I'm not sure how an open net critique becomes all that useful if
you don't have any way to evaluate the experience level of the
people making the comments, and if you can't insure the critics have
enough background to evaluate what you're up to on a level beyond
"ooooh....shiny!"
I’m sure we’re all intelligent enough to ignore the “oooh…shiny”
type comments and take note of the more valuable, constructive ones.
Only we can decide which comments will help improve our work, but
without the “critiquing” system, we won’t even get those comments.
I needed some outside viewpoints on it to give me the perspective I
could no longer get on my own, having been wrapped up in it for so
long. I knew what I *wanted* it to do visually, and I knew what I
*thought* it did, but I needed to see if anybody else was getting
the message. That's the whole point of asking for critiques. To
give the artist a sense of what the view is from beyond their own
fevered skull. A reality check, perhaps.
Precisely, that’s why I think the critiquing idea could possibly be
a really beneficial one to those of us who want to participate.
So, you would be critiquing a picture of a piece of jewelry, not
the jewelry itself.
In the absence of the jewellery itself, a picture will do perfectly
well. It is enough to be able to critique the design, and the
workmanship to a certain extent, especially if a number of views are
presented.
Another question how does one critique the ability and
qualifications of those offering a critique?
Why would you want to critique the ability and qualifications of
those offering critiques - that’s a little elitist to imply that one
must have a certain level of qualification and ability to offer
opinions. Everybody on this list has opinions regarding design,
style, balance, etc, etc, and as has been said, you don’t have to
take every critique at face value. I’m sure we can weed out those
comments which go against the direction we want to take our work,
concentrating on those which help us to improve our work in the
right direction.
Thank you VERY much Michele. I look forward to seeing your work
when your website is up and running tomorrow. Welcome to Orchid.
I look forward to it myself. But it looks like we’re delayed a lot.
At least I have the Etsy and Artfire sites up. Though only a small
portion of my inventory is up there. I haven’t had any time in the
past two weeks to do anything but the most simple stuff. Just to keep
my hands busy.
I'm not sure how an open net critique becomes all that useful if
you don't have any way to evaluate the experience level of the
people making the comments, and if you can't insure the critics
have enough background to evaluate what you're up to on a level
beyond "ooooh....shiny!"
Perhaps submissions for critique should be done anonymously,
therefore removing the personal element from it, while requiring that
critics submit their critiques with their true identification.
I don’t believe that the personal attributes of the maker should
play a role in the critique of a piece of work, therefore an
anonymous submission should be no problem.
On the other hand, critiques should be an impersonal and objective
evaluation of the piece of work with no personal attack on the
maker. Requiring identification would help quell this.
I see we’ve had a lot of thought concerning critiques, and it falls
all over the map.
To add my few cents again.
Another question how does one critique the ability and
qualifications of those offering a critique?
A critique of a piece of work should not also be a critique of the
maker. The skills of the maker will be a changing variable, hopefully
improving, but perhaps falling back if out of practice for a while as
I have been. As I see it, the only place a critique of the artist is
necessary is if you are considering hiring them for work. A critique
of the type we are talking about does not include that element.
Regarding the possible harm to the sensibilities of the maker. It
should be understood by anyone submitting any piece of work for
critique that they may receive criticism they perceive as negative.
Ok, so accept it or don’t participate. It would be voluntary, not
mandatory.
Regarding the use of photos vs. actually handling the piece, I agree
it would be of prime value to a critic to be able to handle the piece
and turn it over in their hands, look at it with a loupe, etc.
Unfortunately, in a community of people like Orchid, we do not have
the luxury of that. Photos will have to suffice, and critic of photos
should be submitted as well.
As to who should do the work, I will leave that determination to
smarter, brighter, more knowledgeable IT folk.
That’s a snip of my post (below) that you’re responding to, but
you’re answering a question I didn’t ask.
I never intended to say anything about personal attacks, either upon
the maker or the critic. I figure we’re all smart enough to disregard
anything that’s obviously a personal attack, and my reservations
about online crits were never based on worry about personal attacks,
or evaluation of the person rather than the work. My reservation is
simply that to be useful, crits should come from communities of
peers. Ideally the critics should know the artform well enough to be
able to evaluate the work before them both in terms of its own visual
impact, as well as its position within the technical continuum of the
artform. (translation: they need to be able to talk about the visuals
of the piece in front of them, and know the techniques well enough to
know why the various technical choices were made in one direction or
another.) Even better is if the critics know the technical side of
things well enough to suggest different paths, or roads not taken
because the maker didn’t realize they were there.
