I see this a solvable problem. Just need a few more guidelines in the crit center that address these aspects.

[kev ferrara]

THE 3 CRIT ASSUMPTIONS

1. The artist has submitted his work for critique in order to both improve the work in question and to improve his artistry in general.

2. Those who participate in the crit are doing so with the intention of assisting the artist to improve both his artistry and the quality of the submitted work.

To this end, before formulating and posting a response, crit participants should carefully consider:
a. The work in question
b. What the artist has said about the work
c. What the artist has stated he desires from the critique.
d. The artist's experience and career goals.
e. The feelings of the artist.
f. Their own motivations in participating in the critique.

3. Unless otherwise stated, the submitted artwork shall remain the intellectual property of the submitting artist and under his control. Any unauthorized paintover will be considered an act of vandalism.

THE 7 TYPES OF ARTISTIC ERROR

1. A Technical Error: (Perspective, lighting/shadowing/optics, anatomy, mechanical engineering, historical costume, physical possibility, incompetent use of media, misobservation of visual phenomena. )

2. Accidental Tonal inconsistencies (Cartoony and realistic in same picture, Nouveau and Art Deco in same piece, Sad picture unintentionally funny, or funny picture unintentionally sad, Technique used to render the picture clashes with the intended tone of the picture, etc.)

3. An Aesthetic Choice that Weakens the Work. (In a formal portrait, making the head look like its melting in hellfire. Using cerulean blue right out of the tube as skin color in a naturalistic work. Making an action illustration graphically static.)

4. Narrative errors (That wouldn't happen like that, that doesn't make sense, you're missing this element for the story to make sense, Dramatic Illustration lacks tension.)

5. philosophical misunderstandings (Thinking your family snapshots are art. Trying to make a painting based on a photo look indistinguishable from the photo. Trying to paint exactly like your favorite artist. Submitting a photograph that has been filtered in Adobe Photoshop as a work of art. )

6. Inexpressiveness or the unironic use of Clichés in one's work. (Boringness, a lack of "feeling", or old hat work.)

7. An error of omission. (Nose missing, hand left out, background missing, no ground plane established, etc.)


THE 11 CRIT PROTOCOLS

1. It is always best that the artist himself offers the first appraisal of the submitted work. This appraisal should include a declaration of intent and some attempt to identify and categorize the problems of the submitted piece.

2. The first response by crit participants to any honest artwork submitted for critique shall be to point out its qualities.

3.The second response to any honest artwork submitted for critique shall be to:
a. Identify and categorize it's perceived errors.
b. Clarify a previously perceived error by more precisely locating it on the canvas or in an error category.
c. Disambiguate a conglomerate error by separating it into separate and distinct errors (which may then be further clarified by being categorized by error type and located more precisely on the canvas).

4. If no problem areas are found in Protocol 3, the submitted work may be declared a success, thus ending the crit.

5. If a newly identified or clarified problem triggers a belief in the artist that he can solve the problem himself, the crit is over.

6. If a newly identified or clarified problem does not trigger a belief in the artist that he can solve the problem himself, some crit participants may decide that the artist is misjudging his own skills, is procrastinating, or lazy.... and they may choose to withdraw. It may be possible to develop a system whereby a crit is called off if a consensus of crit participants decide that the artist should be able solve the problems in his work should he choose to do so based upon the information provided to him during the first 5 stages of the crit.

7. If the "identifying problems" stage has been completed without a consensus belief that the artist can complete the work based on the problem set identified in the work, crit participants may offer technical or philosophical advice to the artist that generally pertains to the identified problems.

8. If a consensus is reached after stage 7 is complete that the artist will not be able to successfully implement the newly gained technical or philosophical advice to solve the artistic problems of the submitted work, crit participants may offer specific solutions to the identified problems.

9. If a verbal explanation of the advice does not suffice, a crit participant may demonstrate his solution on another canvas.

