Thank you for your report!
We have received your report and it is currently under investigation by a forum moderator.
Constructive Criticism
Welcome to the forum.
Here you can discuss all things art with like-minded artists, join regular painting challenges, ask questions, buy and sell art materials and much more.
Make sure you sign in or register to join the discussions.
Hang on Studio Wall
This is a Studio member-only feature!
Join our Studio membership and save your favourite Painters Online content, from gallery artwork to step-by-step guides, to your own online mood boards. Create your go-to place for inspiration and learning. Plus, members can also enjoy a range of exciting features including monthly art videos and a digital magazine library.
If you are already a Studio member, simply login to your account.
Not a Studio member? Why not try our free 30-day trial - no commitment, no credit card required
Message
Posted
After reading the discussion around Tony Palmer's painting of a woman's breasts, I reflected that at least it introduced an element of controversy which is somewhat refreshing on POL.
It would be helpful if constructive criticism was employed when comments are posted instead of just praise (which, of course, we all love!). I simply mean something along the lines of 'Love the composition and perspective but cannot appreciate your choice of colours' or 'I admire your skill in executing such a skilful portrait but find the subject a little sentimental.' You get the idea. I personally find I am reluctant to leave a comment when I have reservations or a negative reaction to a painting at the risk of upsetting the artist but I hope none of us would take exception to a helpful comment worded in a kindly way.
Any thoughts?
Posted
I haven't been painting "seriously" (whatever that is) for very long - I guess about 4 years now. With most of the, regrettably too few, things that I post on the gallery I deliberately ask for a critique - fun things like the "colour challenges" excepted - and I'd welcome adverse comments. I do this because I want to improve: I'm going to look at, and think about, any negative comments. I may take them on board, or I may discard them as not applicable to the direction in which I want to move. Whichever, I've found them helpful - but I believe that a lot of novice painters wouldn't think that way. They may have a lot of self-doubt, and might be put off by criticism, even when it's meant to be constructive. So, personally I'd only dish up a critical analysis if it was specifically asked for. In my case, probably not even then as I'd feel inadequately informed to express a meaningful judgement. Perhaps there could be a "check box" when work is submitted to the gallery to indicate whether critical comment is welcome. I certainly agree that a succession of vapid "It's great" comments is pretty meaningless. Equally, if no comments are received then you think "Did it just pass people by?" or was it "They didn't really like it, but were too kind to say so"? As I say, I speak as a neophyte with the viewpoint that any comment, if it is constructive albeit negative, is better than none at all! All this is more about technical issues rather than content, though. I don't know if my view of Tony Palmer's painting is going to be refreshing: I disagree that the controversy is about a painting of a woman's breasts, which would hardly be a novel subject. Any objection must surely be about the sexually-charged nature of the pose and particularly the clothing, presumably deliberately exacerbated by the title. I'm not at all sure how you can have constructive criticism here. To me, the whole point of the painting is its provocative nature, which you'll either accept or hate. Take that away and you haven't got a subject any more: you couldn't say "Nice painting, but I think you should tone down the sexual vibes"
Posted
Well, I have done that - in fact I've done it fairly often, usually trying to put it in a more "have you thought of doing X and Y" way, which wouldn't be inconsistent with what you're suggesting. Usually, this has been accepted in the spirit in which it was given. On a couple of occasions, when I thought I was being quite polite about a Bob Ross inspired set of predictable clone paintings given what I really felt about them, it went down rather badly. But I can't say it stopped me doing it, because I agree with you - if you think a painting could have been improved by a different approach, or that a painter might try expressing themselves in their own way rather than being a slavish copyist of one particular painting method, then provided your intention is to be helpful and not belittling I believe you should say so; and that if people don't like it they should acquire a thicker skin, and question why they're showing their work. If all they want is a "very nice dear", that's the job of your great aunt Dottie, not a public gallery.