With open online crits, you just get whoever happens to float by,
with time to kill. You have no real way to evaluate if they have a
clue, or are even living in the same universe as you. Witness the
sometimes spirited disagreements we have around here about various
technical processes. You’ll have two different people defending unto death two diametrically opposed explanations for why a
technique does or doesn’t work, both of them with equally convincing
(sounding) explanations. Yet one of them must be wrong.
What happens to a maker who doesn’t have the experience to sort out
which of two ‘masters’ is right about something?
Without the personal interaction of a real crit with real people you
can see, it becomes very hard to spot the loonies lurking out in
left field.
I think as long as you can link to pictures this can work very well.
Consider 2 facts: 1. When you critique in a college setting that ALL
student participants are learning and lack significant experience
and 2. Your customers, which by the way may not be educated, may also
have little design experience yet both groups have the qualifications
to decide for example, if a room was too crowded, the color doesn’t
quite work, or the balance is off - I know I am over simplifying in
my example, but I think you get the picture.
I also think anonymous posts are not necessary and knowing the
writer is even a good idea. I think after a while you get a sense of
personalities here on the forum and a sense of skill level of the
writer. This gives everyone, readers and artist alike, the additional
ability to evaluate in what context to accept the critique.
The interesting thing about a critique is it not only benefits the
artist, but also the other readers. It asks ALL to take a critical
look at the things that make your jewelry strong or weak.
Participants seem in general to not want to hurt the feels of the
artist and yet give advise on possible problems AND solutions.
I think it is worth a try.
Holly
PS. While in the Metal Clay Gallery check out the photo section - a
lot of great stuff that I think will blow you away.
I understand that, given the nature of the medium (ie. Ganoksin and
the web), artists might consider a critique of photos of their work.
However, I would have to say that you will not get a comprehensive
critique in this way. You could gain some feedback on design this
way, but not on craftsmanship, technique or finish. I am new at
photographing my work, but already I have found that even a flawless
piece (particularly of highly polished gold or silver) does not often
look flawless in the photo without a certain amount of
photo-shopping. In other words, an accurate photo is an art in
itself.
On the broader topic of the benefits of gaining a critique, I believe
that this is the most efficient and effective way to improvement.
Unfortunately, many of us do not have the luxury of a sympathetic
jeweller/artist nearby who is able and willing to fulfil this
function.
Milton Long
Contemporary Studio Jeweller
Bendigo, Australia
With regard to comments made about not being able to hold a piece and
turn it over in your hands, pieces of jewellery are judged all the
time whether for entry into competitions or shows. It works for those
situations, so it would work equally well for the purposes of peer
critiques.
What happens to a maker who doesn't have the experience to sort
out which of two 'masters' is right about something?
Brian, I suppose you’ll just get what you pay for… So to speak. As
a new designer, there are many techniques I have not yet mastered.
That doesn’t mean that I can’t make a legitimate critique of
someone’s work, good or bad. I have taught others, in a different
area, and was constantly amazed at what I learned from someone who
doesn’t have the expertise in a field that I do. Fresh eyes bring
things to the table “masters” may not have thought of. I’ve heard
this from other teachers as well.
On the other side, a maker who puts up their piece for critique,
should also know how to separate the wheat from the chaff. When one
considers the source, you would hope that the one also did their
research on the source. Yes, there are those here who can’t give a
technical critique because of lack of knowledge. But if I put my work
up for others to review, good or bad, whether from a master in the
area or a suggestion from another newbie, I’ll consider it. It’ll be
my job to then place a value on those critics and either accept them
or reject them. Or perhaps try them all. There’s all sorts of
experience out there and I can’t see where putting up a piece for
objective feedback can be bad in any way.
Yes, I can understand what you say about peer groups. This begs the
question of peer group definition. You might define your peer group
in a professional sense more strictly than others. You may also vary
peer group definition so suit particular situations.
There are many arguments for and against an online gallery for
critiques. I would submit that it be left to an individual as to
whether they wish to submit their work for critique from their Orchid
peers, then let them filter the resulting criticism and use it as
they see fit.
Another argument for an online critique location is that somebody
reading the critical comments might learn new ways of looking at
something.
I am new at photographing my work, but already I have found that
even a flawless piece (particularly of highly polished gold or
silver) does not often look flawless in the photo without a certain
amount of photo-shopping. In other words, an accurate photo is an
art in itself.
