I think that a lot of inexperienced fusers are afraid to post a critique because they only know what they like, not necessarily the right words for why they like it (the negative/positive space and imagry type words)
I understand the reluctance of people who are fairly well established in the field – and who have received much artistic feedback already in their careers – to subject themselves to the ‘pubic’ critique process. And those of you that this applies to HAVE a network of friends and/or peers that can give you the higher level and trusted feedback that you ask for.
For fusers who are a little less far along that path, there may be no other place they can turn to where other people understand the techniques and inherent limitations and possibilities of working with kiln fired glass. It’s this group who could benefit from critique from both out peers and the trained artist.
I think that with the proper disclaimer/instructions on the forum, it could be O.K. for the people asking for a critique. "Please state size of piece, intended purpose, artistic intent, marketing intent, whether you are looking for artistic feedback or technical feedback, help with an specific technique, etc, etc… ". And if all went well, it could be a dialogue with responses and more critique.
How to get people to post critiques, now that's something I haven't thought of. I'm as bad about that as about asking for them I guess - I don't think my opinion is valued or educated, and I don't think my glass is at a level that begs critique. There are probably many others in the same boat. Thinking that giving an opinion that doesn't meet the 'art' opinion exposes us for the charlatans we really are
It makes me so disappointed that many people feel this way. Nobody's opinion is worth any less than anyone else's. It's all just a matter of finding the right words (and not necessarily "artspeak"), and the right jumping-off point to discuss art. After all, you don't have to be a scholar to experience a work of art, so you shouldn't have to be one to evaluate it.
I did go to art school, and let me tell you, I heard quite a lot of babble while I was there. Don't be thrown by a bunch of 50 cent words. If you can see past them you'll know if there's a valid point or not. But some of us (myself included
![Embarassed :oops:](./images/smilies/icon_redface.gif)
) get drawn into that kind of language all too easily, probably from overexposure to it.
Fortunately, everything I ever needed to know about crits, I learned in high school, from one of the finest art teachers (and human beings) who ever lived, Mr. Claude Falcone. In his class, we did a criticism of every single assignment by every student, in addition to artwork in museums, galleries, public places, and magazines. The crit process was completely demystified by simply starting with a few basic considerations of each piece: use of color, texture, shape and size, balance, subject matter, symbolism, materials, craftsmanship, artist's intent, etc. It's much easier to discuss a piece of art when you can break it down into components that way. There may be other issues specific to different kinds of work, but all it really takes is some thought about what makes up the piece. Once you get comfortable with thinking about it in those terms, it's much easier to say
why you like something or not. It's really just about describing what you see.
We all work in the same medium here. I'd say that's a pretty good common ground. We have the luxury of technical insight as well as aesthetic reactions. Even though some have far more working knowledge than others, everyone can contribute to the discussion. The only unwelcome crits should be the ones that say "I like it/ I don't like it, " without saying why. A well thought-out evaluation will be informative and helpful, no matter who it comes from. And if it's
not full of hot air, so much the better!