Critique Section

[Amy on Salt Spring]

..... Probably a result of spending the day in my studio tying many, many, many little knots (don't ask).

Amy I am becoming convinced that if you weren't trying to get a repetitive motion injury, you wouldn't feel whole! Well, okay, I exaggerate a little. But seriously, you do do a lot of those teeny things. And the outcome is always fabulous. Take lots of rests, I'd hate to see you lose the ability to tie all those knots and drill all those holes!

barbara

Noticed my self destructive tendencies have you? Actually the tiny knots and the zillion holes are all for the same piece. Various delays have happened in finishing it so I have been working on other less taxing things in between, but thanks for the reminder Barbara! However I get the frame back from the powder coater today (Hooray!!!!) and can start assembling the whole thing--not sure how long that will take. I've thought of various names for this piece like, "Geez My Fingers Are Sore", "What Is Wrong With My Brain" or "Can't You People See This Is A Cry For Help!" but I'll probably go with the original title once its done. Of course now that I am closer to seeing the finished product I am beginning to forget about the pain and considering doing another piece with a similar assembly...
Amy

[Barbara Muth]

Amy you need to spend a little time with my family. I did the carpal tunnel thing five years ago. Truly a workplace injury caused by them being too slow to fix something broken. Right now my mother has shoulder issues caused by laying mulch in her yard by herself, and leaves PT in tears 3 times a week (and she is the empress of stoicism). My sister is facing the possibility of surgery on her ulnar nerve tunnel in the elbow on both sides, caused by laying sod herself in a weekend, and my father has carpal tunnel as well. I am starting to wonder if there isn't a genetic propensity for these things - or maybe it is the stubborn streak we have about doing things ourselves. Anyway.... just be careful and I can't wait to see it!

Barbara

[Cynthia]

Noticed my self destructive tendencies have you? ...I ...can start assembling the whole thing--not sure how long that will take. I've thought of various names for this piece like, "Geez My Fingers Are Sore", "What Is Wrong With My Brain" or "Can't You People See This Is A Cry For Help!" ...
Amy

I like "...Cry for Help?", then "...My Brain?" as a close second

I want to see the finished product. Interested in posting it? I like your work no matter what you title it and would love to see the next iteration.

[AVLucky]

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 ) 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!

[Amy on Salt Spring]

Noticed my self destructive tendencies have you? ...I ...can start assembling the whole thing--not sure how long that will take. I've thought of various names for this piece like, "Geez My Fingers Are Sore", "What Is Wrong With My Brain" or "Can't You People See This Is A Cry For Help!" ...
Amy

I like "...Cry for Help?", then "...My Brain?" as a close second

I want to see the finished product. Interested in posting it? I like your work no matter what you title it and would love to see the next iteration.

Barbara its definitely stubbornness over genetics! Or maybe I am the long lost member of your familly. I hate taking a long time to do things and want to push myself until I get the job done! For instance I painted our downstairs hallway two weeks ago, started at about 9:00am and worked without stopping until about 4:00 (had to tape off six doorframes, the ceiling and the baseboards, two coats on the hallway walls which continue up the stairs to the second floor--up and down the step ladder a million times). At 7:00pm I decided I didn't quite like the color so I doctored the remaining paint and instead of waiting to finish the next day I painted until midnight (last coat took way longer because I was exhausted). My husband is on your side--I drive him crazy when I do stuff like that.
Thanks Cynthia I will post a picture when its done. I certainly hope its all worth it in the end!
Amy

[The Hobbyist]

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.

Maybe what we need is a form listing the points you oulined that could simply be filled in by the critic. It would save time and would also keep the focus on the art (object) rather than the artist (person).

I may have been misunderstood when I spoke about "artspeak". I meant nothing negative. I probably should have used the word vocabulary. I don't know the correct vobaulary to describe what I see in someone's piece. If you give me a form to fill in I might have a chance to properly express myself about the work.

Did any of that make sense?.................................Jim

[Brock]

. . . 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. . .

That's a nice thought, and probably most people could come up with a reasonable assessment of what they liked, and why they liked it. But, if I wanted a realistic appraisal of a work of art, I would be far more interested in the opinion of Robert Hughes or, (insert your favourite critic here) than that of, say, Zippy the Pinhead, or Yahoo Serious, (unless it was film). Critical writing is, in my opinion, an art form in itself.

Maybe what we need is a form listing the points you oulined that could simply be filled in by the critic. It would save time and would also keep the focus on the art (object) rather than the artist (person).

When having works assessed, juried, curated, or included in a show, often a ballot form is used. The BCGAA came up with it's own after a bad experience with a runaway jury, (sorry Mr. Grisham)

There were four categories, something like, Design, Content, Execution and Something Else. Each juror, we normally use 3, filled out the forms, separately, and individually, using different coloured pens that we provided. Awarding a max of 5 points in each category, we then had threee scores with a max of 20. So out of the possible total of 60, we could then pick any piece over a certain number of points, or count down from the top to get the number of pieces that WE wanted for the show. After this process, the jury was free to artspeak their faces off and try and influence each other. It is particularly telling to me, that often, the winning piece was not one of the high scorers in the ballot.

It's a good idea for local arts organizations to comer up with their own criteria, and have the jury fill in the blanks, so to speak. It gives the association SOME control over the caprices of the jury.[/color]

[AVLucky]

That's a nice thought, and probably most people could come up with a reasonable assessment of what they liked, and why they liked it. But, if I wanted a realistic appraisal of a work of art, I would be far more interested in the opinion of Robert Hughes or, (insert your favourite critic here) than that of, say, Zippy the Pinhead, or Yahoo Serious, (unless it was film). Critical writing is, in my opinion, an art form in itself.

