People who don't draw critiquing artists

[Sphyzex_9]

I think it's kind of annoying when people who don't draw have negative things to say about art they get met with comments like "oh well what have you done?" or "so could you draw that?". I mean do you have to be a chef to know if something tates bad? Do you have to be an award winning director to know a movie's isn't good? or a mucisian to know a song sounds awful? I'm just wondering why it's different with art.

[Enydimon]

People who usually have the, "Let's see if you could do better!" and "What do you know? You can't draw." to say are usually the ones with poor self-esteem under feigned egos. They're insecure and a lot of the time it hurts their pride. People who actually do have healthy or oversized egos wouldn't be offended by such comments if that were the case.

In general, it's no different than movies, music or cooking, however, it can get to a point where it's hard to give a critique if you know little about what you're critiquing.

[Marela]

This doesn't happen only in art. I'm quite sure that if you went to a chef and said his food tastes bad he wouldn't be thanking you for your constructive criticism. It's about the person's border of acceptance of criticism, the knowledge you are -showing- to this person with your critique, among other things. Because for you to critique something you really do have to know about it. 90% of the people I know say "Oh, I could draw that when I was 5" when they see a painting of Miró or Mondrian, but there is much more to their paintings and the context in which they painted those things than the average person knows. So, I believe there is like a spectrum that people without artistic knowledge understand and accept as art, but beyond that spectrum there is also art, that is difficult to critique without understanding it.

But ideally a person won't give you an answer like those you said, if you criticize nicely and in a constructive way. He would try to explain his point of view that he apparently holds so close, so if anyone answers you that way just step back because he/she might be moody or just not like criticism at all :)

[OurSin]

9 times out of ten those are the people who will be putting up money to fund the artists...whether they are clients or consumers. So i think their opinion is probably the most important if your trying to make any money at it......

it's like sure they can't draw, but can you pay money for your own work? criticism is always hard to deal with.....but it's the harsh reality we all have to deal with. Unless we just want to draw pictures for ourselves for fun.

[Baron Impossible]

Where are you seeing this? I'm just interested. Are these in response to anything you've posted? The fault could lie with the artist, as you say, but it could also lie with the person making the comment.

In general, though, you're right. Personally, I welcome comments and crits from any level of artist, or from non-artists. Every crit I get I read and analyse, regardless who it's from. That's why I try to thank everyone individually who comments on my stuff. It's not as if you have to act on every single crit, after all. If you don't think a comment is relevant then fine, say thankyou and ignore it.

[SoufMeng]

I think it's kind of annoying when people who don't draw have negative things to say about art they get met with comments like "oh well what have you done?" or "so could you draw that?"

Yes i agree, its annoying but so it is when an artist dismiss another's critiques with comments like "this is my style, anatomy doesnt apply to me".

Some people are just worse than others at dealing with critiques (some at giving them) and will look for the easy way to dismiss them. With non artist people it just seems a little easier, especially if they're clumsy with the vocabulary for example.


I'm just wondering why it's different with art.Why would you say this?

[bitjockey]

Just because you can't draw doesn't mean your knowlege base doesn't give you enough information to critique. You might not be an artist, but you might be an expert on a particular piece's subject matter.

A medical practicioner might not be able to draw, but they sure know their anatomy. A carpenter isn't an architect, but one could probably tell you when a particular construct doesn't make sense.

[dbclemons]

What difference does it make? If a person is inciteful enough to make an accurate critique, who cares where it comes from. It's the crit that's important not who says it. Take it for what it is. If it's irrelevant or inaccurate, or made by a jerk, dismiss it.

[DavePalumbo]

Helpful crits are definitely more likely to come from those with direct experience though. That's not to say that all others should be dismissed, but there are alot of people who just like to hear themself talk and they may not have the first damn clue what they're talking about. Careful thought should be given to any criticism, but if someone has already demonstrated a mastery of the subject they're advising you on, wouldn't you give that person more weight?

