I have submited to the will of CA. But why does critiques still feel bitter?

[Elwell]

I went to a specialized arts high school (Music & Art in NYC, now LaGuardia HS). Admission was by portfolio and an entrance exam, so pretty much everyone was coming from a school where they were the best artist in their class. Our first homework assignment in our freshman drawing class was a basic "draw an everyday object from observation" project. After putting them up on the wall, the teacher proceeded to tell us that they were all boring, that none of us had considered composition or placement on the page, and that the stylistic tricks that might have gotten us in weren't enough now that we were there. It was rattling, but also undeniably true, and it was exiting that someone was treating a bunch of fourteen-year-old kids like ARTISTS. Almost twenty-five years later I've forgotten his name, but I've never forgotten that day, or any of the other strong but true crits I've gotten over the years.

[vayne108]

I went to a specialized arts high school (Music & Art in NYC, now LaGuardia HS). Admission was by portfolio and an entrance exam, so pretty much everyone was coming from a school where they were the best artist in their class. Our first homework assignment in our freshman drawing class was a basic "draw an everyday object from observation" project. After putting them up on the wall, the teacher proceeded to tell us that they were all boring, that none of us had considered composition or placement on the page, and that the stylistic tricks that might have gotten us in weren't enough now that we were there. It was rattling, but also undeniably true, and it was exiting that someone was treating a bunch of fourteen-year-old kids like ARTISTS. Almost twenty-five years later I've forgotten his name, but I've never forgotten that day, or any of the other strong but true crits I've gotten over the years.

, thanks for this.

[r.mccabe]

good on ya vayne for caring.

[rapxic]

don't cry about it

just do it

[vayne108]

I'm doing and caring!!!

[Frublz]

Ok, leave the flute part out and we should have a discussion on what defines music.

You're willing to say that it's debatable if music that's not in a heptatonic scale is not music at all? Twelve-tone classical music is not music? Well, each is own but this is a very narrow definition of the concept, it for one means that Asian, eastern, middle-eastern, African and native American traditional music is not music

Teaching a man to fish is giving basic knowledge of what a fish is and how they behave, where they live, where they are most likely to be cought and what methods are applied to catch them.
What you seem to be doing is pointing at the ocean and stating there are fish in there, go figure out how to catch them yourself.

No, I'm talking about teaching a man physics, so that a man can see from the water where the fish move in it, in any water, it's one step more fundamental.

every artist has a style, even those trying to figure out how to get one. Maybe you meant to say "technique is for artists with an inspiring, enjoyable, and recognizable style". Or maybe the purest art form is giving finger paints to a monkey. It's all opinion really, and I do like monkeys...

Well, maybe it comes down to using the words 'technique' and 'style' in a different way, I meant them as:

technique: a process one has learnt that achieved a certain effect, via any ways, accident, taught by a master, invented. With effects I mean 'how to get a metallic surface', 'how to create rippled fabric', 'how to create an organic surface', and all.
style: Simple one of the classifications of art styles. Abstract, landscapes, scenery, realism et alia.

And they're all fucking round

Tyres have different optimal suspension in it for different roads? There's more to making a wheel than just making it round my good man. Drive on ice, you wanted spiked tyres, drive off-road, you want them not too stiff.

People seeking help in here are frequently impressionable. Don't give advice if you either have no idea what you're talking about or just want to throw out bits of your personal philosophy like some college kid in a coffee shop who just got out of their first ethics course.

Ethics courses, lol, as if moral can be taught, there is one truth about it, it's stupid and people do it because their parents did.

In any way, I've always seen this approach of teaching people techniques instead of teaching people a way to think is stupid. And the past has shown that I have been right thus far. I and a mate who shared this philosophy have transformed low marks for a variety of school subjects into excellent marks in fellow students. We didn't teach them the physical formulae to remember, we taught them how to think physically and synthesize the formulae themselves that were in their book, synthesize a solution to the problem. It works a lot better and saves you time. we don't study for tests, except from learning some definitions because we don't memorize the formulae, we synthesize them at the moment of the test and if you train yourself this can be done with equal if not better speed then remembering them and one can tackle problems that one has not studied for, of course there are still limits and it's one step at a time but it works better.

