How to give a critique

N

ntl

Contributing Member
Messages
1,574
Things to consider to help us grow:
Positive
Focal point/Center of Interest (good to have, not a necessity, IMO)
Mood or Feeling
Creativity
Composition
Hue, Value, Chroma

What else can be added to a positive list?

What can be added for a negative list?
Plagiarism (not copying to learn)
Incorrectness: shadows in the wrong direction, horizon line off, size of elements off
Elements not appropriate: the wrong bark or branching on a tree

What else can be added to a negative list?

Please add your thoughts
There are a few "lists" on the web: here's one
www.liveabout.com

What to Consider when Critiquing a Painting

A checklist of things to consider and assess when looking critically a painting, whether it's by someone else or your own.
www.liveabout.com www.liveabout.com
 
Last edited:
Thanks ntl, this is a very good comprehensive list that can get people started on giving good critiques! I will try to think of more when I have half a brain. o_O
 
mill said:
The guides originally given by Henry Rankin Poore and Ian Roberts are just as relevant today as they ever were.I have put out a free book you might find useful in this, you'll find it at: https://en.calameo.com/read/006503327ad682fc32541
Click to expand...
That book is quite a great resource. I browsed it a bit, and think it would be quite useful. I am wondering if a mod could pin your post on a more accessible place in the forums, if this thread stops being active it might sink in oblivion (I bookmarked the link ;) )
 
I recently heard this..
When giving a critique it's good to put the criticism between two slices of sweetness.

Example:

"Nice painting! But this part of most of it is horrible. Oh but nice painting keep going!" Something like that.
 
I recently heard this..
When giving a critique it's good to put the criticism between two slices of sweetness.

Example:

"Nice painting! But this part of most of it is horrible. Oh but nice painting keep going!" Something like that.

We try to do something like that in school... especially when talking to a student's parents:

"Well Mrs. XYZ, Johnny is very good at tying his shoes... but he has absolutely no motor skills whatsoever."
 
haha, try to give constructive criticism if needed. People generally will appreciate that.
 
TL;DR. The following is all in my most humble and subjective -and arguable- opinion.

Negatives, besides plagiarism or appropriation, I think there can only be few to none.

Almost all other things may be intentional: who tells us the author didn't aim for cognitive disonance as an intentional effect (e.g. shadows going the wrong direction, eggs hanging from a thread...).

Thus, I think it is better framed as question: this makes me uneasy... and ask if it was intended. If not, and requested to, then offer advice and suggestion: e.g. "great picture, but I think it would look better if the main subject followed the rule of thirds", or "great harmonious colors, although I personally would have preferred to use a complementary color for contrast"...

The point is, you do not know if it is intentional or not, so no way to criticize (what about saying a Dada masterpiece looks childish? it would be absurd), only to try to find the good points, explain what it makes you feel and then explain what *you* might have done differently to achieve a *different* effect (which may be what the author intended or not). E.g. "Nice detail, the tilted horizon makes me nervous, I would have ensured it was horizontal to satisfy this compulsive-obsession of mine, but I recognize it may also make an stylistic statement".

And then, let the author decide if your interpretation matches their intention and whether what you would have done suits them or not. Maybe they didn't intend the result but find it actually suits them better than their original aim.

In his "Opera Aperta", Umberto Eco stated that works of art have many interpretations, that of the author and those of each observer, and they do not necessarily match. It sometimes (often? always?) happens that a work initially intended with some goal in mind ends meaning something different from what the author wanted (what did Leonardo intend with Mona Lisa's smile? I doubt it was a prank to confound observers, but it has become an archetype). And as well that an author may not have seen a meaning in their work everyone else does and then "discovers" and embraces those other meanings.

So do not "negatively criticize" (except to denounce plagiarism or appropriation of others' work): explain how it makes you feel, what *you* would have preferred to feel instead (or the message you "read" and the alternative message you would have chosen) and how you would likely have gone after the feeling/message you would have preferred instead, making it clear that that is your choice, and that the author must do his/her own choice and interpretation as well.

If the authors insist, ask them to explain what they intended. Often that, in itself, is enough for them to realize what might be wrong (if anything). And once they explain, humbly offer *your own* solutions, for there may always be better ones.
 
Gee, I wonder if Leonardo simply liked Mona's smile, and wanted to share it with others?
 
ntl said:
Things to consider to help us grow:
Positive
Focal point/Center of Interest (good to have, not a necessity, IMO)
Mood or Feeling
Creativity
Composition
Hue, Value, Chroma

What else can be added to a positive list?

What can be added for a negative list?
Plagiarism (not copying to learn)
Incorrectness: shadows in the wrong direction, horizon line off, size of elements off
Elements not appropriate: the wrong bark or branching on a tree

What else can be added to a negative list?