I just get irritated when I see or hear a crit given with solid authority that's actually (in my own opinion) really poor advice, or at the least unimportant. Whoever it comes from, though these come most often from artists who still have a long way to go but feel a need to show they know something. But isn't the whole thing just opinions anyhow ;)

[AChipps]

I wouldn't say it is different, but if you want help in the critic you ask someone that knows, or has done better. People don't have to know about art to see if they like it or not.
I don't think you can tell a director how to direct, but you would know if you don't like what he is doing.
I will not include mouthy people that think they know it all. I know everyone has an opinion, and it changes, but I don't think it is a fact and base my life on it, or pick at the details like people do the bible.

[Enydimon]

Helpful crits are definitely more likely to come from those with direct experience though. That's not to say that all others should be dismissed, but there are alot of people who just like to hear themself talk and they may not have the first damn clue what they're talking about. Careful thought should be given to any criticism, but if someone has already demonstrated a mastery of the subject they're advising you on, wouldn't you give that person more weight?

I just get irritated when I see or hear a crit given with solid authority that's actually (in my own opinion) really poor advice, or at the least unimportant. Whoever it comes from, though these come most often from artists who still have a long way to go but feel a need to show they know something. But isn't the whole thing just opinions anyhow ;)

I agree with this entirely. I do think that non-artists can see things we often take for granted, but those with more experience can be a lot more helpful as they know how to describe it, how to potentially fix it and whatnot.

In the end it's up to you to decide which critiques are valuable to you and which ones are not. That's strictly on a case by case basis. I know someone who got angry at me for dismissing their critique when I had heard otherwise several times from more reputable people. It's not that they were wrong because they were inexperienced, it's because in comparison I heard better arguments from the majority and it made more sense to me.

[nauvice]

I welcome criticism from people who don't draw, maybe more than those who do, because I plan on becoming a cartoonist and most likely 90% of those who I'm trying to sell my work to, will be people who do not draw.

I notice those who dont draw are sometimes more blunt and harsh with their opinions whilst artists who are educated on many types of art, are more likely to be empathetic or understanding. I appreciate both

[Maidith]

You don't have to be a chef to know that the soup is too salty.

[Leonor]

It's just meta very common in art circles. It happens because people wrongly interpret the critique as an evaluation of the artist's worth.

If you are the artist you are better not giving off those replies to a critique. If someone points out a mistake that you agree to be a mistake and that you think you would benefit from correcting, be grateful. Otherwise, ignore. No point wasting your time worrying about it or arguing.

Of course the most useful critique is educational. It explains why did you commit the mistake, what knowledge you lack and what you should learn to prevent it in the future.

[dierat]

I mean do you have to be a chef to know if something tates bad?No, but someone who has experience with cooking can give you more specific feedback on what about your dish isn't working and what you can do to solve the problem. Similarly, if you take a portrait you've drawn where the face is a bit asymmetrical, it's likely that anyone who isn't experienced with drawing faces can tell you "The face looks weird" but someone who does have that experience may be able to point out which elements of the face are off and why.

I personally think it's helpful to get feedback from artists and non-artists as non-artists will often give you a general idea of what is working in your piece without overanalyzing it. They will often focus on the narrative of the piece, what you're trying to say and whether they understood that without being told.

[velderia]

Just because you can't draw doesn't mean your knowlege base doesn't give you enough information to critique. You might not be an artist, but you might be an expert on a particular piece's subject matter.

A medical practicioner might not be able to draw, but they sure know their anatomy. A carpenter isn't an architect, but one could probably tell you when a particular construct doesn't make sense.

This is true for movie critics. 99.9999% of movie critics most likely never made movies themselves, but they've studied the craft and know what's good or bad. They may not always be spot on but some good ones are most of the time. Some actually go to school for it, but never get involved in some sort of movie project themselves.

[the_jos]

Why is this different in art?
I hear a lot of people complain about help desks. How those people are drones and not really helping. But I bet many of them can't handle a daily stream of complaints and rants without getting nuts or throwing with their phone at least 5 times a day.

Only help desk people usually keep their mouth shut about such work because else they either get more complaints or get stupid questions about computers, microwaves, mobile phones and whatever more people think is somewhat tech related.

Artists should also just accept (like everyone else) that the vast majority of people knows nothing about their work and will make stupid comments and ask stupid questions.
I can imagine it must be hell on earth when a car mechanic hears a random group of men talking about car engines, gears and such ....