All I mean is that I've never learnt myself to make metallic surfaces, how to draw an eye, how to make organic textures or certain effects with light. I think ad-hoc on how to do it when I make some-thing which has lead my work to be quite diverse at the least. Landscapes, grotesque humans, cityscapes, children's drawings, constellations, walls, abstract Tron-like settings. I've never learnt how to make them, instead, I've learn how to learn myself how to make them as fast as possible.

[Craig D]

Are you friends with Peter?

[Elwell]

Frublz:
Less words, more pictures.
Please.

[Frublz]

I have no idea who this 'Peter' is if his last name isn't Parker and his middle name is not Benjamin and his other name doesn't start with 'Friendly Neighbourhood', anyway, pics:

http://www.nihilarchitect.net/v6/sp:.../Sentience.jpg
http://www.nihilarchitect.net/v6/sp:...0landscape.jpg
http://www.nihilarchitect.net/v6/sp:...20_%20deus.jpg
http://www.nihilarchitect.net/v6/sp:...cant%20see.jpg
http://www.nihilarchitect.net/v6/sp:...ere%20null.jpg
http://www.nihilarchitect.net/v6/sp:...20universe.jpg
http://www.nihilarchitect.net/v6/sp:...hrine_core.jpg

I've just taken some random seven images of my site. If you want to see more you start here and you press the '>' button, just use ctrl+f if you can't find it, it's hard to find, I admit. It should get the idea across of what I mean with 'no style', especially 'Friends others can't see'. Some aren't even illustrations but more 'design' like but still borrowing some elements from it.

Also, same with music. I've been recently working on the sound track of a game and how it works is that I receive stills from he game and I get a little description of what it must capture and then I must live up to it. This modus operandi is the only way to make sound scores well in the end because the art director determines how your track is going to sound and what emotions it must have and you have to find a way to realize it, you can't just rely on old knowledge about it. A lot of emotions in these tracks I've never made before, like the track to accompany a main character dying in piece on an island, or to suit laboratories, caves, sunsets on alien worlds. But I just had to be creative.

Applying techniques might help if you're the one who comes up with it. But if you're just contact to make a certain thing you've never done before and the art director determines what it will be. You can't rely on just memorizing techniques, there's too much, you have to learn how to make the techniques ad hoc.

[ShroudStar]

Let's not talk techniques. Let's talk about foundations, then, because I'm sure that's the point everyone's making to vayne. You said this earlier on:

I'd personally say don't practice the basics, in fact, don't practice any technique, learn to synthesize knowledge, learn to make techniques and provide creative solutions where the problem demands it. Give a man a fish or teach a man how to fish?

How will you synthesize knowledge you don't understand or know? Art demands constant practice of the many fundamentals - most of which demands observation and consistent following up on. How will you draw a successful landscape if you don't observe it, draw it or paint it? (Or take snapshots of it for reference). How will you draw a city that doesn't resemble a bunch of Lego blocks if you don't study perspective, architectural elements, and what a city actually looks like? Some people can't even draw a decent shoe without looking at it and doing a still life. I just learned what a fire escape looks like and how it's constructed - I certainly had no clue before going online and studying photos of them.

To tell someone to get their basics down is to teach them so that they can "fish on their own". Only when you know the rules can you bend, twist, or break them according to what the style or brief calls for; otherwise, you're mucking around, learning bad habits and wasting a lot of precious time. This applies to other things as well, like writing. Before you decide to go all T.S. Eliot or e.e. cummings, you'd better know how to write a decent sentence. Art's the same way - bad anatomy won't get better even if you dress it up in shiny techniques.