Please add your thoughts
There are a few "lists" on the web: here's one
www.liveabout.com

What to Consider when Critiquing a Painting

A checklist of things to consider and assess when looking critically a painting, whether it's by someone else or your own.
www.liveabout.com www.liveabout.com
Click to expand...
The good , the bad and the ugly ! What is pleasing to the eye is not always pleasing to the mind .

From a young age people learn how to draw by copying physical reality and drawing what they observe. In reality good art is the drawings and paintings that have realism , representing what we obseve . It is easy to spot when something drawn or painted does not look near to exact physical reality and often this art is deemed as bad.

Ugly paintings are often a choice of content rather than ability of the artist . Scenes of art that offend do not belong in the world of art .

However , then there is abstract art which is often bad but sometimes pleasing to peoples minds for various reasons . Everybody must agree that abstracts are not fine art !

To me , perfect art is art that is good and tells a story because without a story good art is stagment and without meaningful purpose .

P.s People who draw then paint might as well buy a colouring in book in my opinion ! 🫡


Added- My review , somebody who can't paint got away with it .
 
Last edited:
Rich53 said:
Gee, I wonder if Leonardo simply liked Mona's smile, and wanted to share it with others?
Click to expand...
I bet he did. But afterwards everyone has wondered what did that smile hid or mean. Which most likely was nothing intentional. But has made it _the_ universal masterpiece of Art.
 
As for fidelity to Reality... I beg to disagree.

When I had the choice to see an exposition on the evolution of Mondrian I discovered not only that he was great at reproducing Reality, but also understood how he arrived to his late paintings. Picasso was also great at detailed reproduction already in his early childhood, but I fail to see how any realistic painting would have had the impact or message of "Guernica".

Reality is easy to reproduce with absolute fidelity in Photography. But when one wants to explain a feeling, it very often (actually always) is the result of many experiences, often contradictory and never equal. The net result of those experiences is none of them, and one cannot express all at once without distorting reality nor can one select a single representative scene for all the experiences.

The problem is that sometimes the result may look too simple or too distorted, to the point of seeming "bad". In the case of Mondrian one needs to see his evolution to realize it wasn't bad at all and the mastery hidden. Now, once you have that, others may decide to take shortcuts and aim directly for the effect. Which is great for there is no need to reproduce everything humans have done to date to become a modern human.

I do agree that certainly there are also others who see this and think "I can do the same without effort and pretend I am an artist". But those usually do not understand what they are reproducing or why it was done that way and as a consequence their work fails to elicit the same impressions.

For me, it is the expression, the impression a work makes in the soul that makes it truly Art (capital A). I've been to international expositions where some works simply didn't say anything, others were meh, others nice, and some would draw my attention from a 100 yards/meters away... even if they all were non-figurative color blots on canvas. Oddly when I got closer, I would see that the appealing ones often came from some well known and widely praised artist.

I take that to mean that some people can produce an effect with just a blot of color (or something else), while most can't. So, one can tell also good from bad "abstract", "simplified", whatever representations.

Fidelity to Nature?

I could already get that with photography (small p) before I mastered it. Art? Photography (big P) is distinguished not because of fidelity (like the f32 group), but because of something else, an impression, a feeling that is the result not of fidelity but of composition, choice of subject, instantaneous moment, post-processing, choice of sky, shadows, colors, date, interaction with the subject, lighting, and many more. And so a blurry shot (like many from Cartier-Bresson) can be more artistic than a precise one. Otherwise every photographer would work always only at F32 or greater, in the largest format possible and with a tripod. And yet, even at F32 there are good and bad pictures that anybody can tell apart.

I take that to mean that some people can produce an effect with a blurry picture (or else) while most can't. So, one can also tell good from bad Photography. And it is not fidelity that makes it.

OTOH, I do also recognize this is just my opinion, and that I may be terribly wrong, so let us agree on disagree.
 
fine art
/ˌfīn ˈärt/
noun

  1. 1.
    creative art, especially visual art whose products are to be appreciated primarily or solely for their imaginative, aesthetic, or intellectual content.
    "the convergence of popular culture and fine art"



    ***************************So that includes the Mona Lisa and the "scribblings" of Twombly
  2. 1734113078263.png


    This painting sold for 41 million dollars If this was subjected to criticism here .......well..... we would probably politely say something and hope the artist gets help.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

TamPaints
Self teaching myself the fundamentals -- a list of resources I've used
Replies
1
Views
412
MrBungle
MrBungle
MurrayG
Have you been asked to just GIVE someone artwork?
2 3
Replies
48
Views
3K
JennieJo
JennieJo
Hausamann
Ressurection (a work in progress).
2
Replies
30
Views
1K
JennieJo
JennieJo
Artyczar
Julie Starr AKA JStarr
2
Replies
33
Views
2K
JStarr
JStarr
I
Critique subforum
Replies
11
Views
886
P. Barrie
P. Barrie
Back
Top