Macro photography can be a cruel mistress, but photoshopping is not
the answer. Jewellery must look good at 10x magnification to be
called flawless. Macro lens is simply reveals flaws that jeweler
tries to conceal by high polish.
With regard to comments made about not being able to hold a piece
and turn it over in your hands, pieces of jewellery are judged all
the time whether for entry into competitions or shows. It works for
those situations, so it would work equally well for the purposes of
peer critiques.
Not really!
Show promoters have acceptance juries not to judge the work, but to
provide themselves an umbrella of plausible deniability that they
have some kind of a standard, and therefore their charges are
justified. To get some fair idea of what the work is, one does need
to be able to examine it from many different angles under
magnification.
With regard to comments made about not being able to hold a piece
and turn it over in your hands, pieces of jewellery are judged all
the time whether for entry into competitions or shows. It works for
those situations, so it would work equally well for the purposes of
peer critiques.
Would you buy a car based only on a pretty picture ?
With regard to comments made about not being able to hold a piece
and turn it over in your hands, pieces of jewellery are judged all
the time whether for entry into competitions or shows. It works for
those situations, so it would work equally well for the purposes of
peer critiques.
Sorry, I meant to say that PHOTOGRAPHS of pieces of jewellery are
judged all the time, whether for entry into competitions or shows,
etc.
With regard to comments made about not being able to hold a piece
and turn it over in your hands, pieces of jewellery are judged all
the time whether for entry into competitions or shows. It works for
those situations, so it would work equally well for the purposes of
peer critiques.
Would you buy a car based only on a pretty picture ?
There are many arguments for and against an online gallery for
critiques. I would submit that it be left to an individual as to
whether they wish to submit their work for critique from their
Orchid peers, then let them filter the resulting criticism and use
it as they see fit.
True. I reserve the right to have opinions on both sides of any
given issue. Or any six sides of a given issue.
I guess my take is that I’m not sure how much good it’ll really do,
but I certainly don’t want to stand in the way of those who want to
try.
Let’s figure out a way to do it, and see if it works.
Do you consider your work ART be it metal or wearable why does it
need to be critiqued ? once you are no longer considered a student
you make art as a profesional then the work stands or fails in the
eye of the beholder and somtimes they pay money for it.
If you consider your work CRAFT and you are a craftsman (gender
encompassing term) then your work should be held to clearly defined
standards and all the other crafts people are free to comment -
Would you buy a car based only on a pretty picture ?
Of course not, but that’s not very relevant in this case. We’re not
talking about judging a picture of a piece of jewellery to decide
whether or not we want to buy it. We’re talking about looking at the
design, and execution of that design as far as the picture will
allow. Two or three views of the same piece would give us plenty
enough to be able to offer a constructive critique. I do
feel that a few people are nit-picking at what is a very good idea
and which will help people to improve their skills. I almost get the
impression that those members who are really good at what they do,
don’t necessarily want us members lower down the food chain to
improve.
Even if we were talking about buying from a picture (which we’re
not), thousands of people buy jewellery via the internet, from just
having seen it in a photograph. I myself, regularly buy gemstones
from the internet (the vast majority), because I don’t have a local
supplier I can go to, to pick the stones up and see them in person. I
very rarely have cause to send any back - usually only when a vendor
has used a generic photograph for a gem species and shape, and the
gem I receive is not of the same quality as the photo. Usually, I
only buy if the photograph is of the exact gem I’m buying, and I
compare markings, facets, etc when I get it in my hands.
With regard to comments made about not being able to hold a piece
and turn it over in your hands,.........snip........ Would you buy
a car based only on a pretty picture ?
Well if that were the case, no one would ever buy jewelry (or
anything else) from on-line sites and people do it everyday. And yes
it would be nicer to be able to hold it, feel it, etc., but you can
certainly render a critique (even if somewhat limited) based on what
you see - Rendering a critique about something can be done without
wanting to actually purchase or own the item.
I was a contributing selling member of an artists’ gallery for some
25 years (I painted in gouache and acrylic). Every now and again the
members held a voluntary critique evening - we had a panel made up of
a painting (art) instructor from the local university, the art critic
from the local newspaper, and an independent artist, generally from a
different field (sculptor, photographer etc.) The gallery members
clamored to submit several works each for critique - a recently
completed work and a work in progress. The critique was highly
sought, and most members welcomed a chance to submit their works. We
all found it most helpful - which was not to say we always agreed
with or liked the critique. Even if it were not your work which was
being critiqued, you generally gained insight from listening to
other’s works being critiqued.