That of course brings me to the art you've posted up. The first three I looked at reminds me of too much bloom lighting. Whether or not this is abstracted in such a way to hide the fact that your fundamentals is shaky is up in the air, but that's what I thought of. New artists often hide what they can't draw, be it hands, lower body, backgrounds, or just resort to a floating head on a white surface. Your landscape hardly shows much to suggest it and your other work is so vague as to elude meaning altogether. If this is the way you're suggesting to vayne, he'd best be served by steering wide and far and hitting his Loomis and Bridgman and still lifes.

[Frublz]

How will you synthesize knowledge you don't understand or know? Art demands constant practice of the many fundamentals - most of which demands observation and consistent following up on. How will you draw a successful landscape if you don't observe it, draw it or paint it? (Or take snapshots of it for reference). How will you draw a city that doesn't resemble a bunch of Lego blocks if you don't study perspective, architectural elements, and what a city actually looks like? Some people can't even draw a decent shoe without looking at it and doing a still life. I just learned what a fire escape looks like and how it's constructed - I certainly had no clue before going online and studying photos of them.

Well, let me be clearer then. Don't just learn how to do the basics, but learn how to understand the basics. On another analogy of maths, just using a formula to obtain a result isn't going to help you if there is another situation. Understanding the formula, understanding how some-one else thought of it and understanding how it works will lead to you make your own formulae when it's needed. And this is how my teaching methods differ from most teachers, most teachers just teach you the matter and expect you to memorize it. I praefer to teach people the mechanics behind the matter in a way they can identify most with it, not only do they remember it better, they will also be more creative in making new techniques.

To tell someone to get their basics down is to teach them so that they can "fish on their own". Only when you know the rules can you bend, twist, or break them according to what the style or brief calls for; otherwise, you're mucking around, learning bad habits and wasting a lot of precious time. This applies to other things as well, like writing. Before you decide to go all T.S. Eliot or e.e. cummings, you'd better know how to write a decent sentence. Art's the same way - bad anatomy won't get better even if you dress it up in shiny techniques.

To tell one to understand the basics and how they work is to teach them to come up with how to fish and come up with how to catch any animal then.

That of course brings me to the art you've posted up. The first three I looked at reminds me of too much bloom lighting. Whether or not this is abstracted in such a way to hide the fact that your fundamentals is shaky is up in the air, but that's what I thought of. New artists often hide what they can't draw, be it hands, lower body, backgrounds, or just resort to a floating head on a white surface. Your landscape hardly shows much to suggest it and your other work is so vague as to elude meaning altogether. If this is the way you're suggesting to vayne, he'd best be served by steering wide and far and hitting his Loomis and Bridgman and still lifes.

Your opinion is your own of course, I don't even know the term 'bloom lightening' after all. All I can tell you that all is intentional and the time I let a client down has not yet come. But my clients often have pretty 'avant-garde' (strange) demands. To put it in the word of Varg Vikerness "Give me the most shitty mic this studio has", when he was about to record his magnum opus. Some people can hear melodies in said magnum opus, some people just hear noise. Some people can bend their tongue, some people can't. A lot of people indeed say that most work I do for private means can be extremely blurry and the same accounts for my music, I like vagueness and undefined lines but I know I have to drop this practice if the client requests it, alas.

But yes, I don't draw a lot of humans and it's probably the most prominent thing I'll never learn as I don't notice anatomy in people as well or notice genders to begin with. Naturally, I don't have a lot of interest in humans as well and think they (we) are ugly.

[Mock]

Please just shut the hell up and go draw something.

[George Abraham]

There is also the art student critique vs normal guy topic we haven’t touched on. It has brought its own little snags with it.

Going to art schools you get conditioned to look at art through a schooled perspective. You look at something and all those years of studying art history and the popularized ideas around it starts running in your head telling you what to appreciate and what not. How to interpret what you are looking at, and the methods used. Gradually you have become conditioned to have a schooled direction.

