Hello all! In an effort to continue to develop our critique skillset as well as broaden our horizons I am extending the 'field trip' to our blog. These discussion posts will be meant to encourage critical evaluation of the chosen artist's work.
Here are some good pointers (borrowed from
emptyeasel.com) on giving constructive criticism:
Take a look through the artist’s eyes.
If you’re going to be critiquing another artist’s work, it helps to know where they’re coming from.
In general, I find it difficult to get a sense of an artist from just one or two paintings, so I like to see several if I can, before critiquing. Having the artist explain what was intended helps too.
If what they’re saying and what you’re seeing doesn’t mesh, then that gives you a place to start. If their intent IS coming through, think about ways to help enhance their vision even more.
Don’t nit-pick the little stuff.
Oddly shaped ears, squarish trees, or an off-color sky. . . Sometimes it’s helpful to point out those flaws, but if there are really a lot of them, focus on the big picture instead.
With technical issues like those, I will usually suggest spending more time in preliminary sketching or I’ll mention the importance of having a strong light source that shows detail. Sure, listing each flaw might help the artist fix this painting, but what about the next one? You can’t always be there.
It’s much better to help them improve their technique or process ONCE than fix the end-results a hundred times.
Of course, if the artist asks for a nit-picky critique (and some will) then go ahead. It might not be the best way to help, but at least you know they won’t mind.
Start positive and end positive.
Always make sure to start off by saying something nice. Even if it’s difficult, findsomething to say.
After that, be as honest as possible—without being brutal—and then close with another encouraging, positive statement.
Artists can occasionally be sensitive about their art (a little known fact) so it just makes sense to cushion the blows a little bit.
Never be vague.
There’s nothing worse than a vague critique. They usually sound a little bit like this:
“There’s something about your painting that‘s not right. . . I don’t know what, it’s just, you know. . . Something.”
The truth is, if you don’t have anything to say about the painting it’s probably better to not speak up in a group critique.
On the other hand, if you’ve got a gut feeling about it, do your best to figure it out so you CAN critique it correctly.
And finally, keep it short.
I’ve never yet been in a group critique where time wasn‘t a factor. Say your piece and be done.
Right! Now that we've covered all that let's have a look at some art!
I've chosen three photographs from the
Web portfolio of Bill Durgin. I do not know him and know nothing of his background, education, goals.
Personally, I like his work. On to the criticism: I would say that his figure studies are more dynamic than the photographs from his Assembled & Fractured series. The stagnant compositions of the Assembled & Fractured series is not necessarily a bad thing: it creates a very strong feeling of solidity and forces viewers to focus on the subject. Since these photographs are a little confusing to begin with this simple and straightforward approach to composition is likely intentional and, in my opinion, successful at guiding the viewer. I would still like to see a departure from the straight-on shot; I feel some exploration of odd angles and weird framing would complement his style.
Leave your thoughts in the comments and let's get a conversation going! What do you think about Mr. Durgin's selected work? How does it make you feel? What are it's successes and failures?