10. If an off-canvas demo is not sufficient , with the submitting artist's permission, a draw-over may be performed on that artist's work.

11. If the draw over is not enough to educate the submitting artist about how to proceed with his work, even with all the information garnered from the crit at his disposal, he may submit to a paintover, thereby giving up his intellectual property rights to his initial work. This paintover shall take the form of a demo with sufficient explanation to serve as a teaching aid to both the submitting artist and crit viewers.

A paintover that does not function as a demonstration learning aid is not a crit.

------------

Okay, that's it I guess. Anybody think this was worth my time to set out? Anybody think some mechanism should be introduced into the conceptart.org crit center whereby crit threads are marked according to which crit stage they are in?

Lemme know your thoughts...

kev

http://www.conceptart.org/forums/showthread.php?t=10110

[_ J]

quote:
"Anybody think some mechanism should be introduced into the conceptart.org crit center whereby crit threads are marked according to which crit stage they are in?"


I appreciate the suggestions to make things better!:)

I don't have much new ideas on it. I just think the rules, guidelines and mechanism should preferably be easy and simple, not too many, not too complicated. Otherwise it may discourage people to post art, comments or paintovers.:)

[kev ferrara]

I was thinking that in the crit section there should be check boxes where the submitting artist can forgo stages of the protocol.

Like an artist checks yes to draw overs but no to paintovers.
Or the artist checks "anything goes" which means any noobie can scribble right over top of his artwork.
Or maybe everybody will have their own personal ratings for other artists, which would allow them to paint over during a free for all or not.

If no checkboxes are checked, the protocol proceeds very methodically. And there would be some indication by the thread what stage the crit was in. LIke "Stage 4 crit in progress". I actually think more professional artists would be attracted to helping artists who want the minimal help possible because they would be better students and the crit would be quicker.

I was also thinking for the critics, there could be checkboxes for common mistakes. in each category with something like a "sticky" number they can place on a thumbnail sized version of the artwork being critiqued. So a critic can check "incorrect perspective" and drop a red circle with the number 1 on it on a smaller version of the artwork right where the error in perspective is percieved.

I think these are cool ideas! I don't want to do the coding though!

kev

[Elwell]

I think this is probably (a) technically impossible and (b) undesirable.
Part of the problem with posters having a checklist of what they want is that it presumes that what they want is the same as what they need.

[Sentinel.]

The problem with thinking of a paintover (I'm not talking about a line drawing to indicate something) as a mere suggestion is that it is a very significant and powerful statement of opinion which could discourage the original artist from having confidence in his original vision or his artistic skills.

I can see the point of this, but that really depends on the artist asking for help. If you're referring more to a beginning artist, especially one that didn't ask for a paintover, then I agree one hundred percent. In that case it's intrusive. But I think you're overstating the impact on your average CA artist. Someone doing a paintover on one of my drawings, whether I agree with it or not, is not going to make me question my artistic talents. I'll take from it what I choose to take from it, and that's the prevailing attitude I've seen with most artists in the critique center. I've seen a lot of people stand firm on their original ideas.

"Furthermore, you are also saying when you ask for a paintover, "I hereby and forthwith disavow any and all ownership of this image now and into the foreseeable future" etc. That's fine if the artist decides to do that. But if he doesn't and a paintover "happens", again, it is an invasion."

I respect your opinions and agree with a fair amount of them, but this one I completely disagree with. From my perspective, if I say that my composition is terrible, have tried changing it myself a dozen times, and have no idea how to fix it and ask for help, I am in no way relinquishing my ownership of my image. I am asking for an OPINION on how it could be better, so I can learn from it, add it to my mental library, and be more prepared to get it right in my future endeavors, without relying on outside influence. That is the goal, and if someone does a quick paintover showing me how a different composition could nail the exact mood I had in my head and couldn't express on my own, then all the better. That doesn't make my drawing not my drawing. And if someone paints over my image when I didn't ask them to, they did not rob me of anything. I am free to completely ignore what they've done. Please understand that I am not attacking you - I just think that this statement is a little extreme.