The average joe, will not have that and might look at you funny if he hears how the arto is looking at some piece, He will either save it as a wallpaper or not.

I found it's a good idea to switch off all those stuffs when you are looking at something. What is your personal view and reason for liking something? Sometimes works defies the laws that have been accumulated in art studies and still it succeeds. Nothing is set in stone and you might make new discoveries if you give your eyes a fresh chance.

Sometimes artists might have the world of appreciation from the art societies as you have displayed such a vast knowledge of art history and technique but the avg joe, don't see anything in there worth while.

Sometimes these combine and that is the mark of a true artist, when you have the most orgasmic moment of seeing a crit look at your work, he will stare at the work and try to crit but you will see they have no idea just why the piece is so attractive even though they try to go into all complex explanation etc. Their eyes will have wonder in it. These pieces will attract everyone in the same way.

Any forum or community might have the same problem. Where stuff is appreciated in the community but the way they look at stuff is not necessarily the same outside of the community.

[Frublz]

Conditioning is certainly true. If you look at how 'experts' over the the last 200-odd years have rated the 'technical perfection' of the Mona Lisa higher and higher and also simultaneously when it just happened to be either stolen or other media attention to it.

'art experts' are succumb to peer pressure indeed. They may not notice it themselves but they tend to say things because they are expected to do so from their peers, like a bunch of teenage goths, but yes indeed. Peer pressure is like power, it corrupts every-one, no one can stay safe of it.

[George Abraham]

I went to a specialized arts high school (Music & Art in NYC, now LaGuardia HS). Admission was by portfolio and an entrance exam, so pretty much everyone was coming from a school where they were the best artist in their class. Our first homework assignment in our freshman drawing class was a basic "draw an everyday object from observation" project. After putting them up on the wall, the teacher proceeded to tell us that they were all boring, that none of us had considered composition or placement on the page, and that the stylistic tricks that might have gotten us in weren't enough now that we were there. It was rattling, but also undeniably true, and it was exiting that someone was treating a bunch of fourteen-year-old kids like ARTISTS. Almost twenty-five years later I've forgotten his name, but I've never forgotten that day, or any of the other strong but true crits I've gotten over the years.

I had the opposite, it's more damaging that way. In second grade, we had a project where the teacher put a few objects in front of class to draw. I had some idea of perspective back then when no one had any, even though it was not point perspective. I drew the objects and even showed off, drawing a fly that is flying in and around the objects.

The teacher bragged and praised my work in front of the class.

The same with singing, I got some coaching and got an A++ and the trophy for solo singing in grade two. The announcer and the people there went overboard with the praise and I felt like I was floating in mid air.

The next year I sang again but I didn't have the coach anymore. I stuttered and screwed up. I felt so discouraged that I never tried again. I thought I was a master.

Taking up drawing again after so many years not having developed your skills you also are not ahead of any class anymore so you can't bank on past performance. It's dedication that does the job.

I will however be more supportive with my kids however, or not supportive, just more involved. A boy with his head in the clowds does not always have tabs on everything.

[TASmith]

Elwell, I'd love to hear more about your school, if you're willing to share. What else did you learn from it?

[the_jos]

I know what you mean, zaorr.
Constant praise isn't really good for confidence. Knowing you have struggled for something and achieved it is.

When I was at school I had excellent grades all over.
Except for French, I couldn't learn the lists of words but knew I would get a decent grade because my grammar knowledge was above average.
When I had my exams I would be hanging around fishing in the neighbourhood while friends were struggling. I even explained stuff to one of them while sitting alongside the water, one day before the exams.
My next educations were also easy, I did have to retake one exam on my final edu and celebrated the fact a friend of mine passed his exams the same morning in the cafe with beer and such (my exam was in the afternoon).
So much for hard work.

I really, really, really whished things would have been harder for me back then about achieving things. It wasn't easy for me back then, but that had nothing to do with achievement.
Even nowadays there is this little voice in the back of my head telling me that I didn't work for anything and was just lucky a lot of times. That in reality I'm worthless and that others are just stupid to say otherwise.

