rentreality Wrote:You managed to both miss the point and fail to follow the maxim all in one fell swoop. The point was that if you are unable to find a way to say something in a way that isn't either blatantly rude, uncouth, or immature, you likely should say nothing at all.
I will admit that I freely agree with Krent -- if the individual asks for criticism, you're open to criticize in any way you see fit. If not, common courtesy (a relative of common sense, perhaps?) dictates that you follow the rules of etiquette.
Someone to say that someone else has missed the point tends to win the round, however being that you do not understand what I'm trying to correct here is that it sounds like we can only critique things if we like it or say we like it or sugar coated a bunch. Its more of a joke than a debate, I'm just saying I hope this doesn't make everyone distraught and believe the only time we CAN critique is when we like the art which somewhat defeats the purpose of a critique in the first place. Furthermore there is a way to do everything and its in moderation, I can dislike something, exclaim my dislike for it, but in a more tactful manner. This thread acts like you should just say nice complimenting things to help the author/artist live in a state of denial. I dunno if you understood what I was saying, but it was humor based and really hope you caught that one, chief.
Quote:Please remember that this is just my opinion of how to write constructive, polite critiques.
...And you don't have to take anyone's opinion if you don't want to.
Gojira Wrote:...really hope you caught that one, chief.
Please don't condescend. It robs your position of strength by making you appear to be a boorish cad -- something I am quite willing to believe you are not.
Gojira Wrote:...it sounds like we can only critique things if we like it or say we like it or sugar coated a bunch.
Allow me to be slightly more blunt than Kiffles was in her examples.
- 1) You are free to create a post a la the first example. I am also free to disregard you as a flamer and block you.
2) You are free to create a post a la the second example. I have worked as an artist, and I can take this criticism -- but there is a hidden problem imbedded within it: it makes you appear to be a standoffish, arrogant know-it-all, regardless of how richly deserved the criticism is.
3) You are free to create a post a la the third example. This allows the artist to find satisfaction from their creation (due to positive feedback) while simultaneously allowing them to better identify where their art could be improved.
Scientifically speaking, the third example is the most likely to result in a favorable outcome (I.E., a change in behavior that will lead to the creation of better art) due to the dopamine release caused by the satisfaction. It's the same biological mechanism that makes you feel good when you level up, or complete a difficult task.
I freely admit that at times, the second type of criticism is
necessary to push someone out of a rut. But most of the time, the third option will lead to a better result.
EDIT: Corrected some word choices.
I agree that the third option is best if you're commenting on someones art. If you keep a friendly attitude towards this person (whom you very likely might not of spoken to before.) you will leave a good first impression and make this person more likely to take your critique/advice to heart.
The second option is, like mentioned above by Rentreality, better to get people out of a rut, but I also find it to be the kind of comment best left to people that actually know the artist a bit better. Put simply, a friend of the artist.
The first option I believe never should be used, unless you got a VERY (and I mean very) close friend who's going in circles and needs a gob-smack back to his/her senses.