critique

[Alta]

Moderator note:

Hi all,

I only deleted posts which had no other function than to talk about Facebook. I did see if they could even be edited, but in my judgment, they couldn't. I think that I kept every post which stayed with the issue.

Sorry for the time delay, but this came up shortly after I got up and I had some obligations this morning.

Anyway, the thread is returned.

Just a reminder, the thread is not about why Facebook is wonderful, but how we proceed here. I am reading and trying to think what, if anything (because it might be over-moderating?), I could do about guidelines and etc.

Regards,
Alta
Moderator, Tarot Deck Creation.

 

[Lillie]

I've just been struggling to catch up on what's being discussed here.

And to be honest, I'm a bit shocked.

Surely if someone posts something here and says 'What do you think of this?' then everyone has the right to answer that question, whether it's just 'I do/don't like it' or whether they write an essay about the things they do/don't like and why.

It seems to me that preventing people from expressing negative opinions is also preventing any kind of useful dialogue and creating a one sided conversation.

To be honest, should I put up any of my work, I would be embarrassed if all that happened was that my friends patted me on the back and told me how well I'd done, while everyone else kept quiet and sniggered at me behind my back.
If they don't like it, they should say so.
I don't even think they should have to explain why. Maybe they can't really put their finger on why they don't like it. There's plenty of times where I dislike something for no reason I can adequately explain.

I don't want to feel good about praise I receive because any dissenting voices have been forcibly silenced.
I'm not 5, and it's a tough world.
I know that you can't please everyone.

If people are thinking of putting their work forward for publication, then they better get used to people not liking it.
Because that's how the real world works.
And if I was thinking about doing that, then I would want to go into it knowing that I had a complete view of how the section of the tarot community represented by AT perceived my work.
My friends and my enemies, the people that love it, the people that hate it, and the ones that just say 'meh'.

Or is this place just going to turn into a mutual back slapping session where we all stand in a circle and tell each other how wonderful we are because we are forbidden to do otherwise?

 

[Wendywu]

That is a very eloquent and clearly put response Lillie. I too would desperately hope that we never became a praise-fest, where the dissenting voice couldn't be heard.

But I also dislike the tearing a deck to pieces in ever more extravagant terms simply to raise a laugh. It seems so very hurtful for the person who has worked so hard on it; surely there are kinder ways to say "no thanks, not quite my cup of tea".

 

[Lillie]

AT as a whole has a policy of politeness and respect, doesn't it?

This should be observed while commenting on someone's work. It's always possible to give an opinion without being nasty or cruel.

Any posts that were felt to be malicious should be reported, just as they are in any other part of the site.

 

[The crowned one]

But I also dislike the tearing a deck to pieces in ever more extravagant terms simply to raise a laugh. It seems so very hurtful for the person who has worked so hard on it; surely there are kinder ways to say "no thanks, not quite my cup of tea".

My method is generally silence.

I am really against the idea of critique censorship, but for critique etiquette. Common courtesy and sense.

If it is as simple as "owning what you say", have a rule of: if you post critique, you sign with your real name, if you can not do that for fear or privacy, do not post criticism.

 

[gregory]

My method is generally silence.

I am really against the idea of critique censorship, but for critique etiquette. Common courtesy and sense.

If it is as simple as "owning what you say", have a rule of: if you post critique, you sign with your real name, if you can not do that for fear or privacy, do not post criticism.

Um.

I very much agree with Lillie.

But - much as I love you, TCO - I am NOT posting critique - or anything else here - under my real name. Not because I am ashamed to own what I say - but because I don't choose to reveal myself ANYWHERE on the internet. I've just had my email hacked as a result of security breaches on a "reliable" and at least honest charity site. I am not taking chances on forums, where people I have managed to lose touch with quite deliberately might manage to find me, and where all sorts of other privacy issues might arise. As many pointed out in a discussion a while ago - many here don't choose to have their families and everyone at work and so on know of their interest here. Using one's real name exposes you in ways that many of us would prefer not to be exposed, and which have absolutely nothing to do with ownership.