But then, there is one thing I can and will achieve.
I'm going to hit that little voice so hard and often that it will stop compaining. By doing stuff I've never done before or don't like doing. Or am bad at.

And on singing. I haven't really done that since I was 12 or 13.
I hated it. And now I'm just afraid of it for some stupid reason.
But then, perhaps that's just a fairy disguised as a demon.....
The moment I know I will tell

[Frublz]

I went to a specialized arts high school (Music & Art in NYC, now LaGuardia HS). Admission was by portfolio and an entrance exam, so pretty much everyone was coming from a school where they were the best artist in their class. Our first homework assignment in our freshman drawing class was a basic "draw an everyday object from observation" project. After putting them up on the wall, the teacher proceeded to tell us that they were all boring, that none of us had considered composition or placement on the page, and that the stylistic tricks that might have gotten us in weren't enough now that we were there. It was rattling, but also undeniably true, and it was exiting that someone was treating a bunch of fourteen-year-old kids like ARTISTS. Almost twenty-five years later I've forgotten his name, but I've never forgotten that day, or any of the other strong but true crits I've gotten over the years.

What the hell? Some-thing which 'rates' on such chiefly subjective matters is a 'school' nowadays?

Ratings are to be given objectively, different corrector and the rating should state the same. But then again, 'art schools' can be kind of praetentious and peer-pressured in that.

[s.ketch]

No, I'm talking about teaching a man physics, so that a man can see from the water where the fish move in it, in any water, it's one step more fundamental.

Physics are for people who have a 'brain', it's so dull, they learnt a thing once they didn't even invent themselves and keep re-applying it and actually have to 'learn' to make another 'scientific discovery'.

[aefx]

Well, let me be clearer then. Don't just learn how to do the basics, but learn how to understand the basics. On another analogy of maths, just using a formula to obtain a result isn't going to help you if there is another situation. Understanding the formula, understanding how some-one else thought of it and understanding how it works will lead to you make your own formulae when it's needed. And this is how my teaching methods differ from most teachers, most teachers just teach you the matter and expect you to memorize it. I praefer to teach people the mechanics behind the matter in a way they can identify most with it, not only do they remember it better, they will also be more creative in making new techniques.

To tell one to understand the basics and how they work is to teach them to come up with how to fish and come up with how to catch any animal then.

Your opinion is your own of course, I don't even know the term 'bloom lightening' after all. All I can tell you that all is intentional and the time I let a client down has not yet come. But my clients often have pretty 'avant-garde' (strange) demands. To put it in the word of Varg Vikerness "Give me the most shitty mic this studio has", when he was about to record his magnum opus. Some people can hear melodies in said magnum opus, some people just hear noise. Some people can bend their tongue, some people can't. A lot of people indeed say that most work I do for private means can be extremely blurry and the same accounts for my music, I like vagueness and undefined lines but I know I have to drop this practice if the client requests it, alas.

But yes, I don't draw a lot of humans and it's probably the most prominent thing I'll never learn as I don't notice anatomy in people as well or notice genders to begin with. Naturally, I don't have a lot of interest in humans as well and think they (we) are ugly.

Frublz, I've read your posts in this thread and I can possibly see your underlying point "you should understand why you are doing something and not just simply learn how to do it" but the way you come across on here has not done your argument much justice. You can see that you're not swaying the opinion of anyone you've replied to... it just looks like you've gone off the deep end a bit. Anyways, I hope this helps.

[vayne108]

What the hell? Some-thing which 'rates' on such chiefly subjective matters is a 'school' nowadays?

Ratings are to be given objectively, different corrector and the rating should state the same. But then again, 'art schools' can be kind of praetentious and peer-pressured in that.

You totally missing the point to what Elwell said.

[Frublz]

Physics are for people who have a 'brain', it's so dull, they learnt a thing once they didn't even invent themselves and keep re-applying it and actually have to 'learn' to make another 'scientific discovery'.