The particular controversy to which you refer arose over subject matter rather than technical skills or methods; the implied question was "is it art?" - and I generally try to avoid getting involved in that, because these days it's harder to define what art is or isn't than it's ever been. I was surprised by the choice of subject, given the context - you don't often get a show of the full frontals on POL; as someone once said, I don't want all this smut and bare bodies everywhere: I can get all that at home.....
Posted
After my last sentence "you couldn't say "Nice painting, but I think you should tone down the sexual vibes", I was very surprised at Robert's response "Well, I have done that - in fact I've done it fairly often"! please don't disappoint me, Robert, and say you were replying to the original post!
Posted
I found the painting by Tony Palmer. I would expect to occasionally see similar paintings like it on the site. If people wish to criticise it, that's the purpose of exhibiting paintings, the artist can't please everybody.
Should critics post negative remarks in a forum like this ? It all depends. If the critique mentions the good points of the painting plus any flaws, that gives a balanced view. A lot depends on the tone of the critique - I've seen a few that have been blunt and would have upset the artist.
I've seen others where the critic has carefully worded any negative comments yet the artist has been very offended.
There's no easy way of judging the right tone to adopt.
Posted
I have also just found it and am a bit indifferent about it although it's not the sort of thing I would have posted or even thought of painting in the first place. Interestingly there have been other far more explicit drawings/paintings on the site which have passed by almost unoticed.
As for critiques I would welcome more constructive comments but I guess we are all too polite for fear of upsetting others. As a result the comments generally are somewhat lovey dovey and we have ended up with the situation whereby those who comment most (and I have been among them) tend to receive the most comments themselves and those who chose to not to comment on others generally tend to miss out. I've not been posting or commenting for some time so I think I'll pop something in the gallery.
Edited
by Michael Edwards
Posted
Briefly, re: Thea - colour palettes are personal, and I wouldn't comment (adversely) on those. I would (sometimes - if the painting were otherwise of interest) point out that a horizon was sloping violently downwards on the sea... because water's flat, waves and surges apart, and it can ruin a painting if you don't observe that. Although even there - you can INTEND a horizon to be at a crazy angle (say if you're trying to indicate being on the deck of a boat, for instance); I'm not sure saying "that's wrong" is ever helpful - you can suggest, and within the limits of one's own experience, guide a bit. I think it's legitimate to do that, and I've found it helpful myself (and have usually appreciated it: when I haven't, it's because I've disagreed with the helpful thought; and if someone should disagree with mine, well that's the price of commenting at all).
If I really think a piece of work is so god-awful that I've nothing good to say about it, I say nothing: just because I can see no good in it doesn't mean anything other than that ...... I can see no good in it; so I can't say anything helpful. That's the whole point really: you can't tell a beginner that they should paint like a pro, assuming they want to anyway; artistic criticism in the narrow sense isn't really appropriate here; but a hint here and there - I think the site would be poorer, much poorer, without it.
And just now and then - not as a regular thing, and not to be abused - a bit of trenchant criticism is quite justifiable, if you think a piece is vulgar, obscene, or trembling on the edge of being downright unsavoury. In reality we don't get much of that, so rarely need to respond too roughly - again: a bit of care here; there's a difference between a frank and bold piece of work, and outright soft (or hard) pornography. It's all about judgement. And this was going to be brief......
Posted
Salt is a matter of taste - some like a lot and some like a little which is why I get so annoyed with those sanctimonious judges on those awful cookery programmes. And so it is with art. I have witnessed a lot of mumbling in disagreement with comments made by people giving critiques at out local art club for example. I think Thea sums it all up well.
Posted
I often add some crit on perspective or structure, and often say the work is smashing. I agree with Alan Bickley's comments.
I attended a crtique at our art club on Saturday and got really good comments from the pro on one of my credit card new works, but more crtiical (constructive) comments on a larger ink and wash from my past. He was right, I hadn't thought about it and recognised such.