>I. DO NOT PRETEND TO KNOW WHAT YOU DO NOT KNOW.
If you're an artist and a critic tells you to work on your anatomy, then it is solely the critic's opinion that your anatomy needs work. There is no work of art so great it has forever silenced critics.
If you're a critic, start by stating the obvious. There is no need to waste time nitpicking or being creative with your reply. "Does this person know how to draw?" should always be your first thought.
>II. CRITICIZE THE PAST, BUT ACKNOWLEDGE.
History has deemed the artist notable, and if you wish for history to be so kind to you, you must at least acknowledge the artist's work survives some measure of time.
>III. CRITICIZE YOURSELF FIRST.
Criticism by another name, is consulting. Consulting is not free. If you ask "what is wrong with this?" then save the critic some effort and state what you already know is wrong with it.
IV. DON'T ASK QUESTIONS WITHOUT MAKING YOUR POSITION KNOWN.
"Is Rembrandt a good artist?" is a stupid question.
"Is Rembrandt a good artist? I think so." is a statement.
"Is Rembrandt the worst artist of all time? I think so." is a blog post.
"Is Rembrandt the worst artist of all time?" is food for thought.
>V. CRITICIZE THE WORK, NOT THE PERSON.
"You suck" should be replaced with "Your work sucks." It's terrible criticism nonetheless, but at least know you are dealing with human beings, not art machines.
>VI. ACKNOWLEDGE THE CRITIC DOES NOTHING.
Good criticism = "Consider the following."
The critic must acknowledge that the artist will never gobble up even the most valid of assertions. Even if the person takes your advice, they will harbor some resentment towards you. Never claim you are here help the person, only state that their work has conjured a feeling deep inside you that must express.
>VII. KNOW WHEN TO GIVE UP.
If the artist looks like they're going to be a little shit, then save your breath. Be biased. You know that a tumblrette doesn't give a shit about loomis, so instead suggest a place other than /ic/ to post their work.
>VIII. CHERISH THE CREATIVE PROCESS.
Take a moment and pretend the artwork posted is yours. Don't cherish and love it, because Lord knows the artist themselves already probably hate it. Taking this step will not improve your critique, but will instead enrich you as a human being.
>IX. BE A d/ic/k, BUT STRIVE FOR A HIGHER STANDARD OF d/ic/k.
Don't take /ic/'s collective hivemind infantile behaviour as the norm, even if it is. Be different. Nothing is going to change, but remember most people here have the mental age of a child.
>X. IF NOTHING GOOD CAN BE SAID, ASK A QUESTION.
We know /ic/ sucks, and we are taking steps to improve it. For many, there aren't many places like /ic/ where a commitment to classical fundamentals and hatred of unearned praise is pervasive.
"Why does /ic/ suck?" is a zen koan, meant to be contemplated, but does not truly have an answer.
All you need to know is Loomis, and needs more Loomis.
>>2310876
>>2310877
this list fucking sucks pussy
k
>>2310876
Post your art.
>failing to mention that critiquing is not shit posting or nitpicking
I get so tired of seeing noobs on /ic/ say stupid shit like
>but you don't have to be good to critique someone :^)
>it doesn't matter that I don't know how to apply perspective, I can still critique this person who's way better than me because they didn't spend 20 hours rendering
Your points may be valid, or you might be completely full of shit and not understand whats going on. Another thread where anon was "critiquing" that the artist didn't render the areas not the focal point comes to mind. The anon in question may of been a troll, but you know these "critiques" pop up all the time.
Alternatively there's many times the better artists knows what you're saying and is capable of applying it 100x better than you can even imagine, but they just don't care/don't have the time/can't be bother for that picture. And your critique does nothing but inflate your own ego.
>>2311069
/thread
>>2311094
>Alternatively there's many times the better artists knows what you're saying and is capable of applying it 100x better than you can even imagine, but they just don't care/don't have the time/can't be bother for that picture.
Well, they're free to keep their mistake as people are free to point them out. Nobody can read their mind to know whether something was due to them being lazy, or a honest mistake. By your principle, nobody really should be criticized because they could just be amazing artists being lazy.