Is this absurdity in the name of sarcasm or did you really not understand what physics is about?

Any-way, in the latter case. No, that's not really how physics works, physics is different than biology or chemistry in that it's consistent, every little value and number in physics all holds together in one grand equation (well, actually two, there is general relativity and there is the standard model, they are not consistent with each other), every statement in physics implies another statement, research in physics is done by taking the old results and see what else they imply.

Frublz, I've read your posts in this thread and I can possibly see your underlying point "you should understand why you are doing something and not just simply learn how to do it" but the way you come across on here has not done your argument much justice. You can see that you're not swaying the opinion of anyone you've replied to... it just looks like you've gone off the deep end a bit. Anyways, I hope this helps.

If people were swayed by logic then people wouldn't believe nonsense, it's not even my ambition to sway any more. I lost that when I was five when I realized that I couldn't convince my peers of the trivial truth of determinism at that point (they didn't know quantum mechanics and neither did I, it was the only logical thing to believe back then), people are very good at understanding logic badly just when it's implications lead to a result they don't want to be true. Determinism scares people.

And of course I didn't even know the term 'determinism' back then let alone read on it. When you don't know angular momenta are quantified, which they don't appear as the quanta is really small. Determinism is the only logical conclusion one can make...

You totally missing the point to what Elwell said.

Quite correct, as I wasn't really replying to any point Elwell made actually. I was just ranting about the absurdity of some fact which just happened to be stated in his post.

[ShroudStar]

Well, let me be clearer then. Don't just learn how to do the basics, but learn how to understand the basics.
.
.
.
And this is how my teaching methods differ from most teachers, most teachers just teach you the matter and expect you to memorize it. I praefer to teach people the mechanics behind the matter in a way they can identify most with it, not only do they remember it better, they will also be more creative in making new techniques.

This is what most people do. When I study Bridgman, I'm not just blindly copying it without thinking about why the original artist decided to depict it as such. When I study perspective, I'm trying to make sense of how the lines will converge or become a grid for the structures I'll later draw. When people on this site strongly encourage the fundamentals, they're not telling vayne to just mimic without using his brain. Understanding how the fundamentals work is key to everything else falling into place.

You must've had a bad set of teachers, then. One of my most amazing teachers in color theory didn't just throw the material at us and expect us to memorize it. He explained it in lectures; we worked in-class with this special kind of color paper to understand transparency when a midtone between two colors gives that effect. We had homework which consisted of taking a color photo and redoing it in black-and-white values with cut-up paper. Because of how well he taught, I'm still holding onto the bundle of exercises I did in his class. I had a painting professor in community college who also explained verticals, horizontals, how an element led into the painting on a diagonal, etc....

So yeah. Great professors abound - some of us are just lucky to get the good ones. The rest of it relies on us alone and that's where the 99% hard work kicks in along with the 1% inspiration.

[Frublz]

This is what most people do. When I study Bridgman, I'm not just blindly copying it without thinking about why the original artist decided to depict it as such. When I study perspective, I'm trying to make sense of how the lines will converge or become a grid for the structures I'll later draw. When people on this site strongly encourage the fundamentals, they're not telling vayne to just mimic without using his brain. Understanding how the fundamentals work is key to everything else falling into place.

You must've had a bad set of teachers, then. One of my most amazing teachers in color theory didn't just throw the material at us and expect us to memorize it. He explained it in lectures; we worked in-class with this special kind of color paper to understand transparency when a midtone between two colors gives that effect. We had homework which consisted of taking a color photo and redoing it in black-and-white values with cut-up paper. Because of how well he taught, I'm still holding onto the bundle of exercises I did in his class. I had a painting professor in community college who also explained verticals, horizontals, how an element led into the painting on a diagonal, etc....

So yeah. Great professors abound - some of us are just lucky to get the good ones. The rest of it relies on us alone and that's where the 99% hard work kicks in along with the 1% inspiration.

