First of all, I'd like to give quick props to all submissions this month, and all iCE artists who participated. I know it's tough to finish a piece of art from an idea, and I know most of us work really hard to improve and better our art.
With that in mind, I'd like to put out some thoughts I've had based on some comments raised on this site. I noticed a few negative or overly personal comments on two pieces in particular. Comments which I felt did not pinpoint actual art issue, or which dealt with personality. I used to comment more on artwork (and not just on this site, but DeviantArt as well) and this has always been a bee in my bonnet. I posted a few critiques of my own, to show the artists that somebody pays attention to their art and how it is created, but this may be interpreted the wrong way. With that in mind, I typed up the following essay this morning, and have included a link to four guidelines I use when critiquing.
=========================
Unless you've ever tried to create a specific type of art on a professional level, I'm not sure you'll appreciate the nature of a critique and what artists or musicians or writers or filmmakers must go through to create art and keep improving at it.
Unless you've learnt this already, you may be puzzled as to why I can think a work of art is good, despite the fact that I don't like the subject matter, or why I may think a work of art is weak or has flaws, despite an obvious affinity for said subject matter.
Unless you've been exposed to the art of critique, you may think that pointing out weak compositional elements or the use of various colours or the lack of proportions is mean and cruel and evil, or, gasp, even pretentious.
I assure you it's not.
First of all, I commented on THE ART. I commented on it based on specific things I know about art. I don't have an arbitrary yardstick that I use for this but actual rules based on the principles of art. I probably mentioned at least one or three of the following:
+ Compositional elements (tangents, alignments, rhythm, shape, negative space, etc.)
+ Colour Theory (hue, value, contrast)
+ Technique (appropriate to medium)
+ Proportion and Perspective (atmospheric perspective)
+ Anatomy (muscle structure
+ Stylistic consistency (may include reference to historical style or genre)
Because I love and enjoy art, and because I like the thrill of knowing that I'm getting better at it, I critique. I share. I point out what I think will work and what I think may distract or not work. I'm not the best artist in the world, but I have been to school, and I've also spent many years practising these concepts and trying to implement them myself. I put my art up, not just to see it praised, but to learn how other people react to it. On an artistic level as well as a personal level. And in an art community, I think that one should expect the same of others.
I also know you can break the rules. But breaking one rule is often predicated on trying to work another rule to the max. (For example, I may sacrifice technical accuracy for style or to get a sense of atmospheric perspective.)
A quick note about surviving art school: My teachers first taught us the principles of art, and then taught us how to critique using those principles. At first, it really sucked to hear the critique because you felt it was personal. Then you realized it wasn't personal in the sense that it was about you or the message you were trying to convey. It was about technical excellence. And then I started trying to critique my work myself, realizing that other people were going to see these things if I didn't see them first. I started trying to make my art the best it could be, because I knew that when my art professor gave me a bang-on review, he really meant it. Words of praise from somebody who sees the flaws are that much sweeter.
I should also note that as a critic, I find it easier to comment on a work that doesn't totally suck. Which means that if I'm spending time telling you what I think works and doesn't work, that means I think that the work in question is worth commenting on. Take that for what you will.
More thoughts on zee subject: How Not To Critique
Final note: I'd love to see more in-depth remarks and dialogue about art on iCE. I'd like to see the artists I really enjoy (Steven Stalhberg, Gecko spring to mind) offer more in-depth critiques as well. I appreciate when an artist such as Darkhalo offers information on how he created a certain piece. I'd personally post more if this were the case. And I think that iCE as a group could benefit from the advice we could share with each other.
Thanks....:)
Pack Jump
June, 2003 iCE Pack
1. Happy birthday, USA! We hope everyone's celebrations were happy and safe.
Here's hoping that Tetanus won't start running around naked in the sprinkler
after a twelver next year. <shudder>
2. Many thanks to Raganaga this month, who really whooped ass to collect all the art you see this month. Tony gets a gold star this month.
3. This month we have two unusual releases. First, Primal_r has a huge animation that he submitted to the Remedy demoparty in Sweden. The results are not out yet, but we're all hoping that primal wins something for this!
3a. Second, DJ Monkeyboy is releasing a special n0rp icon pack, in both ttf and Illustrator formats. You'll have to check out the n0rp icons, they're classy ;)
4. This month we have a spree quilt from tiles.ice.org entitled "Bugs" and a joint quilt by Raganaga and Jito. Nice work guys!