If it isn't OK to post criticism without using my real name - then I won't post it at all. But I think that really isn't a reasonable way for a forum to have to be.

 

[Milfoil]

If you want true, unbiased appraisal then do a blind study but at University, when students are in a 'crit' session, it can get quite brutal because each 'artist's work is so personal to them and you either suck it up and defend your decisions against unjust criticism or you go cry in the toilets with a couple of friends handing you tissues. I'll give you 3 guesses how many of the latter made it through.

Here things are somewhat different and you can easily tell the ones who are criticising with no real depth to their argument. Some stuff is just a matter of personal choice and should be shrugged off by the artist as something to perhaps consider in a wider context (size, lamination etc) but other things, for example a dec with an environmental theme would be easily criticised for certain toxic inks used or child labour etc.

The art itself is always going to be a matter of personal taste but even then some elements of a highly symbolic and generally well understood system will come under fire if they show that the artist is lacking knowledge in this area.

Perhaps guidelines which reflect a more professional attitude to criticism, ie back up your statements with solid reason and try to balance comments with both positive and (if necessary) negative opinions.

Opening up a deck for criticism here on AT is complex because it is a much broader format than social networking sites where it only tends to be 'followers' and 'subscribers' who already like that style are viewing and commenting. But then just because something is difficult doesn't make it impossible and the ones who can use both stages will do best.

I agree with Lillie and TCO, criticism here should be balanced and reasoned.

 

[GryffinSong]

Just a couple of quick comments. I agree with gregory. Real name should have no relavence to a critique.

And I also want to say that there is a difference between criticism and critique. Both should be allowed as a matter of free speech, but a critique implies both positive and negative input, and always focused on what might be done to improve the work. Criticism is, by definition, negative. If someone wants to say a deck is ugly, that's their perogative. But if I create a deck and ask for a reasoned review with constructive feedback, I would find a post that simply said my deck was ugly to be off topic and of no constructive worth.

 

[nicky]

I agree with Lillie and TCO, criticism here should be balanced and reasoned.

And polite of course.

I missed the facebook hub bub - which also cleared out Baba's comments - which is unfortunate. I am always curious to see what the pros have to say - thanks to Ciro and Ric for piping in

That does open a new set of criterion I think - In my opinion, the people that create decks for money (I didn't want to use the word professionals as I believe it is copy-written) should have or do have a thicker skin - it is a product after all. I am not at all implying they do not care about their products - only that it is most likely not their only child baby ... And as such should be able to handle comments about their work far easier than someone who is making their only child baby deck.

If someone chooses to show a deck they are making for their own satisfaction and not planning on selling - I would expect a less than perfect product (yes we all know examples in both ways that prove this wrong but overall...) - and thus any criticism (I would hope) would be slanted towards encouragement. That does not mean we are free to go for the jugular for the pros - it is just common sense - I doubt Roger Ebert expects a high school play to have Meryl Streep performances...

It takes a lot of courage to post work online - some of this is just so bad it hurts my eyes - so I say nothing - really what is the point - but if it is something that will be sold to the public I am the public and feel I can ask questions or have an opinion ... if someone is making a system of divination they should be able to explain why they did it the way they did -

 

[gregory]

Just a couple of quick comments. I agree with gregory. Real name should have no relavence to a critique.

And I also want to say that there is a difference between criticism and critique. Both should be allowed as a matter of free speech, but a critique implies both positive and negative input, and always focused on what might be done to improve the work. Criticism is, by definition, negative.

I don't think that's quite true: my italics:

crit·i·cism

noun
1.
the act of passing judgment as to the merits of anything.
2.
the act of passing severe judgment; censure; faultfinding.
3.
the act or art of analyzing and evaluating or judging the quality of a literary or artistic work, musical performance, art exhibit, dramatic production, etc.
4.
a critical comment, article, or essay; critique.
5.
any of various methods of studying texts or documents for the purpose of dating or reconstructing them, evaluating their authenticity, analyzing their content or style, etc.: historical criticism; literary criticism.

etc.