That could be, but I haven't seen them yet. But maybe our standards differ, not sure. I was just told that minor scales sound 'sad' with music classes (to which I still object), I was never explained why they supposedly do. Same with drawing classes, you're (I was) taught how to create certain shades and how to create certain lightening effects, not why it was so that such techniques rendered such effects. And I notice all around me that people have immense troubles in adapting to things they've never made before.

[the_jos]

That could be, but I haven't seen them yet. But maybe our standards differ, not sure. I was just told that minor scales sound 'sad' with music classes (to which I still object), I was never explained why they supposedly do.

The main reason is that 'sad' is a feeling and it's hard to explain to someone who doesn't experience that same feeling.
Other than that, most likely it has to do with the way people express sadness in general, voice lowers, slows down and that kind of thing.
When someone knows your regular 'sound' and all of a sudden you sound different they know you are excited or sad (for example). Probably the same mechanics apply to music, but I somewhat lack emotional reaction to music, so I can't tell.

What's important is to understand that good teachers are rare and a good teacher that fits you is a gem.
Teaching is translating what you know to a level and in a way your students are able to understand. So you need to understand how your students think and work.
I've seen people who were very good in their field of work but were completely unable to tell others how things worked.
Just because they could not step out of their own world and into the world of their audience.
I started my mentoring skills years ago and it took a couple of years before I was able to apply this in more generic situations. And don't ask me to mentor on art, I can give some advice but can't mentor yet.
To become a good teacher even more skill is required.

And part of the 'good teacher' is closely related to the student.
For example, I had a teacher on English who most of my class thought was a very good teacher and I walked out of his class after two or three months and returned only on exams. He annoyed the hell out of me, I could not stand the way he was teaching. I doubt he was a bad teacher, part of the problem was me for sure.

[Arshes Nei]

Frublz's posts are the reasons I want to customize infractions so that if someone accrues enough of them they can get kicked out of the lounge until the infraction time ends.....(ie if an infraction is for 15 days)...but not my site and it could lead to abuse XD

Having said that, vayne yes just because we're harsh with critiques doesn't mean we're not humans ourselves. Read Art & Fear as stated before, good book. Other people have given you advice and it seems you're already on your way working towards better things.

[vayne108]

Frublz's posts are the reasons I want to customize infractions so that if someone accrues enough of them they can get kicked out of the lounge until the infraction time ends.....(ie if an infraction is for 15 days)...but not my site and it could lead to abuse XD

Having said that, vayne yes just because we're harsh with critiques doesn't mean we're not humans ourselves. Read Art & Fear as stated before, good book. Other people have given you advice and it seems you're already on your way working towards better things.

Yes, in fact I'm on my way to better things, just having this discussion has made me more focused on what I have to fix in my work rather than the reasons why I was upset in the first place. Now I'm more focused, I have welded my emotions towards my ultimate goal. Just as pointed out by shround star in the second post.

[Dusty]

I went to a specialized arts high school (Music & Art in NYC, now LaGuardia HS). Admission was by portfolio and an entrance exam, so pretty much everyone was coming from a school where they were the best artist in their class. Our first homework assignment in our freshman drawing class was a basic "draw an everyday object from observation" project. After putting them up on the wall, the teacher proceeded to tell us that they were all boring, that none of us had considered composition or placement on the page, and that the stylistic tricks that might have gotten us in weren't enough now that we were there. It was rattling, but also undeniably true, and it was exiting that someone was treating a bunch of fourteen-year-old kids like ARTISTS. Almost twenty-five years later I've forgotten his name, but I've never forgotten that day, or any of the other strong but true crits I've gotten over the years.