[SoufMeng]

A medical practicioner might not be able to draw, but they sure know their anatomy. A carpenter isn't an architect, but one could probably tell you when a particular construct doesn't make sense.
Hmm yeah but what if it makes sense from an artistic viewpoint? Many great artists created great artworks that could probably be considered scientific nonsense by some.
Maybe a good art critique from a carpenter would take that he forgets about his x number of years in carpentry a little to put himself in the artists shoes and acknowledge, for example and when so is the case, that although this or that construct doesnt make sense, carpentry-wise, in the picture it does have an interesting shape that serves efficently the overall composition etc. etc.

[bitjockey]

Hmm yeah but what if it makes sense from an artistic viewpoint? Many great artists created great artworks that could probably be considered scientific nonsense by some.
Maybe a good art critique from a carpenter would take that he forgets about his x number of years in carpentry a little to put himself in the artists shoes and acknowledge, for example and when so is the case, that although this or that construct doesnt make sense, carpentry-wise, in the picture it does have an interesting shape that serves efficently the overall composition etc. etc.
Then we get into a problem any artist faces when taking artistic license with a subject? Does it look like it was done on purpose, or does it just look like there's something wrong?

If it looks like it was done on purpose, fine. But if they can't overlook the wrongness, then something's not getting through to the viewer, and it's worth investigating.

[Alex Chow]

From a technical standpoint, if a non-artist tells me something is off, I would give it a quick consideration to see if he/she is right. They aren't always correct in that aspect.

From a design standpoint, if a non-artist tells me the narrative or the design isn't working, I put it at a very high priority. The dreaded "THIS DOESN'T MAKE SENSE!" is always a killer but helps me a lot.

[Nickodemus]

I think were talking about taste. A person can have great taste but not know a lick about art, but they're taste allows them to give critiques in an informed manner. Either way, the actual crit itself needs to be articulated well and understandable, taste aside.

[Flake]

A person can have great taste but not know a lick about art, but they're taste allows them to give critiques in an informed manner.
"Taste" allows them to explain to me how closely my effort meshes with their preferences.

That's not informed, that's opinionated.

Not the same as "You've overemphasised the reflected light I think.."

Edit: which I suppose may be the case in many scenarios..

I spend far too much energy pondering these things, I'll go paint flowers for a while I think..

[pat@hpnc.com]

Normally what I find is that some one who does not draw and paint has a hard time giving constructive advice. ALL they can do is tell you if they like it or not. Its much more helpful to have someone tell you whats wrong with your work.

[Bruce Pluto]

Sphyzex 9

I found your posted question very interesting so I decided to jar in my 2 cents worth. I think that just because a person critiquing another persons artwork doesn’t do art themselves is no reason not to examine what they are saying. I mean don’t we judge actors for their performances ( be they good or bad) when most of us are not actors ourselves?

I think it’s those bad critiques we get that cause many of us to judge who we are getting them from. Most of the time people are only giving their honest opinion but there are occasions where someone is giving advice to you only to see if you’ll bend and change your work to their way of seeing things.

Even if Frank Frazetta posted on this forum he would more than likely have someone telling him his CONAN painting were a little too abstract ( it wouldn’t be me).

Anyway, what some people need to do (IMO) is take the critiques given to any artwork they are willing to show on the CA site and analyze it for it’s true merit. If several people are saying that your anatomy is off then it probably is ( I know from experience). If they say your backgrounds need work, then they likely do. In time you will find that you will become a pretty good judge of whether a person is being honest and wanting to help in their opinion or just shooting from the mouth.

I myself usually will not post a critique unless the person has put in a requested for other peoples opinions, and when I do it’s only a suggestion. ART isn’t necessarily a path that will (or has to be) traveled alone, yet it is personal. At the same time I think you should take the best advice that you are given and do your best to improve. Like all things there may be much advice that will not apply with what your goals are or what you are trying to achieve. But then there may be lots of advice and opinions that are very helpful. I do think that anyone hanging in there for the long haul will soon find what they can use and what they can not.


Bruce