I can completely understand how a paintover can be detrimental to an artist, especially if they are already doubtful of their own talents and abilities. And there are plenty of people out there who do paintovers who are entirely unqualified to instruct people. But a paintover can still be a very valuable teaching tool in the right hands. And I don't think it takes away from a person's creativity or belittles their ideas - I think that if a person can learn from it all it does is boost these things. The only way that a paintover can truly override the artist's original vision is if they try to copy it exactly instead of learning from it and applying it to their future work. That is their mistake to make and not something readily in anyone else's control.

I hope you realize that I'm not trying to be inflammatory in any way, and I really do understand the points you’re making and completely respect them, because they have a lot of truth. I just wanted to add my two cents to a very valid and worthwhile debate :}

[Sentinel.]

I think this is probably (a) technically impossible and (b) undesirable.
Part of the problem with posters having a checklist of what they want is that it presumes that what they want is the same as what they need.

Amen.

[kev ferrara]

I wholly reject the idea that these ideas are impossible on a technical/coding level. I've coded in flash, and html, etc. I'm sure others on this board can confirm that these ideas are implementable.

Elwell, you write, "Part of the problem with posters having a checklist of what they want is that it presumes that what they want is the same as what they need"

Since giving somebody a crit is a presumption on the critics part that THEY know what the submitting artist needs, (so often wrong!!) I think presumption can't be avoided. The question is, who deserves to control the presumptions. I think the artist first.

I think wanting to retain ownership of one's ideas, for instance, while getting a good crit, has nothing to do with one's level of artistic expertise. The point is to give the choice. (And, Sentinel13, you do give up something when somebody takes your work to a finishing stage. And what's the use of the demo'd finish if you don't use its ideas? Why isn't that finish the demo artist's work?)

Wanting every opportunity to "fly with one's own wings" is what eventually makes a pro a pro. That option should not only be offered, but encouraged.

Sentinel13, if you always want paintovers, check "all paintovers allowed!" Simple!

[Jason Rainville]

All my threads get heated, I think I'll just stop posting them :$

Anyways I've read some (not all, so I may be repeating some things) of this thread and I'm ready to give my opinion. Not that it matters nearly as much as the giants wandering through here, but here goes...

Paintovers, upon reading kev's ideas, originally seemed more sinister than before; what once was a helpful hand from a friendly neighbor now seemed a powerful opinion that could bastardize an artist's creativity and lead them down a road that was not chosen by them.

But how many things could change someone's original intent, and why is it a bad thing? We draw inspiration from all around us, not all within us. Fact is all that is us, all that's in us came from without. Our imagination is a process born of imitation. Creative imitation, but imitation nonetheless. Why is it a powerful story or other work of art that changes my perspective about how I hadle my art is an influence, but a fellow artist who alters my work to present a suggestion is a hinderance? Whether or not the influence was intentional or not makes no difference, the story and the artist have both changed my art. That's how all of our art grows. We're influenced by stimuli that we take and incorporate or discard and forget. Both can help and both can hurt, so to be a good artist, I suppose you have to know how to filter the good from the bad...

slightly more rambling than I wanted it to be.

[kev ferrara]

Rhineville, sometimes what seems helpful is actually unhelpful, as in having somebody do for you, the very difficult work of learning how to make good art, simply at a request. (I wouldn't characterize it as sinister, most of the time)

To turn Elwell's point around, an artist often doesn't know what he needs. So, hey, why not ask for a paintover to see your vision through to the end and you can say, "oh wow, amazing, you are so talented" to the artist who does the finish. I would say, the artist who likes to see paintovers of his work knows less about what is good for him than the one that wants to do as much of the work himself, based on principles and technical information, that he possibly can.