I always love posts like this. I think every artist has their epiphany when it comes to critiques. For me it was a comic convention when I was about 15 years old. I brought all my sweet ass drawings that I was so proud of to show to all of my heroes. At that age, I don't know what I thought...but I think deep down I expected them to say "Oh my god! You are the next Jim Lee! I would like to hire you RIGHT NOW!", or at least that was my fantasy. In fact, it was (obviously) quite the opposite. Most of them looked at me like "Hmm...nice. Work on anatomy: NEXT!". So much, that it actually got to the point where I felt like that was what they were supposed to say to all the artists in line. Then one guy...and I shamefully admit I don't remember who told me:

"Nice work, how old are you?"
"15", I said.
"Okay, do you want a kid's critique or do you want a professional's critique...I could see you going either way".
Naturally, I said "The professional's, please"

He then spent the next 15 minutes completely annihilating my work. He pointed at things, he told me books to read, he told me people at the show who sold the books, he advised me on classes to take, schools to visit, other artist's to talk to and reference, and basically told me that as is...nothing was sellable and that if I was looking for work, it won't happen this year. Next year? Probably not, the following year? Maybe! And in a few years, if I listened to what he said...I could be sitting next to him in a table.

His words simultaneously crushed me and inspired me. After going into the bathroom and balling my eyes out because I had never heard such a harsh, blatant critique of my work I realized the value that I got from it. And at that point I understood the power of critique. He had support in his words, though....you could tell he wasn't trying to hurt me, he was trying to help me.

And so from that day forth, I've never been hurt by a critique no matter how harsh. Even from the people that AREN'T supportive, his words helped build my ability to take it.

You'll be secure with it soon enough, vayne....give it time. No one is perfect on this site. Even the best artists still need a good critique.

-D

[vayne108]

I always love posts like this. I think every artist has their epiphany when it comes to critiques. For me it was a comic convention when I was about 15 years old. I brought all my sweet ass drawings that I was so proud of to show to all of my heroes. At that age, I don't know what I thought...but I think deep down I expected them to say "Oh my god! You are the next Jim Lee! I would like to hire you RIGHT NOW!", or at least that was my fantasy. In fact, it was (obviously) quite the opposite. Most of them looked at me like "Hmm...nice. Work on anatomy: NEXT!". So much, that it actually got to the point where I felt like that was what they were supposed to say to all the artists in line. Then one guy...and I shamefully admit I don't remember who told me:

"Nice work, how old are you?"
"15", I said.
"Okay, do you want a kid's critique or do you want a professional's critique...I could see you going either way".
Naturally, I said "The professional's, please"

He then spent the next 15 minutes completely annihilating my work. He pointed at things, he told me books to read, he told me people at the show who sold the books, he advised me on classes to take, schools to visit, other artist's to talk to and reference, and basically told me that as is...nothing was sellable and that if I was looking for work, it won't happen this year. Next year? Probably not, the following year? Maybe! And in a few years, if I listened to what he said...I could be sitting next to him in a table.

His words simultaneously crushed me and inspired me. After going into the bathroom and balling my eyes out because I had never heard such a harsh, blatant critique of my work I realized the value that I got from it. And at that point I understood the power of critique. He had support in his words, though....you could tell he wasn't trying to hurt me, he was trying to help me.

And so from that day forth, I've never been hurt by a critique no matter how harsh. Even from the people that AREN'T supportive, his words helped build my ability to take it.

You'll be secure with it soon enough, vayne....give it time. No one is perfect on this site. Even the best artists still need a good critique.

-D

Thanks for the surrport man !!!!

[aefx]

Frublz's posts are the reasons I want to customize infractions so that if someone accrues enough of them they can get kicked out of the lounge until the infraction time ends.....(ie if an infraction is for 15 days)...but not my site and it could lead to abuse XD

That sounds pretty fascist. I don't agree with Fublz at all but he's not abusive or derogatory. Using bans like that because people don't agree with the group think kinda goes a step beyond making a forum available for healthy discussion. Not only that but if someone is quite wide off the mark, other members of the community are usually good at posting sensible counter arguments which can help others who aren't even in the discussion at all. Anyways, that's just my opinion I guess.