>And your critique does nothing but inflate your own ego.
This is where you are wrong. If someone, especially someone who isn't a beginner, posts his work here, it's arguably for one of two reasons: because he wants to inflate HIS ego, or because he wants honest critique. If it's the former, critiquing him might cure him of his inflated ego disease and he deserves to be shitposted. If it's the latter, he gets what he wanted. So what if there's a risk of someone shitposting out of envy? No harm can be done to the artist this way, a good artist can discern if a critique is valid or not. If anything, in his blind rage the criticizer could spot a minor mistake that even the better artist missed. If the artist then gets angry because someone pointed out a minor mistake, it's his loss. A mistake is a mistake, no matter how minor it is and should be pointed out. If you have a problem with this, go to DA because this site might not be for you.
>>2311116
Different anon, I agree with this. There are two recurring instances where an obvious gap in knowledge between critic and artist really bothers me though: Critiques of sketches or block ins, and instances where the artist leaves a comment like "ignore this part, I've already got that". Times when people ignore intent and give a useless crit annoy me. There are too many people here who don't know how to crit the beginning stages of a pic beyond "finish it". I don't want to fix things when it's done, I want to fix them while it's a sketch, that's how you don't polish turds. And I just saw a post where the artist asked "how do I fix X" with a reply of "looks good but fix X". If the artist takes time to ask for specific help don't just gloss over it.
>>2311094
>but you don't have to be good to critique someone :^)
But you don't. :^)
You can be great, but sometimes even the average joe can tell that something's not working in an image you spent 4 hours frying your brain on. I agree that if they cannot articulate their criticisms, they should consult commandment X.
That's probably one of the biggest problems of this board, no one knows what to say but they know that something is wrong. They address it with hostility because it's the only way they know how.
>>2311094
>but you don't have to be good to critique someone :^)
You don't though, and trying to deflect criticism by hiding behind "let's see if you can do better" is foolish. I don't need to be a good cook to know if food tastes like shit, and I don't need to be a great artist to notice if something is wrong with a drawing.
>>2311181
>>2311194
Of course, if there is something wrong and you notice it, you have a right to mention it within a constructive criticism. But if your intent is to stomp down that person with aggressive and violent language, you ought to show how much better you are to have such a right to say such things. Hope we are on the same page here.
Is "it's shit, read sticky" a valid critique?
There are many noobs who obviously didn't even read the sticky, yet are asking for help. I don't see a point in helping people who are too lazy to look for informations themselves, especially if there's too many terrible things in their drawings to mention every problem. Do you agree?
>>2311181
>>2311194
Naturally you don't have to be as good, and blatant errors will be obvious for anyone. But far too often people give vague critics because they don't know what is wrong or how to fix it, they just feel the need to critique things.
If you yourself are not capable of doing it, mentioning it usually offers very little to the artist. Usually they themselves notice it beforehand and are looking for precise advice, not vague random callouts.
>>2311311
This is exactly the problem with the majority of critics on this board.
>>2311243
Critiques are only as valid as you want them to be. Nothing of the human condition is truly objective. You have to make a few judgment calls now and then.
So this thread is about the conduct of criticism? Cool!
there's both goodness and badness to anonmity
so because u r not like aftaid of being banned u r more honest
but because anon, no one can tel if your advice is worth following
good if u r too precious to have ur work dissed with ur name attach to it
bad because there are really spiteful shits who get off insulting people
so we need
the goodness of anonymity without the badness
we need a place where you can post anon, but that post will be screened by a mod first, and also, if you want to, post with your account so people don't have to ask "post ur work"
DO U GUYS WANT THIS?
>>2310878
That and ''read sticky'' is /ic/s favourite meme.
Artists and shitposters use it alike, its getting hard to see the difference.
If you want something critiqued, don't just say "critique plz", inform us.
Say what it is you think you're having trouble with, what you want help with, and what you already understand is shit but might not care as much about at this point.
>>2311943
Honestly, it's not really in a condescending meme though. We say it because we can tell you don't know the basic fundamentals that are covered in Loomis' work. like seriously, just stop, and read it already.