5. Happy Birthday to Mynx, Farmy, and Root88! Root88 had some really ugly surgery and we all hope he feels better soon!
6. Sorry about the downtime this month. We were all ready to put the pack out and then the server hardware started having problems. Things are back up and running now, but we're in the process of migrating to a new server. So bear with us! If you notice the site chugging, that's because we're copying all the data off onto the new server.
7. This month, the WOW award goes to Darkhalo for his pic this month. Nice work everybody!
Hidden
Posts
How and Why I Critique
Re: How and Why I Critique
The depth of critique you're implying will very much uniform certain styles.
Personally I don't think most digital art will qualify for any such level of analysis. (unless everything is to look like a digitized painting)
I'm sure a lot of artists, maybe even most, would love such critique. I personally however always feel more satifaction from a simple "I like this" or even "I hate this". I don't approach art as a subject, I just make it, and even if a piece might appear horrid - in its lacking, it would still be just as I wanted it to be when I made it.
When I look at the work of others, I will catch myself going through exactly how it was made (if possible), and adding +/- from how I consider it 'technical' or detailed. Usually I short-circuit this part of my mind after a minute or two, because in the midst of all that brooding, I'm forgetting if the image is sexy, or ugly. If it's stylish, if it appeals - if it's something I've seen a hundred times before and can find a dupe of in a split second on google, if it's something I'd actually look at and well, flat out like, or dislike.
This might just be me, though.
As an example, I don't want criticism telling me what I should do instead, I only want to know if it worked for the eye or if it didn't. If you liked it, or if you didn't like it.
If it didn't work, I would try something else (by my own choice, by my own hand, and by my own hunch); or simply ignore it and do exactly what I did, a cointoss.
I commend your effort, though, and hope it works out. Just don't give me a long analysis (if that were ever the focus), I'll probably skip it. :)
Personally I don't think most digital art will qualify for any such level of analysis. (unless everything is to look like a digitized painting)
I'm sure a lot of artists, maybe even most, would love such critique. I personally however always feel more satifaction from a simple "I like this" or even "I hate this". I don't approach art as a subject, I just make it, and even if a piece might appear horrid - in its lacking, it would still be just as I wanted it to be when I made it.
When I look at the work of others, I will catch myself going through exactly how it was made (if possible), and adding +/- from how I consider it 'technical' or detailed. Usually I short-circuit this part of my mind after a minute or two, because in the midst of all that brooding, I'm forgetting if the image is sexy, or ugly. If it's stylish, if it appeals - if it's something I've seen a hundred times before and can find a dupe of in a split second on google, if it's something I'd actually look at and well, flat out like, or dislike.
This might just be me, though.
As an example, I don't want criticism telling me what I should do instead, I only want to know if it worked for the eye or if it didn't. If you liked it, or if you didn't like it.
If it didn't work, I would try something else (by my own choice, by my own hand, and by my own hunch); or simply ignore it and do exactly what I did, a cointoss.
I commend your effort, though, and hope it works out. Just don't give me a long analysis (if that were ever the focus), I'll probably skip it. :)
Re: Re: How and Why I Critique
This is what i do with feedback that i read or hear, i analize it and see if i change the image that i created based on it, but if the people critiquin just says "it is very good" then i can not make that choise, since i don´t get any more info than i already have.
NOTE: I do like to hear that my work looks nice, praise and the nice words are always wellcome, don´t get me wrong, i always critiq in both ways i mencion the things i like and the things i don´t like as well.
I also like to belive that critiquin works in both ways
1.- it helps improve my observation skills when i critique
2.- the people that critique me help me to see the things that i don´t see ´cuase after some long hours of work i loose my objetivity, so the feedback keep me real.
Well i must say that agree with PixelFish i like in deep critiques,if i one of my works get at least one comment even if the commet says "hey the head of your caracter sucks ´cuase it is too big" or any other things like my lights been screwed up, do i feel a bit or much pain depeding on the pic (becuase we are all humans and for that everything that is said about our art will be taken personally)but i do like to be critiqued that is in my opinion the only way to become better.
At least for me, after some one critiques my work i see if the person is rigth if the critique is well fundamented and if so, i see if i change the drawing in question depending od the critique. Is is not easy to become "objetive and accept the feedback but at least on my experience i think that the feedback is very importat to develop ur self.
When i upload stuff to an art forum like Sijun, Eatpoo or any others,
i feel bad when some one hammers really good my drawing flaws, but I fell a millon times worst when i get 0 comments at all on a pic. :D
:D i like this thread of commets bw
NOTE: I do like to hear that my work looks nice, praise and the nice words are always wellcome, don´t get me wrong, i always critiq in both ways i mencion the things i like and the things i don´t like as well.
I also like to belive that critiquin works in both ways
1.- it helps improve my observation skills when i critique
2.- the people that critique me help me to see the things that i don´t see ´cuase after some long hours of work i loose my objetivity, so the feedback keep me real.
Well i must say that agree with PixelFish i like in deep critiques,if i one of my works get at least one comment even if the commet says "hey the head of your caracter sucks ´cuase it is too big" or any other things like my lights been screwed up, do i feel a bit or much pain depeding on the pic (becuase we are all humans and for that everything that is said about our art will be taken personally)but i do like to be critiqued that is in my opinion the only way to become better.
At least for me, after some one critiques my work i see if the person is rigth if the critique is well fundamented and if so, i see if i change the drawing in question depending od the critique. Is is not easy to become "objetive and accept the feedback but at least on my experience i think that the feedback is very importat to develop ur self.
When i upload stuff to an art forum like Sijun, Eatpoo or any others,
i feel bad when some one hammers really good my drawing flaws, but I fell a millon times worst when i get 0 comments at all on a pic. :D
:D i like this thread of commets bw
Re: Re: Re: How and Why I Critique
I appreciate any comment someone takes the time to make. I guess my reasoning is that if a casual surfer takes the time to comment on a piece I'm glad it made enough of an impression on them for them to feel it worthy of note. If a respected and established artist takes the time to comment on specifics, wonderful. Most pieces you would see at ice would work on different levels for the occassional surfer than for the seasoned art-forum critic. I appreciate any input for the most part, so long as it includes evidence the viewer's brain has started ticking a little differently. BTW personally I don't have a great deal of time for art schools (or just schools with art) and the teachers associated with them. According to any art teacher I've ever spoken to, any faintly cartoonish piece isn't art. So I've got no time for the language they use or their posturing. I prefer the comment to be more basic and honest.
Re: Re: Re: Re: How and Why I Critique
Knives: I actually had pretty cool art profs. They were pretty accepting of non-standard Fine Arts. Things like animation and cartooning and comic books and especially design, which a lot of the more pretentious art folk won't touch.
That doesn't mean that art principles don't have their place in these disciplines, mind you. (In fact, in design, it's pretty important to know things like colour theory and composition and so on.)
Of course, the casual viewer has their reaction too--and those reactions don't have to be more in depth than "I liked this". I'm not trying to denigrate those casual comments. I'd just like to see more in-depth commenting, I guess.
That doesn't mean that art principles don't have their place in these disciplines, mind you. (In fact, in design, it's pretty important to know things like colour theory and composition and so on.)
Of course, the casual viewer has their reaction too--and those reactions don't have to be more in depth than "I liked this". I'm not trying to denigrate those casual comments. I'd just like to see more in-depth commenting, I guess.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How and Why I Critique
Usually art reviewers and actual creators are separate groups.
What art school teaches of technique and theory, is more a description of instinctive action and inherent esthetics of any artist in any field.
If you look at designing following rules to the dot, it generally comes out looking very much the same as everything else following rules to the dot.
When it comes down to that level of 'rules', fine arts becomes a photography in so many layers of grain depending on 'accepted styles'.
It depends on taste though I suppose, but this is what I fell in love with in regards to the digital medium. It can be everything of the past: it can be a new way to show the old ways, or it can be in truth, its own medium with its own art. I don't consider the digital medium an extension of art, or another tool in the box, but a whole new world of art.
So far the 'pioneers' of digital art seem quite ridiculed. Respect lies within replication of the old ways, emulating a canvas and making it look like a perfect painting. Which there is nothing wrong with, and takes a huge amount of practice, a great eye - a great hand, and a lot of 'worked instinctive habits'.
However, as mentioned, the digitial medium is more than just another tool: it's a whole new world of art (however cliché.)
We already have centuries of "perfect" art. I think the casual viewer's liking or disliking, is much deeper than the analyst's analysis. The analyst goes down a list of checkpoints subconsciously, it never actually hits home. The casual viewer may dream to it, match it to music, find it "cool", it goes deep. The analysis modules of any human are the shielding parts of the actual conscious self lingering inside.
Again, as I said in a previous post, I don't approach art as a subject. That is because art isn't a subject. If you paint an image basing yourself on rules of painting an image, of what is taught and accepted - and basically painting something which already exists, then you can call that image flawed when it is done (if it is flawed), aswell as unfinished - if it is never finished. In that aspect of art, art becomes a subject. However, if you create a picture, with no thought to what it is, no care but the creation itself, and you are not trying to emulate something which already exists - art is not a subject. Art is just art, and it can never be flawed nor unfinished. How it turns out, is what it is.
Artists, just as writers, and composers - that are now considered great: when they lived, they had rules of creation aswell, there were writing rules, rules to any art, schools in any art. Almost all the great artists and writers of the past had one thing in common: they weren't accepted by the institutions of art at the time. They were mocked, and only gained renomee post-humously. Today many of our 'rules' are based on the observation of what they did. And at their time, their rules were based on observations of what those before did. What's the point of repeating this cycle?
Anyhow, this might appear as if I'm arguing against giving analysis to -any- artist anywhere, at anytime. Which obviously, I don't have the authority to do.
Here is at least my extended view on it. (and arguing that the casual viewer's commentary, be it brief or even perceived vulgar by some, runs deeper than the check-list accountant.)
(more of a side-commentary in other words, more related to the innuendos floating around this thread, rather than the actual purpose of your posting)
- Zef, "my cig told me to."
What art school teaches of technique and theory, is more a description of instinctive action and inherent esthetics of any artist in any field.
If you look at designing following rules to the dot, it generally comes out looking very much the same as everything else following rules to the dot.
When it comes down to that level of 'rules', fine arts becomes a photography in so many layers of grain depending on 'accepted styles'.
It depends on taste though I suppose, but this is what I fell in love with in regards to the digital medium. It can be everything of the past: it can be a new way to show the old ways, or it can be in truth, its own medium with its own art. I don't consider the digital medium an extension of art, or another tool in the box, but a whole new world of art.
So far the 'pioneers' of digital art seem quite ridiculed. Respect lies within replication of the old ways, emulating a canvas and making it look like a perfect painting. Which there is nothing wrong with, and takes a huge amount of practice, a great eye - a great hand, and a lot of 'worked instinctive habits'.
However, as mentioned, the digitial medium is more than just another tool: it's a whole new world of art (however cliché.)
We already have centuries of "perfect" art. I think the casual viewer's liking or disliking, is much deeper than the analyst's analysis. The analyst goes down a list of checkpoints subconsciously, it never actually hits home. The casual viewer may dream to it, match it to music, find it "cool", it goes deep. The analysis modules of any human are the shielding parts of the actual conscious self lingering inside.
Again, as I said in a previous post, I don't approach art as a subject. That is because art isn't a subject. If you paint an image basing yourself on rules of painting an image, of what is taught and accepted - and basically painting something which already exists, then you can call that image flawed when it is done (if it is flawed), aswell as unfinished - if it is never finished. In that aspect of art, art becomes a subject. However, if you create a picture, with no thought to what it is, no care but the creation itself, and you are not trying to emulate something which already exists - art is not a subject. Art is just art, and it can never be flawed nor unfinished. How it turns out, is what it is.
Artists, just as writers, and composers - that are now considered great: when they lived, they had rules of creation aswell, there were writing rules, rules to any art, schools in any art. Almost all the great artists and writers of the past had one thing in common: they weren't accepted by the institutions of art at the time. They were mocked, and only gained renomee post-humously. Today many of our 'rules' are based on the observation of what they did. And at their time, their rules were based on observations of what those before did. What's the point of repeating this cycle?
Anyhow, this might appear as if I'm arguing against giving analysis to -any- artist anywhere, at anytime. Which obviously, I don't have the authority to do.
Here is at least my extended view on it. (and arguing that the casual viewer's commentary, be it brief or even perceived vulgar by some, runs deeper than the check-list accountant.)
(more of a side-commentary in other words, more related to the innuendos floating around this thread, rather than the actual purpose of your posting)
- Zef, "my cig told me to."
art rules
"What art school teaches of technique and theory, is more a description of instinctive action and inherent esthetics of any artist in any field"
this is an interesting point that i've pondered myself as an art student (at a more practically-oriented art school as well). i totally agree with you about following the "rules" of composition to the dot, or even just making them conscious while designing a piece. i've always thought that it was better to go with how you actually feel about the layout instinctually or subconsciously, as opposed to nitpicking about every aspect of it, and i've wondered if the composition classes were there in part to teach the students who really have no "eye" or instinctual feeling about composition a logical, emotionless, procedural way to create a decent one.
i had a few illustration classes though with a professor who really made us conscious of every aspect of composition, color, and technique in order to take control of them, bend them to fit our subject, and ultimately make our illustrations more effective to the viewer in obvious and subtle ways.
though i do think he has a point about that, i guess it's more directed towards practical applications of illustration than creating art for pleasure or personal enjoyment. so all in all i guess i appreciate both the analytical critique and the deeper, simple critique :)
this is an interesting point that i've pondered myself as an art student (at a more practically-oriented art school as well). i totally agree with you about following the "rules" of composition to the dot, or even just making them conscious while designing a piece. i've always thought that it was better to go with how you actually feel about the layout instinctually or subconsciously, as opposed to nitpicking about every aspect of it, and i've wondered if the composition classes were there in part to teach the students who really have no "eye" or instinctual feeling about composition a logical, emotionless, procedural way to create a decent one.
i had a few illustration classes though with a professor who really made us conscious of every aspect of composition, color, and technique in order to take control of them, bend them to fit our subject, and ultimately make our illustrations more effective to the viewer in obvious and subtle ways.
though i do think he has a point about that, i guess it's more directed towards practical applications of illustration than creating art for pleasure or personal enjoyment. so all in all i guess i appreciate both the analytical critique and the deeper, simple critique :)
Re: Re: Re: How and Why I Critique
Max: You said 1.- it helps improve my observation skills when i critique
2.- the people that critique me help me to see the things that i don´t see ´cuase after some long hours of work i loose my objetivity, so the feedback keep me real.
Those are great points. (Although sometimes I reverse and I start seeing EVERY little flaw if I stare at a pic too much.)
Side note: Although I have to say that I think there's a big difference between saying "The head of your character sucks because it's too big" and saying "The proportions of your character's head is too big for his body" or even "The head is too big for the body." If I heard the first sentence, I might think that the whole head sucked. Or that it ruined the whole picture, when in fact, it might be more minor than that.
2.- the people that critique me help me to see the things that i don´t see ´cuase after some long hours of work i loose my objetivity, so the feedback keep me real.
Those are great points. (Although sometimes I reverse and I start seeing EVERY little flaw if I stare at a pic too much.)
Side note: Although I have to say that I think there's a big difference between saying "The head of your character sucks because it's too big" and saying "The proportions of your character's head is too big for his body" or even "The head is too big for the body." If I heard the first sentence, I might think that the whole head sucked. Or that it ruined the whole picture, when in fact, it might be more minor than that.
Re: Re: How and Why I Critique
Zef, you said: As an example, I don't want criticism telling me what I should do instead, I only want to know if it worked for the eye or if it didn't. If you liked it, or if you didn't like it.
That's a good point. I guess I forgot that. It's not bad to offer suggestions, but you have to make it clear that it's just a suggestion, or maybe a wish. And let the artist explain why they did what they did, if they want to. Maybe they had a reason for it. Having a dialogue about art is another way of letting the artist express themselves.
That's a good point. I guess I forgot that. It's not bad to offer suggestions, but you have to make it clear that it's just a suggestion, or maybe a wish. And let the artist explain why they did what they did, if they want to. Maybe they had a reason for it. Having a dialogue about art is another way of letting the artist express themselves.
Dropbox Woes
Is the dropbox working for anyone? I've been trying for the last few days and now it's the deadline...
Re: Dropbox Woes
it has not worked for like a month i guess we have to wait utill ICE in on full activity and wait to see what Root or Sloth says, i guess
:D don´t worry we are lagged a moth back since some time it is normal that the pack goes a bit out of date =)
:D don´t worry we are lagged a moth back since some time it is normal that the pack goes a bit out of date =)
Re: Re: Dropbox Woes
Okay, thanks, maxetormer.
test
ing
Re: test
hehe
got some tiles ready to upload to ...
got some tiles ready to upload to ...