whether it's music or a skin, people deserve honest feedback...
Ispend most of my time on JU debating politics. I do enjoy, however, taking a break from the current event scene and checking out some articles on other subjects.
Of course, on this site, there are plenty of articles about "skinning" which is something I admittedly don't understand fully. I do understand that Stardock is in the business of skinning and it is quite a hobby for some who frequent here. I recently came across an article asking about the effect of overly nice or purposefully mean reviews.
I don't have a clue on how to make skins or participate in that "artful" pursuit. I do occasionally check out the work of some of the artists who make skins for thier computer. I haven't "reviewed" any, as they all look pretty cool to me. Plus, I am just in a state of admiration for anyone who can do something that I can't. My reviews might end up just being a spew of compliments that aren't necessarily based on a critical look of the work, but an exercize in blowing up someone's head that may or may not be justified.
But others do review their art. Just as I have had my music and writing critiqued over the years. And there is a constant "value" that should always be present when reviewing an artistic work.
Honesty.
And by that, I mean polite and respectful honesty. Yes, there are rare occasions when an artist does need a verbal "kick in the ass" but that usually comes from someone who has a long standing with the artist and in a position where "tough love" tactics may not be as offesnsive as coming from someone else.
But reviews and critiques tend to be from 2 polarized camps, and neither do the artist any good.
The 1st is pretty well known. It's the jerk who comes in and s*its on your work. And usually they are doing it more for the sake of being mean and cause they can get away with it more than anything else. Nobody likes to be sh"t on, and artists are no execption.
The 2nd is possibly more damaging to an artist. While someone just trashing you or your work just to try to "get under your skin" or bother you like a pest somehow, isn't much fun to most, most artists can shake that off and keep focus on what they do.
The 2nd way one can harm the artist and their work is by what I call the "art school" way of reviewing.
When I was much younger, I spent some time studying audio and video production at the Art Institute. There, young artists are in a very creative environment and students from all departments are constantly creating art which is to be viewed and judged somehow by their propfessors.
Of course, that means everyone is gonna be judged at some point. So, everyone is in the same boat. And of course, most people, even artists, want to be nice and polite and want to avoid being someone who "s*its on" someone else's work. And most don't want their work to be "retaliated on" if they should be negative about someone else. This breeds what I call the "art school" style of peer review.
The result is that everyone is gushingly complimentary of everyone else. In art school, every painting is the next "Mona Lisa." Every sculpture the next "David." Every video the next "Thriller."
The result from that is that 1/2 assed and mediocre work becomes the standard. And the bigger damage is done when that artist doesn't learn and grow from the work. If the professor is critical of the work, the artist can easily seek the cover of positive peer review and end up leaving the institution before they are ready to compete in the bigger world of real art review. If they are received well by the professor nad their grade reflects it, the artist ends up potentially thinking they are wasting their time learning more and should head out on their own.
In either case, the rest of us suffer by having to endure a low standard of quality from someone who isn't untalented necessarily, but over -ego'ed and undertrained.
Most artists want people to simply enjoy their work beyond the intentions and standards of high art. And when we are not honest in our critiques of their work, artists get skewed impressions and produce more of what we already didn't like.
But how can one be both honest and not overly mean or nice in their critique? I learned to critique this way from a music theory teacher of mine from way back and it seems to work pretty well on the whole and is easily modified for circumstance....
1) If you are going to review something. You owe it to the artist to give the art an honest listen, read or look. This is more than playing the 1st 30 seconds, reading the 1stparagraph or looking at it for 3 seconds. Of course, those "1st impressions" can play into the review, but it shouldn't be the sole basis. for the most part, these reviews are peer reviews, not one by an A&R rep or Simon on American Idol. The rules aren't the same.
2) I have a "3 listen" rule of thumb. this means, if I am going to bother with it, I am going to give it 3 complete listens. That means 3 listens where my attention is preferably 100% tuned in to the piece, but at least 90% of the way there. If I were reviewing a skin, either staring at it for an extended period or giving it 3 seperate looks would be an easy adaptation to the rule.
3) After giving it a fair listen, find something you liked about it. This is not being blindly complimentary, but in most things, i can find something i liked about a piece of art...and don't have to lie to do it.
4) Also, find something you might do differently, or you see that could improve. You don't have to call names or be mean, and your criticizm may be met with a lil hostility. But if it's honest and fair, most artists will internalize the critique and the advice will be a benefit in the artist's future work.
5) If you can do all of that, the rest of what you say will be honest as well, and be a benefit to the person you are critiquing in their future work. It may even help you in your future pursuits, whether they are related, or not. Always be mindful to review the art, and not the artist. When you review the artist and make that the basis of your views, the review is just political punditry, and nowhere near a legitimate critique.
But overly gushing, patronizing or on the other hand, mean reviews usually don't do anyone any good except feed the ego of the reviewer. But an honest critique can benefit everyone. especially in the long run.
Don't be an "art school" style of reviewer. No matter what you are looking at, listening to or whatever.
"