What is an art critique?
Fred Doyle
Threads have been going around on adg the last couple of days about
critiquing other artists work, and indirectly related to that, what is,
or isn't a "professional" critique. I guess that general consensus was
that simply saying something sucked was not a "true" critique. Forget
whether or not the work truly sucked. I think even those who simply
posted "it sucked" felt it wasn't a "true" critique, but that the manner
in which it was asked for didn't deserve much more.
Then, Hatter posted what he said was a "critque" but I felt that was no
more of a critque than, "it sucked" was. It suggested some technical
considerations, but never rose beyond the level of a plumber,
criticizing another plumber's work.
So that begs the question of what is a "good" art critique. I read an
art review in the NY Times just a second ago, and while it is really
more of an art show review, I thought it came closer to what I'd call a
true critique, or artistic criticism.
(http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/16/arts/design/16hodg.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
)
Anybody got any other examples of what they think is a valuable and
insightful critique that they can point to?
--
Fred Doyle
Onideus Mad Hatter
wrote:
Well to me there are two kinds of critiques, those that examine a work
subjectively and those that examine a work based on pure technical
analysis.
To me, a subjective critique, in order to be good, must be given a
basis of comparison or a primer. For example explain that you are
judging a work based on its ability to convey a certain emotion. It's
the difference between saying "Austin Powers 3 sucked" and saying,
"Austin Powers 3, as a comedy, was sorely lacking, relying on the same
jokes that were already used in the first two movies and relying more
on low brow humor than sophisticated wit."
Because in THAT sense, well if you're judging the movie based on its
merit in regards to toilet humor, well it'd actually be quite good
compared to other movies in that class. Subjectively nothing is ever
ALWAYS good or ALWAYS bad, it ALWAYS depends on the perspective to
which you are taking in analyzing the form. Another good example is
Hitler, from a humanitarian perspective he was an uber fucking
asshole, but then from a public speaking perspective he was an
incredibly great man.
Overall I don't put much stock in subjective critiques, I think they
can be good to use as a means of summarizing potential work that you
might like to see (like a movie critique), but as far as FURTHERING
the art or evolving it...nah, I don't think subjective critiques
really work that way.
Technical critiques are what I like best because they can directly
affect the quality and presentation of the content. They don't
necessarily change the NATURE of the content, they simply refine it.
A good example is my CB sites:
http://www.backwater-productions.net/carebears/
http://www.backwater-productions.net/care-bears/
Both are presenting the same content, but the newest one presents it
in a much more refined way. That refinement was the product of
learning new techniques and methodologies in both graphic design and
web development. It was pure technical achievement that allowed that
progression and evolution.
--
Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm น x น
http://www.backwater-productions.net
http://www.backwater-productions.net/hatter-blog
Hatter Quotes
-------------
"You're only one of the best if you're striving to become one of the
best."
"I didn't make reality, Sunshine, I just verbally bitch slapped you
with it."
"I'm not a professional, I'm an artist."
"Your Usenet blinders are my best friend."
"Usenet Filters - Learn to shut yourself the fuck up!"
"Drugs killed Jesus you know...oh wait, no, that was the Jews, my
bad."
"There are clingy things in the grass...burrs 'n such...mmmm..."
"The more I learn the more I'm killing my idols."
"Is it wrong to incur and then use the hate ridden, vengeful stupidity
of complete strangers in random Usenet froups to further my art?"
"Freedom is only a concept, like race it's merely a social construct
that doesn't really exist outside of your ability to convince others
of its relevancy."
"Next time slow up a lil, then maybe you won't jump the gun and start
creamin yer panties before it's time to pop the champagne proper."
"Reality is directly proportionate to how creative you are."
"People are pretty fucking high on themselves if they think that
they're just born with a soul. *snicker*...yeah, like they're just
givin em out for free."
"Quible, quible said the Hare. Quite a lot of quibling...everywhere.
So the Hare took a long stare and decided at best, to leave the rest,
to their merry little mess."
"There's a difference between 'bad' and 'so earth shatteringly
horrible it makes the angels scream in terror as they violently rip
their heads off, their blood spraying into the faces of a thousand
sweet innocent horrified children, who will forever have the terrible
images burned into their tiny little minds'."
"How sad that you're such a poor judge of style that you can't even
properly gauge the artistic worth of your own efforts."
"Those who record history are those who control history."
"I am the living embodiment of hell itself in all its tormentive rage,
endless suffering, unfathomable pain and unending horror...but you
don't get sent to me...I come for you."
"Ideally in a fight I'd want a BGM-109A with a W80 250 kiloton
tactical thermonuclear fusion based war head."
"Tell me, would you describe yourself more as a process or a
function?"
"Apparently this group has got the market cornered on stupid.
Intelligence is down 137 points across the board and the forecast
indicates an increase in Webtv users."
"Is my .sig delimiter broken? Really? You're sure? Awww,
gee...that's too bad...for YOU!" `, )
Fred Doyle
>
> Well to me there are two kinds of critiques, those that examine a work
> subjectively and those that examine a work based on pure technical
> analysis.
I'd argue that what you call a "technical analysis" is just as
subjective as what you call subjective.
> To me, a subjective critique, in order to be good, must be given a
> basis of comparison or a primer. For example explain that you are
> judging a work based on its ability to convey a certain emotion. It's
> the difference between saying "Austin Powers 3 sucked" and saying,
> "Austin Powers 3, as a comedy, was sorely lacking, relying on the same
> jokes that were already used in the first two movies and relying more
> on low brow humor than sophisticated wit."
If I understand you, I think what you are trying to say is that a good
"subjective" critique has to create an aesthetic on which it is based.
ALL good criticism defines an aesthetic, IMHO, i.e. a set of rules by
which to judge a work of art. That becomes a way that the reader of the
critique can judge whether or not they agree with the critic's analysis.
In a sense, it is a bargain between the critic and the reader that says,
"If you agree with my system for judging a work of art, I'll inform you
of what works I see there that you will like."
> Because in THAT sense, well if you're judging the movie based on its
> merit in regards to toilet humor, well it'd actually be quite good
> compared to other movies in that class. Subjectively nothing is ever
> ALWAYS good or ALWAYS bad, it ALWAYS depends on the perspective to
> which you are taking in analyzing the form. Another good example is
> Hitler, from a humanitarian perspective he was an uber fucking
> asshole, but then from a public speaking perspective he was an
> incredibly great man.
OK, different aesthetics will result in different judgments about works
of art. Leave people out of it. They aren't works of art, and I happen
to believe there are some absolute standards of good and bad for people,
and I'm certain that's something on which we'll never understand each
other and is a side issue at best.
> Technical critiques are what I like best because they can directly
> affect the quality and presentation of the content. They don't
> necessarily change the NATURE of the content, they simply refine it.
>
> A good example is my CB sites:
> http://www.backwater-productions.net/carebears/
> http://www.backwater-productions.net/care-bears/
>
> Both are presenting the same content, but the newest one presents it
> in a much more refined way.
> That refinement was the product of
> learning new techniques and methodologies in both graphic design and
> web development. It was pure technical achievement that allowed that
> progression and evolution.
All you're doing with your "technical critique" is beginning to define
an aesthetic by which YOU, as a critic, will judge works. At best, your
"objective technical" analysis is an aesthetic that YOU agree with.
There's nothing universal and absolute in that aesthetic. Nor is it the
appropriate aesthetic by which to judge every web work of art or
critique every artist. In this case it may be that it was wholly the
wrong way to critique a person's involvement in the project. From his
response, he may not have made the artistic decisions that lead to the
use of those techniques.
Beyond that, your aesthetic is woefully undefined. "Refined" means what?
Is "refinement" always, in all cases, better? Why? Who says so? What are
your standards of "refinement?"
Aren't you just establishing your own aesthetic of what is "good" and
"bad"? I'd agree the second page is better, but I'd not use any
technical terms to say so. I'd use an aesthetic that's based on
appropriateness to subject matter and audience.
What made your "critique" posted earlier this week so bad, and nothing
more than one bush league plumber ranting at another plumber, was that
it assumed an aesthetic, and never defined it. It never even explained
what made things good or bad within that aesthetic. It assumed that the
aesthetic was absolute and should be universal, and frankly, its not. It
may not even have been an appropriate aesthetic by which to judge the
artists involvement which would make it a worthless critique, IMHO.
--
Fred Doyle
Onideus Mad Hatter
wrote:
>Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:
Um, the critique had nothing to do with aesthetics, the site redesign
that I made:
http://www.backwater-productions.net/_images/_Usenet/Martin_Is_A_Retard/
It's the EXACT same site...it's just several hundred percent small in
overall site size which means it'll use less bandwidth and will load
faster for the end user.
See that's the point of a technical critique, it isn't so much
concerned with any kind of subjectivity.
As I mentioned in another post though you can combine the two to an
extent. For example if the person has a navigation system that's just
a solid block of color, well on the one hand that may have been the
style they were going for, but that doesn't mean you still can't
critique it on a technical level by explaining and presenting other
techniques for gradient shading, transparencies, etc. Subjectively
those techniques are not necessarily "better", it depends on what the
artist has in mind.
When I say my new CB site is more refined, I mean it matches more with
my artistic vision. And even if the artist isn't going to employ such
techniques to meet their artistic vision that doesn't mean you
shouldn't present them anyway, for the benefit of others who might
read the critique. It also gives the artist OPTIONS that they can
consider and experiment with to find the particular style they're
looking for.
Further, the subjectivity aside, you CAN grade a piece on technical
merit alone. Obviously it takes much more skill to create say a site
loader that looks like this:
http://www.backwater-productions.net/_images/_Scraps/loader-idea.png
Than it would to create one that was simply two plain solid colors and
uber simplistic. If the artist is going for some kind of minimalist
design then they may have achieved it well by going with uber
simplistic, but as far as technique and ability, it required none,
anyone could have made it.
To me there is a VERY distinct line between artistry and artistic
ability. Some people may have artistry in that they can create
something that invokes a lot of feelings or ideas, but at the same
time they can have next to zero artistic ability, in that they can't
even draw realistic looking human forms. Artistic ability is more
about trying to recreate reality as precise and natural as possible.
The more real it looks, the more talent you have in that area.
So now you might say, well what's the point?
Again, options. An artist with next to zero artistic ability will be
VERY limited in the means by which they can express themselves. New
techniques, new methods, new mediums, they all give artists new ways
of conveying their artistry, which is why it's so important.
Fred Doyle
"Onideus Mad Hatter" <use...@backwater-productions.net> wrote>
> Um, the critique had nothing to do with aesthetics, the site redesign
> that I made:
> http://www.backwater-productions.net/_images/_Usenet/Martin_Is_A_Retard/
>
> It's the EXACT same site...it's just several hundred percent small in
> overall site size which means it'll use less bandwidth and will load
> faster for the end user.
Sure your critque had to do with an aestheitc, whether you realize it or
not. You're beginning to define your aesthetic above, i.e. bandwidth usage
and speed of loading. That's an aesthetic, i.e. a system by which to judge
something, or a dictionary definition; "a philosophical theory or idea of
what is aesthetically valid at a given time and place:" That doesn't mean
that everyone will agree with your aesthetic, or even that it is always
appropriate one by which to judge a work of art.
> See that's the point of a technical critique, it isn't so much
> concerned with any kind of subjectivity.
Nope, I don't see your point at all. In fact i think you're very, very
confused and simply saying the way you approach and judge artwork is the one
objective and valid one, and aren't really seeing your own personal biases
and limitations. Your aesthetic, or "what is valid in this time and place,"
is based on certain technical considerations. They are YOUR aesthetic, and
hence they are subjective as to what is valid in this time and place. They
aren't universal, nor is the application of those criteria objective.
> When I say my new CB site is more refined, I mean it matches more with
> my artistic vision.
Trying to determine an artist's vision or intent is one aesthetic by which
to judge an artwork, but its not one I particularly care about, personally.
I think artistic intent is way overrated as a means of judging artwork, but
that's a much larger discussion.
> Further, the subjectivity aside, you CAN grade a piece on technical
> merit alone. Obviously it takes much more skill to create say a site
> loader that looks like this:
> http://www.backwater-productions.net/_images/_Scraps/loader-idea.png
All you're doing is using your subjective judgement about what is "skill" to
determine what is "good." Its not objective at all.
>
> Than it would to create one that was simply two plain solid colors and
> uber simplistic.
Look up Joseph Albers. Look at his artwork. I believe he'd say the skill
level needed to create a "good" site of just two solid colors might be
greater than what you demonstrate. But he was a color theorist and
approached his art with a very different aesthetic than you do. Still he's a
great artist and provided some outstanding insight into how we humans
perceive color.
> If the artist is going for some kind of minimalist
> design then they may have achieved it well by going with uber
> simplistic, but as far as technique and ability, it required none,
> anyone could have made it.
That's like the arguement, that, anyone could have take Edward Weston's
pictures of peppers. Geez, they were just peppers on a kitchen table. They
are great art however when judged by certain aesthetics.
>
> To me there is a VERY distinct line between artistry and artistic
> ability. Some people may have artistry in that they can create
> something that invokes a lot of feelings or ideas, but at the same
> time they can have next to zero artistic ability, in that they can't
> even draw realistic looking human forms. Artistic ability is more
> about trying to recreate reality as precise and natural as possible.
> The more real it looks, the more talent you have in that area.
That's one subjective aesthetic.
> Again, options. An artist with next to zero artistic ability will be
> VERY limited in the means by which they can express themselves. New
> techniques, new methods, new mediums, they all give artists new ways
> of conveying their artistry, which is why it's so important.
>
And that's another subjective aesthetic.
Fred Doyle