Caedes

Non-art Website Issues

Discussion Board -> Non-art Website Issues -> Yet another Critical Commentary thread

Yet another Critical Commentary thread

&animaniactoo
03/17/09 7:26 PM GMT
I have been remiss and mucho busy with life and teenagers and deadlines, and I meant to comment on one of the many threads.... 3 weeks ago.

Well. I still have deadlines and teenagers, so I don't have time to go digging to figure out what thread it was I meant to comment on, and hey! somebody may have addressed this by now, so if they have, feel free to let this thread gather mold and dust. Just please don't try to mold the dust. I have allergies ya know.

I've been here for something like 4 years now. There are various threads that are recurring themes, and in some ways these issues never die, because new members join and add their voices to the chorus, while some of the old voices grow tired and grumpy of rehashing what is the same old ground - for them. Thus ensuing rounds of crankiness - both from those tired of hearing about the subject, and those gettin pissed off that their concerns/suggestions are being dismissed/however they feel they're being taken.

I would tend to say that while the rounds *do* get tiresome, there is value in them. In searching for new solutions/suggestions, and just being aware that an issue still exists. F'rinstance. A couple of months ago, while searching for some old thread, I found - a 6 year old thread on the lack of critical commentary on this site, and what a problem it is. DOH!

So... I leave these things to be pondered:

1) I believe that constructive criticism is essential to the heart and soul of what this site is for me - a community where artists are encouraged not just to post, but to share and grow.

2) A comment like "beautiful" can be a worthy comment. However, if it is the only type of comment that you ever leave, it does not hold as much weight as it does from someone who frequently does do constructive criticism.

3a) Some have been burned by offering critical commentary by those who do not take it well. So we let those who do not take it well "win" by not offering it to *anyone*? 90% of the time if you offer critical commentary that is thoughtful and considerate, if someone takes offense to it, it is not *your* fault that they have taken offense to it.

3b) However, due to 3a, I made a suggestion a year or 3 back to allow people on upload to select what level of criticism they wanted, with only 3 categories "light, medium, super-burnt" essentially. Frankly I believe that this will serve 2 purposes: First, it will allow those who wish to be helpful to tailor their comments to their audience and not get burned out from blowback, and Second, it will make it clear to those uploading, that constructive criticism is coming. Expect it, be ready for it.

4) You do not have to be *any* kind of a pro to have or leave an opinion on an image. And the only way to become a pro is by taking some things into consideration when you see an image. Like contrast (harshness/balance of extremes of light within the image), angle - do you like the angle you see it at, or are you just dying to see what it would have looked like if it was turned a bit? Composition (how the major and minor subjects of focus are presented) - too close up, not close enough up (too many other things in the image aka too busy/confusing), if it would look better lower down or higher up, to the right, now stick your foot out and do the hokey pokey... uh whoops... back to the subject at hand. Do you like the colors and feel they play off each other well, or does something stick out like a sore thumb? What about mood? Does the image just remind you of something? What was it?

These are things to think about - but in the meantime - do you have to be a pro @ anything involving moviemaking to know whether or not you liked a movie? To be able to figure out a couple of things you did or didn't like even if you did or didn't like the whole thing?

Not every piece of constructive criticism has to be in-depth - and in fact, some of the broader comments can be some of the best ones. Tell me what you don't like and why if you can, and let me as an artist find a solution that fits my style, but does a better job of achieving my intent. Suggestions are great, but so is freedom to think without considering a suggestion.

I do have a bit more to say, but a deadline is looming (no not the one that involves your reading interest here although that one applies to.

So I'll leave off by rehashing the next piece - the dreaded Voting Booth (which I see has recently undergone a change).

I think maybe what we need is a multi-level voting booth. I've seen some suggestions for splitting out on various different categories, but I'd like to use just 2. Artistic and Technical, with the option to vote a "dunno" on the technical if someone doesn't feel qualified. Let's not make it overly-complicated and technical *sticks tongue in cheek* 8•P

My reasoning behind this is 2-fold. Some people (particularly on the digital side) have expressed frustration that voters don't know what goes into an image and how involved and complicated and technically perfect it may be and should be given credit for. Well yes - technical achievement *should* be noted. But what should also be noted - is that in an artistic piece, it doesn't matter if it's the most technically perfect thing that's ever been done - if it doesn't move your audience, then it hasn't achieved the goal of conveying something *to* the audience. Whether it is humor, beauty, melancholy, whatever.

