There is some level were you just aren't aware of your mistakes. But most artist can see what's wrong. So getting a critique that points out whatt is wrong doesn't help that much.
Wouldn't it be more useful to actually get advice on how to fix what is wrong. Because chances are he knows it's wrong but doesn't know how to fix it or were to get the information to improve.
Sometimes, when you work on a piece for so long, you kind of forget to look at your own work as someone who has just seen your work for the first time. It's nice to get a person who actually has seen it for the first time.
And you're right, a critique needs to be specific and that's the reason why people here do those red lines at times. But things other than shapes and composition are often quite difficult to translate into words that the person can understand. Without just fixing it for them of course which is no use.
no, pointing what you're lacking might or not be userful, but that's up to oneself to be serious and take the effort to learn the fucking thing you're missing or misunderstanding
If someone is really trying to get better, good critiques will be userful. It's simple. If someone is just asking for hugs then it's other thing
Seeing what's wrong one thing, understand the problem is other.
If you can figure out the reason for the mistake then you can approach the issue with your toolkit/skillset or the lack of.
Most of the time it is the lack of mechanics that is needed to be address. And do this simply "research" and practice.
What more useful then critique is self realization of what you want for you art. And what you need to get there.
Also a persistent, discipline & positive mindset.
So gif related.
one more thing, stylisation bias will occur naturally.
I normally just look at my peers instead. Since they have similar skill like me, it's very easy to pick out exactly which aspects they do better than me and vice versa. They're not immeasurably better in any aspect, so taking that small step to find the aspects and mimicking it is pretty effective and yet easy. Just make sure you experiment with it to make it fully yours and make it a habit of yours to pick up specific things.
well not really. If the critique is the arm/head is to big. well then the fix is easy understandable.
But if the critique is your colors are muddy. Well this isnt' very usefull unless you can explain him how to fix the colors.
In terms of color, I find myself visually memorizing the location of color on the picker.
go on the internet and look up tutorials, study painters and develop a discerning eye as to what's a muddy palette and what's a natural palette, etc. there's little occurrences where someone will literally spell everything out for you unless you go take a class or a workshop
You're not seeing the forest for the trees.
There is no such thing as perfection, there will always be mistakes and artists who are serious strive to keep improving.
Critique boards and groups are not for you to go from A to Z in a single move, they are useful when you post to see what mistakes people will throw a tizzy about and which ones go ignored, so you focus on your more relevant mistakes first.
When the critique is something as obvious as that fence is wrong. The fix is easy.
But when someones problem is something more vague, then usually it's more helpful to guide him were he could get more knowledge about the specific problem his having rather then just pointing out that he has the problem.
An example would be someone whose values are all over the place. Well chance are he knows his values are bad. But what can he do to gain more knowledge about values. Telling him to first render the whole shape then slowly build his way up to specific areas is more beneficial then saying, your values are wrong.
Maybe for contexts where there is a defined right and wrong like live model drawing 101 but basically it isn't anyone's job to make your art for you. Critique is for learning to talk ABOUT things. I think what you are looking for is a teacher. Loomis is not a teacher, it is a book.
This is why /ic/ critique threads suck, it isn't semantics, critique is pretty specific but no one here knows what it means. "will you fix it for me pls" is a more apropriate thread title.
I'm not saying that that's what people should do, since it takes time to actual give real advice. But then i don't see the point of giving critiques except for maybe real beginners.
So my point is more along the line of, if you're not willing to actually help the person and take the time. Then you aren't really helping and you are just pointing out something that he allready knows is wrong.
Ic's tough love, is fine in the beginning, but soon is just pointless and isn't helpful if it's not willing to put the extra effort to actually trying to give advice.
advice is advice and critique is talk for the sake of talk. critique is not for beginners in the least, it's a dialogue and absent any experience or training there is no foothold to begin.
>hey here's a painting
>hey here's a painting
>huh, are you familiar with john doe?
>no, but i can see the relationship, his concerns about perspective appear also to be my concerns
>I think perspective blah blah
>what about blah blah though?
>i hate blah blah
>blah blah blha
/ic/'s structure is perfect for talk, and if it ever tried, it's use to artists would expand exponentially. It might even develop a school of thought all it's own, potentially becoming influential considering 4chan is already influential. In fact if you want to be a famous aritist >>/s4s/ they understand critique.
I don't mean to dismiss the rampant onslaught of advice-column-tumblr-tier-blogging-autist-fanboys, I support free speech, but co-opting and manipulating critique as a term is self-serving at best and ignorant at worst.
when someone says they don't like the shade of blue in the corner and it should be warmer, that is simply what they would do in that case. The statement influences and reinforces what THEY and perhapse another will do in the future, but that doesn't mean the artist should take that into consideration just b/c. If critique functions that way then everyone participating will end up making the same paitnings. Likewise it doesn't make the suggestion irrelevant critique as it is producing conversation that explores hypotheticals in a constructive manner.
From the other direction as you put it, if the person critiquing assumes the vantage pont of the artist's intent about the only thing to offer is "good job" and the conversation ends there, producing the effect so many d/ic/ks refer to as 'subjective'. The consequences are utterly boring.
participating in critique should bring the varried opinions of all present perspectives to create a conversation that the artist and those critiquing may glean some tangential insight. Mainly, the artist shouldn't take too much to heart, and everyone else should participate without getting bogged down in the subject of the critique as they are studying the work, not remaking it in their collective image. Critique isn't just for the artist's ego, it is in part, but more so to give everyone else the chance to shake the cobwebs of their own inner studio.
well i see were you're getting at. But then i'm not sure ic is the best place for this. I'd say it could happen more easily in a google hangout with like minded people you trust and respect.
Now of course you would need to find those people.
>not the best place
>/ic/ - Atwork & Browbeat into Conformity
>more easily on google
well no shit, but I don't argue on my own behalf, it's just sad watching lost kittens get their tail set on fire by dindu /pol/ack illustrators longing for the proverbial day of the rope and a prophesized return to pre Royal Academy slaving for the existing tastes of wealthy patrons aka weaboos.