Oh, and I would say that simple Inspiration is very different than someone's hand actually doing the artwork for you. It is the hand upon the work that makes the work art. The hands is an extension of the person.

Again, if an artist takes your work to a satisfactory finish, why isn't that work his now?

[Clocks]

Just because someone gives you a paint over doesn't mean you have to agree with them. I don't see it as an invasion... if you post your work in the critique section you should be ready to receive all types of critique. You should also take those critiques with a grain of salt and be able to recognize which of them will work for you and which will not.

If an artist takes a paint over and just copies it directly then thats their fault. But if you take a paint over and analyze the changes they made, then it has the potential to be much more helpful than verbal critique. I think its similar to doing studies of your favorite artists, you have to think about why they did it so that you can use that knowledge in your own work.

[kev ferrara]

I would recommend this thread

http://www.conceptart.org/forums/showthread.php?t=102335

as one that has a poster who did a paintover without asking. I can't help but think he is tresspassing on another's artistic space. (Even though the paintover might be valid)

The paintover guy writes that it would take longer to explain than to paintover. That is clear nonsense. Therefore I think this is an example of a poster that has his ego involved in his "help".

I could be wrong of course.

EDIT: I got this one wrong! Ignore this post.

[kev ferrara]

Clocks, the point is to have the option available not to have somebody paint over your pic. I said its an invasion if you didn't request it.

I also am saying that sometimes an artist can confuse what's cool and fun with what is actually good for them in their artistic education.

Yes you can learn from a paintover, a lot sometimes. But if somebody finishes up your picture in a paintover, why isn't it their's? What if they create the exact solution you were looking for? And you use that solution. At that point you are copying their work. I think it must be obvious that if you are copying somebody else's work onto your own, you are copying. And what if they create the exact solution you are looking for... now you're stuck! If you use their solution you are copying, if you don't, you are not completing your picture as you originally intended it inorder not to copy the paintover artist's work.

[worxe]

I crit what I believe may be missing or not working if I feel that im right, I usually feel more comfortable when someone says 'no, that isnt true, this is how it goes' or agrees with my observations.

Sometimes when I do try to crit someones work I'd do a paintover but I feel I'll just muck it up, so I try to explain it as clearly as possible and if the person is having trouble understanding I'll take a different approach in explaining it. I'd love to do paintovers like people such as Yverloc does but I don't have anywhere near the experience he does.

I also believe you can get a little too involved in a critique (http://www.conceptart.org/forums/showthread.php?t=69544&highlight=dimezanime88), so I guess its important just to stand back and try to understand what the person wants before giving a critique, like what a few have already stated in this thread.

However after glancing through this thread, I think its probably a good Idea to ask if the person hasn't originally stated that a paintover is necessary, start doing the paintover when you have the time ofcourse but until the person has given the ok for a paintover, I wouldn't post it.

[Jason Rainville]

Rhineville, sometimes what seems helpful is actually unhelpful, as in having somebody do for you, the very difficult work of learning how to make good art, simply at a request. (I wouldn't characterize it as sinister, most of the time)

Agreed, there's no substitute for hard work. Problem is sometimes the work lacks direction. I know I've made a piece of art, tried my best, got refs, did studies and thumbs for it, whole nine yards.... looked like junk and I didn't know why. Well, I could give self critique but I'd only be pointing out my problem, not any sort of solution. A paintover could turn a failed painting and a cunfused me into a decent lesson learned. I may have not even known about/been able to learn such a thing on my own, or would take quite a bit longer to learn on my own.

Oh, and I would say that simple Inspiration is very different than someone's hand actually doing the artwork for you. It is the hand upon the work that makes the work art. The hands is an extension of the person.