The other issue is... The Beatles. Hey, you know them. Wildly popular band, tremendous fan following and appreciation long after they recorded the last song they ever will. Wanna know something interesting about The Beatles? Critical reviews of their work were often not complimentary - then. They were not a technically great band. What they did do is *connect* to their audience. This is what they are remembered for.
0∈ [?]
One man sees things and says "why?" - but I dream things that never were and I say "why not?"

Comments

Post a Comment  -  Subscribe to this discussion
::Hottrockin
03/20/09 11:18 PM GMT
--too long...makes it uninteresting. Sorry!!

~moves on~
0∈ [?]
Why do the pictures come out square when the lens is round??
::verenabloo
03/21/09 7:08 AM GMT
Wow, maybe you ought to write a small brochure or book? This is a lot to read in here...me agrees with Randy. There is really something about being "too wordy"..sorry..you lost me at "pondered".........Verena
0∈ [?]
Those that make the best use of their time have none to spare.
::rp64
03/22/09 12:07 AM GMT
Cat,

An intersting piece for those of us with an attention span not trained by 30 second sound bites.

You had me (especially with the analogy to movies), until the last paragraph. My fear is that people will view that a liscence to upload a shot of their father-in-law in his Bermuda shorts walking past the entrance to an amusement park...because the Ferris Wheel in the background looked cool.

Ok, ok, peace everyone, it was hyperbole to drive the point.

I'll also be curious to see if anyone besides the usual crowd wnaders in to throw their two cents worth in.

Rich



0∈ [?]
Three cheers for "Wonko the Sane" !
::casechaser
03/22/09 2:49 AM GMT
Cat, I believe that the connection one makes to another IS what is important here. We could have a site where "technically perfect" pictures would be the only ones to exist and I believe that within that group you would have pictures that would be bland, and, you would have some wonderful pictures of art which would connect to an audience. The same is true for all other levels of technically skilled artists. There will be bland snapshots and there will be wonderfully moving pieces. I say, let them all in and allow them to have their "Beatles" opportunities.
0∈ [?]
.mxvirgil
03/23/09 2:26 AM GMT
Hi Cat.

I read your post without even a cup of coffee...and I'm not doing the 'hokie-pokie'...

1st, is this a desktop image site? If so, I'm not going to d/l a picture of -your- uncle in Bermuda shorts unless there's an UFO in the background abducting him, and I'll probably try to sell the image to the NSA. Kidding. Can we just remember that our submission implies we consider our image suitable to occupy a stranger's desktop?

2nd, personal taste is and always will be subjective. IMHO a technically perfect image of a mundane subject is just as annoying as a captivating subject captured/processed poorly. I don't know anything about fractals/abstracts, but I really like some.

If you can come up with a totally objective way to quantify and qualify all of the manifold aspects of the 'art' submitted to this venue, I'd be very interested in the algorithm -- it'd make a great program.

When critiquing an image of the Rockies (by request), Pat Andre said, "It just didn't strike me." Yeah, me either, Pat -- I snapped it while waiting for the girls to come back from the bathroom at the visitor's center. hehehe

- Mike
0∈ [?]
Mares eat oats and does eat oats and little lambs eat ivy. A kid'll eat ivy too, wouldn't you?
&animaniactoo
03/23/09 7:47 PM GMT
You all make good points (including the people who called me too wordy. 8•P).

I think I may have left a misimpression - While the Beatles weren't technical masters, neither were they outright bad. They were pretty competent. They didn't dress up their melodic lines, but the melodic lines existed in clean forms that made for good hearing as a basis. The voices, the words, the rest were what played on top of that to create a whole. And it was the whole that grabbed the attention of their fans.

Mike wrote: "IMHO a technically perfect image of a mundane subject is just as annoying as a captivating subject captured/processed poorly"

I very much agree - which is in the main my point about the possibility of separating the technical and artistic marks. I haven't voted in quite a while (*note to self: create time), but when I do, I *do* take a point or so off something that is artistically good because there's too much noise, or some other technical issue (blown-out highlights, etc.). Something that's technically good but uninspiring is likely to grab a couple of points for difficulty/execution, but might end up a 4 or a 6 because well... it just didn't move me.

Sure art will always be subjective, different things will "speak" to different people in various ways. I wouldn't want to begin to quantify that. Especially cuz there's really nothing that says one person's opinion is more right than another's. But I do think it would be useful to the artist if they had an idea of what the "audience" 's opinion was if you separate the technical from the artistic ratings. Provided of course that at least some of the audience feels comfy giving technical ratings. 8•)
0∈ [?]
One man sees things and says "why?" - but I dream things that never were and I say "why not?"

Leave a comment (registration required):

Subject: