HONEST critisism of art

[The Batfan]

Originally Posted by Mean Green

I adopted this method as well.



A "nice" and a "looks great" is hardly butt kissing. And you're right, I see you're not trying to earn "ASSHOLE" but that's only cause you've already got it tattooed on your forehead.

No I am saying that anytime an artist posts up a piece on here no one critiques it for the flaws that are there. Everyone is too scared that the artist is here to say what they really think...

what can I expect from you, you like the green guy lol where is that Hulk hate thread again lol

[SunnyLee]

From an artist's perspective, I suppose it depends. If the client has bought, paid for, and is genuinely pleased with the product and doesn't ask for opinions on it, then I would go with carlito's way - post if you enjoy it, stay quiet if you don't. Critiquing a piece someone bought is more about critiquing their tastes versus critiquing the art itself.

On the other hand, if a piece is in progress or posted by an artist (ahem), then I would say fair game. Because it's the originator of the art that is making the art available for all to see and is the sole person capable of altering/fixing/justifying the work you see. A collector has limited means by which to change the art.

IMO, art critiqued in the hands of a collector become (perhaps inadvertently) a critique of their tastes as much as it is the art. Art critiqued in the hands of the artist is something that the artist can value and adjust if necessary.

[SunnyLee]

so of course, this begs the question - which piece of art are you thinking of when you posted this??? Hmmmmmm??

[The Batfan]

Originally Posted by SunnyLee

From an artist's perspective, I suppose it depends. If the client has bought, paid for, and is genuinely pleased with the product and doesn't ask for opinions on it, then I would go with carlito's way - post if you enjoy it, stay quiet if you don't. Critiquing a piece someone bought is more about critiquing their tastes versus critiquing the art itself.

On the other hand, if a piece is in progress or posted by an artist (ahem), then I would say fair game. Because it's the originator of the art that is making the art available for all to see and is the sole person capable of altering/fixing/justifying the work you see. A collector has limited means by which to change the art.

IMO, art critiqued in the hands of a collector become (perhaps inadvertently) a critique of their tastes as much as it is the art. Art critiqued in the hands of the artist is something that the artist can value and adjust if necessary.

I agree with you, but as an artist thou would you not want people to tell you things they might see from an outside perspective on a piece you post because sometimes your too involved with the art to see the mistakes. Like the perspective is pff anatomy is off etc? so that the artist can learn to correct the mistakes they make and that helps them to become a better artist?

I might not like every character that people post (all that crappy Marvel art lol) but as someone who appreciates art be it pencils,inks,crayons etc I love looking at all kinds of art and set aside my personal taste at times lol I dont look at all digital pieces in the same way that I do traditional but I can appreciate a piece if its done right.

[UnicornPegasus]

If it's genuine, and constructive, I see no problem with it. If it's just "oh, that looks like crap, I hate it" that's just pointless and unneeded.

[The Batfan]

Originally Posted by SunnyLee

so of course, this begs the question - which piece of art are you thinking of when you posted this??? Hmmmmmm??

Your safe the new Piece you did for Mike is excellent

[The Batfan]

Originally Posted by UnicornPegasus

If it's genuine, and constructive, I see no problem with it. If it's just "oh, that looks like crap, I hate it" that's just pointless and unneeded.

nooo not like that as in ALL HULK pieces suck no matter what lol but if say the artist drew the anatomy wrong or perspective is off or thats totally the wrong setting for that character etc (unless the commissioner asked for it like that) is what I mean not just being negative to be negative.

[Mean Green]

Originally Posted by SunnyLee

From an artist's perspective, I suppose it depends. If the client has bought, paid for, and is genuinely pleased with the product and doesn't ask for opinions on it, then I would go with carlito's way - post if you enjoy it, stay quiet if you don't. Critiquing a piece someone bought is more about critiquing their tastes versus critiquing the art itself.

On the other hand, if a piece is in progress or posted by an artist (ahem), then I would say fair game. Because it's the originator of the art that is making the art available for all to see and is the sole person capable of altering/fixing/justifying the work you see. A collector has limited means by which to change the art.

IMO, art critiqued in the hands of a collector become (perhaps inadvertently) a critique of their tastes as much as it is the art. Art critiqued in the hands of the artist is something that the artist can value and adjust if necessary.

[SunnyLee]

Feedback is a tricky beast. Like with all things, it also depends heavily on a lot of factors. The artist's receptiveness, his skill level, the kind of feedback offered, the history of the artist's style...

If the artist is receptive, and the critique constructive and not based on personal taste (ie, the arm looks short vs. the rendering on the coat looks too leathery) then it has merit. But like unicornPegasus said, if you don't like because you're not a fan of the artist, his style, or the character (or anything else), then it becomes something else.

To me tho, the time and place for feedback is when the rough is complete and the client has time to review it and take a look to see if anything is off kilter. Usually I also send it to other artist friends of mine and editors I still talk to to get input on what kind of placement/anatomy/etc fixes I can make to make it a more dynamic piece.

[statman]

Originally Posted by SunnyLee

From an artist's perspective, I suppose it depends. If the client has bought, paid for, and is genuinely pleased with the product and doesn't ask for opinions on it, then I would go with carlito's way - post if you enjoy it, stay quiet if you don't. Critiquing a piece someone bought is more about critiquing their tastes versus critiquing the art itself.

On the other hand, if a piece is in progress or posted by an artist (ahem), then I would say fair game. Because it's the originator of the art that is making the art available for all to see and is the sole person capable of altering/fixing/justifying the work you see. A collector has limited means by which to change the art.

IMO, art critiqued in the hands of a collector become (perhaps inadvertently) a critique of their tastes as much as it is the art. Art critiqued in the hands of the artist is something that the artist can value and adjust if necessary.

Excellent post Sunny!

Most of the time, when a collector is posting a piece of art, it is because they are proud of it and want to show it off. Criticizing a piece that someone has purchased because they like it, to me, is a faux pas. If I'm not particularly fond of a piece that has been posted, I either don't say anything, or say congrats on the pick-up. No need to make someone feel bad about art that they like.

If an artist posts something, like Sunny stated, that is another story. I would say polite constructive criticism is OK.