Agreed. I overgeneralised. But painting over is not 'doing the work for them' It's a critique and suggestion in visual form. By your defenition giving any critique would be 'doing the work for them' as they could also learn everything they need to know that a critiquer could say through hard work, self critique and reflection. The hand upon the work is, in the end, the artists. They will take what they want from that paintover, as they do with all critiques, and make it their own, copy it, or anything in between. Though the hand is always theirs, the idea could be shared...

Again, if an artist takes your work to a satisfactory finish, why isn't that work his now?

Because it's the artist who takes it to finish. His path is slightly altered for sure, but he has taken the suggestion and done it to his skill, with his ideas remaining dominant. If a complete redo of idea was painted over and was simply copied, then it's a collaboration. Overall if it leaves him knowledge of principles that would have taken him much longer to find out on his own, or after he copies the paintover finds his own skills inadequate and works to improve, is there more harm being done than good?

[Sentinel.]

Elwell, you write, "Part of the problem with posters having a checklist of what they want is that it presumes that what they want is the same as what they need"

Since giving somebody a crit is a presumption on the critics part that THEY know what the submitting artist needs, (so often wrong!!) I think presumption can't be avoided. The question is, who deserves to control the presumptions. I think the artist first.

I think wanting to retain ownership of one's ideas, for instance, while getting a good crit, has nothing to do with one's level of artistic expertise. The point is to give the choice. (And, Sentinel13, you do give up something when somebody takes your work to a finishing stage. And what's the use of the demo'd finish if you don't use its ideas? Why isn't that finish the demo artist's work?)

Wanting every opportunity to "fly with one's own wings" is what eventually makes a pro a pro. That option should not only be offered, but encouraged.


In the second half of your post you may not realize it, but you're only reiterating what I was saying. It's about OPTIONS. Paintovers only represent an option, and it's ALWAYS up to the receiving artist whether they internalize it or not, the same way it's up to them to internalize a verbal crit, or study the masters, or read literature on art and its philosophy etc. That was the crux of my entire post.

As wholly as you reject Elwell's idea that the code would be impossible, I reject your idea that the demo means my work belongs to the person who did it. The reality is that utilizing a verbal crit is no different than utilizing a visual crit. Both of them leave room for interpretation. Both of them are only tools to be learned from, if I choose to do so. And both can easily alter my original vision, if I choose to let them. The way your argument is shaping up, you seem to disagree with the entire premise of the critiquing system, which confuses me because I have seen you leave crits. Your crit on another thread offered a suggestion on an alternative concept for a business card. Is that not a presumption on your part on how to better their original vision? To alter it in some way?

http://conceptart.org/forums/showpost.php?p=1394162&postcount=10

If this person chose to follow your advice to the letter, would that not, under your reasoning, make it yours?

I am becoming very confused on where you stand on all of this.

Edit: And while I was typing Rhineville hit the nail on the head :D

[Jason Rainville]

The paintover guy writes that it would take longer to explain than to paintover. That is clear nonsense. Therefore I think this is an example of a poster that has his ego involved in his "help".


He said it would be easier, not quicker. Which I agree with, some of the time. Picture worth a thousand words and all that jazz.

And I don't quite get the link between a poster writing 'nonsense' (which he didn't) about writing taking longer than painting and having his ego tied to his critique. Now, if he said 'I've been doing this for a while, listen to me' or it was obvious he didn't know a damn thing and was just painting over to feel like a good guy, then his ego would surely be tied to his crit.

But that's Justin. He is a good guy :)

[wassermelone]

Hey, that sounds like a good idea.

Critique bureaucracy.

Not only would it not turn be away from posting critique, it would make me want to critique more knowing that that glaring flaw in X person's work can't be addressed.

Not to mention, I can only imagine the people that are new to art (and thus are going to the critique center for help) know so much about art and, more specifically, their own art, that they would know enough to really decide which areas of their work are impregnably perfect and without reproach.

You know what else? Perish the thought that some people might approach, or think that they could explain themselves better through a change to the image itself. I mean, we arn't artists.

[chazanoble]

I would recommend this thread

http://www.conceptart.org/forums/showthread.php?t=102335

as one that has a poster who did a paintover without asking. I can't help but think he is tresspassing on another's artistic space. (Even though the paintover might be valid)

The paintover guy writes that it would take longer to explain than to paintover. That is clear nonsense. Therefore I think this is an example of a poster that has his ego involved in his "help".

I could be wrong of course.


That thread was a bad example for you to use. The guy didn't get into all the detail of his paintover, but he wrote more then enough to give the person asking for help a general idea of what he did. Also he complimented on the good aspects he found. I thought it was a very good approach with the combination of word and visual help. (comparing it with what I have seen from other ppl that critique.)(not to mention it's on a voluntary bases). He did essentially did what Yerloc did with the "demo" and you said you like that.

Just to clarify... that line about Yerlock was a joke. I loved that demo and thought it was phenomenally informative. On vehicles in environments it is literally the best, most informative demo I have ever seen. Period.
No one is criticising good helpful criticism, I'm criticizing paint overs and artists coming here for quick and easy answers that aren't theirs!
Anyway, at an abstract level, it's easy and you won't get much disagreement when you say it's best to teach a person to fish for his lifetime. It's just at a practical level, your assumption that paintovers are detrimental for people who ask for help is hard to buy.

[Micaiah Nelson]

Okay imagine this.
You drew a picture and you feel that your struggling on in and you ask your friend for help...
1- He takes the picture and shows you everything thats wrong with it. Anatomy, eyes arn't straight, Lighting, clothing, contrast, and sugestion on stuff they could add, other stuff like that.
Thats the paint over I'm okay with.You helping the artist by telling them or showing them what they could do so their creative process flow in their own mind so they can finish it. They could either improve or just finish it.

2- He takes the picture then start erasing stuff, adding stuff in, change the position of whatever, change the colour, and then he tells the artist everything he had done.
What has the artist learn now. That you can paint better than they could. There is no creative thought after its all over. No improvements in the artist mind.
Your rarely going to find an artist with the same style or even has studied what you have learned. Maybe they're even not fond of that style or kind of art you do. But you finished Their picture for them. Now on to the next picture the they will post in the Critique section for help.

I'm starting to get tired of this thread. Someone make a happy thread so we can all agree on how happy we are.:tihi:

[Hai]

I was thinking that in the crit section there should be check boxes where the submitting artist can forgo stages of the protocol.
While it sounds good in theory, I think that's a very bad idea. It would turn this place into deviantart or elfwood very rapidly. Places where it's all been automated, and you're actually not learning anything at all.

[kev ferrara]

I'm really wondering if anybody has read the "crit protocols" I posted!!

Here's the simplicity of it...

The best help is if someone helps you to help yourself. This helps the artist learn how to fish on his own. As you go down the track of protocols, more and more help is provided from outside... until the end point at which the teacher simply TURNS THE STUDENT'S WORK INTO A DEMO.

My point is that a good crit might best proceed bit by bit through these protocols, giving the struggling artist every opportunity to finish his own work, get that endorphin rush, feel more confident about his skills, get closer to finding his own personal aesthetic, learn to problem solve, learn to be an independent thinker... etc.

Looks like I made an error about that poster saying "he didn't have the time" to write his answer. Either way, he made a significant change to the composition without asking. It would be really easy if a system were set up to nip all these problems in the bud. Where all you have to do is check a box.

By the way, the ideas I offered in that thread about the piano playing tree card were because the person doing the thing was doing the job for money for somebody who was looking to get work by his efforts and it really looked gloomy. Since I'm in graphic design and do work for small businesses a lot, I really thought that the business aspect of it all should supercede all else. I did not want to see that artist not get his cash because of rookie mistakes like not thinking about who the piano player's target audience was. I didn't think there was time to go through a standard crit like everybody else on that thread seemed to be doing. The artist also indicated in a post that there was a conception problem, didn't quite know why the tree was there, etc. I was a graphic designer there, and a businessperson. Not the artist I am here.

