Not sure if this belongs here or not, but seeing as this is about Art, i'll assume it can go here.
So a little while back i had a lengthy conversation with an individual on another art forum. I was recently reminded of this person when i tried to critique someone on DA (it didn't go down so well). Anyhow, we had a conversation about critiquing overall, his argument being.
Unless you're a professional, you have no place telling someone what is wrong with their art piece. Since you don't know what you're doing in the first place.
A few of the points he/she brought up were.
-Improper critiquing might lead someone to adopt "stupid" techniques, therefore only an art teacher or industry professional should do it.
-Unless you're noticeably better than the other person, it's rude.
-It's part of the person's art style, you can't critique uniqueness.
-Books such as Loomis, Hogarth and Bridgman are not helpful unless you have a similar art style.
-The Egyptians, Romans and many ancients have countless examples of exaggerated art, it's not necessary to learn real anatomy.
So my questions to the community are:
Is there a way to actually give someone a critique that would hinder their progression? Do you agree that only Professionals can critique properly?
What's your stance on a Scrub(check out my SB, heh) providing critiques to someone who is noticeably better?
When does art style actually come into play, and how do you tell if someone is using it as a crutch?
Assume someone has a very cartoony style. Is it worth his time to study anatomy, books by Hogarth, Loomis and Bridgman etc.?
Romans, Egyptians, etc. exaggerated art (at least according to him) does this mean learning real anatomy is pointless?