[Seedling]

Your critique protocols are much improved, Kev. That’s a very solid way to approach critique. Nicely done. I’m not entirely in agreement when it comes to paintovers, but it’s a bit moot for me, since I rarely do paintovers and haven’t received many.

What wassermalone said really hit home with me, however. As good as it is to have a concrete set of guidelines for critique, I think that they should remain guidelines. This is because I find the giving of critiques to be as important to a developing artist as the receiving of a critique. I’m thinking specifically of teen artists, perhaps not yet very good at making art, and even worse at articulating what they see as problems in their art or in the art of others, being entirely discouraged from learning to articulate those problems as they retreat to lurking while letting the more experienced folk do the work of critique. I would want to remove as many hurdles from the young artist’s path as possible.

Thinking back to my first classes in colleges, critiques things that the teachers had to pry out of us. Someone’s work would be on the wall, and the teacher would point to various students and ask us what we thought. Our answers were clumsy, short, and often unhelpful to the artist; but by having the opportunity to make those mistakes we learned how to analyze the art and give helpful feedback.

If an artist here jumps into a critique with an unwanted paintover or heavy-handed comments, I see it as an important part of the learning process for both artists.

[kev ferrara]

Seedling you may be right. I'm may be just working against something that is both enjoyable and helpful to young artists, and enjoyable and helpful to artists who get something out of teaching and showing their skills (and maybe making or re-enhancing their reputation in the community.) The net is very Darwinian, and it would be foolish to second guess its wiley ways too much.

Still, I think this has been a very interesting thread and I certainly enjoyed the intellectual excercize of the crit protocols. And of course, having a great discussion with y'all.

kev

[chazanoble]

Okay imagine this.
You drew a picture and you feel that your struggling on in and you ask your friend for help...
1- He takes the picture and shows you everything thats wrong with it. Anatomy, eyes arn't straight, Lighting, clothing, contrast, and sugestion on stuff they could add, other stuff like that.
Thats the paint over I'm okay with.You helping the artist by telling them or showing them what they could do so their creative process flow in their own mind so they can finish it. They could either improve or just finish it.

2- He takes the picture then start erasing stuff, adding stuff in, change the position of whatever, change the colour, and then he tells the artist everything he had done.
What has the artist learn now. That you can paint better than they could. There is no creative thought after its all over. No improvements in the artist mind.
Your rarely going to find an artist with the same style or even has studied what you have learned. Maybe they're even not fond of that style or kind of art you do. But you finished Their picture for them. Now on to the next picture the they will post in the Critique section for help.

I'm starting to get tired of this thread. Someone make a happy thread so we can all agree on how happy we are.:tihi:

You are making the same mistake with option 2 like most people who are trying to sell this idea. It's that you assume the person asking for help will behave in a narrow way, simply accept the paintover, and won't learn much from it besides the fact that someone on this thread already stating that a paintover was the most helpful thing for them. Not only that, but the fact that most of us learn/are inspired from observing the paintings of artist we admire. It goes without saying that the person asking for help should see the paintover as a possible suggestions on how they can improve their work and extract whatever ideas they found useful from it. Being that this is an anonymous forum, I think we should all assume less about what people will do with the information that is given to them and concern ourselves more with the quality of the information. That and how to effectively get that information across.



I'm really wondering if anybody has read the "crit protocols" I posted!!....

kev, you would have been better off if you had started a new thread with the protocol. Most people assume the first post as the main topic of discussion.

[_ J]

That's a good discussion everyone! I think having a better understanding of the pros and cons is more important than achieving the ideal of reaching a consensus. Now many things are much clearer than before!:)

BTW, many paintovers require a lot of time and efforts to produce, and in many cases they are really helpful. So the efforts and kindness of the artists should be appreciated!:)