Yeah, I know. I agree you'd get a more thorough evaluation from someone who was practiced at it, and had the impressive background to match. I wanted to make the point that, given the spirit of this board, anyone can learn to give a useful crit. The emphasis is on the word learn. Critical thinking is something that needs to be learned and practiced, just like kiln-forming glass. I think it would be tricky to get everyone to agree on a set list of criteria, but heading in that direction might help to cultivate more thoughtful critiques. People who are interested in developing their critique skills should try to pick up a bit of the basic art vocabulary (terms related to color and compostion, etc.) but also learn to listen to their instincts. It takes a pro to really delve into a piece and get to its essence, but it only takes a child to point out that the emperor has no clothes.

There were four categories, something like, Design, Content, Execution and Something Else.

Well, that's a start. Maybe more people would like to add their own categories too. It seems to me, though, that "design" is a pretty big can of worms, and we might do better to break that down into smaller components.

Any thoughts?

[Brock]

That's a nice thought, and probably most people could come up with a reasonable assessment of what they liked, and why they liked it. But, if I wanted a realistic appraisal of a work of art, I would be far more interested in the opinion of Robert Hughes or, (insert your favourite critic here) than that of, say, Zippy the Pinhead, or Yahoo Serious, (unless it was film). Critical writing is, in my opinion, an art form in itself.

Yeah, I know. I agree you'd get a more thorough evaluation from someone who was practiced at it, and had the impressive background to match. I wanted to make the point that, given the spirit of this board, anyone can learn to give a useful crit. The emphasis is on the word learn. Critical thinking is something that needs to be learned and practiced, just like kiln-forming glass. I think it would be tricky to get everyone to agree on a set list of criteria, but heading in that direction might help to cultivate more thoughtful critiques. People who are interested in developing their critique skills should try to pick up a bit of the basic art vocabulary (terms related to color and compostion, etc.) but also learn to listen to their instincts. It takes a pro to really delve into a piece and get to its essence, but it only takes a child to point out that the emperor has no clothes.

There were four categories, something like, Design, Content, Execution and Something Else.

Well, that's a start. Maybe more people would like to add their own categories too. It seems to me, though, that "design" is a pretty big can of worms, and we might do better to break that down into smaller components.

Any thoughts?

Good points.

What the categories are called can vary and differ, it is just a way of arriving at a mark, or score. Now, this is for jurying, quite different from a critique.

To play Devil's advocate for a moment, consider 2 different, fused and slumped bowls.

One is merely 2 layers of glass, fused, cold worked and slumped. No design, no content, just well executed.

The other is identical, except for a simple powder butterfly.

Whish is superior?

Is one superior?

Which one will attract more interest?

It depends on the audience.

Many people will like, (therefore assuming the superiority of, because . . . what they like must be good!) the butterfly bowl. A critic however, may find the butterfly passe, overdone, trite, uninspired, lacking in merit, etc,. etc. The critic could go into paroxysms of artspeak about the purity of the unadorned form, and the courage of the artist to express themselves in a simplistic manner.

Another critic might just see a functional object, and give it no credence whatsoever.

Who is right?

Who knows!

[AVLucky]

Many people will like, (therefore assuming the superiority of, because . . . what they like must be good!) the butterfly bowl. A critic however, may find the butterfly passe, overdone, trite, uninspired, lacking in merit, etc,. etc. The critic could go into paroxysms of artspeak about the purity of the unadorned form, and the courage of the artist to express themselves in a simplistic manner.

Another critic might just see a functional object, and give it no credence whatsoever.

Who is right?

Who knows!

Nobody is right. That's the great part!

[Brock]

Many people will like, (therefore assuming the superiority of, because . . . what they like must be good!) the butterfly bowl. A critic however, may find the butterfly passe, overdone, trite, uninspired, lacking in merit, etc,. etc. The critic could go into paroxysms of artspeak about the purity of the unadorned form, and the courage of the artist to express themselves in a simplistic manner.

Another critic might just see a functional object, and give it no credence whatsoever.

Who is right?

Who knows!

Nobody is right. That's the great part!

You're right! Wait . . . that can't be right!

This kind of event, especially jurying, is topical and situational.

Dofferent juries, different results. Brock

[Linda Reed]

You're right! Wait . . . that can't be right!

This kind of event, especially jurying, is topical and situational.

Dofferent juries, different results. Brock

And that's where intent comes in and is necessary to know. Is this bowl (the theoretical bowl in question) slated for a jury for a high end gallery or big league show, or is this bowl an example of someone learning about enamel or surface decoration? If the critiquers knew what the intent was they could respond in the manner requested...

And the butterfly bowl critiquee (??) would have to be thick skinned enough to realize that some people will see a butterfly and coo and some people will see a butterfly and gag. And some people will have fantastic suggestions on how to make the butterfly better, or the bowl better, or how to enhance it or go off on various tangents or what jurys look for or suggestions on morphing towards <i> art</i>. I think most people asking for a critique are hoping for constructive feedback and will be able to see where the critiquers are coming from and filter the advice accordingly as it suits their situation and needs. Don't you?

Linda

[Cynthia]

Thank Gawd (yes, I am trying not to offend) that we are talking about the process and how it might be useful, or done well. I really didn't want to see this ball dropped, but didn't know how to add to it without sounding like I was...well, whatever it would have sounded like.

Critical thinking is something that needs to be learned and practiced, just like kiln-forming glass... People who are interested in developing their critique skills should try to pick up a bit of the basic art vocabulary (terms related to color and compostion, etc.)

Thanks AVLucky for saying much better than I, what I was trying to express. I always think I come across as snooty, when that is the last thing I intend... You found the right word for Artspeak, which is vocabulary. I am not interested in engaging in some kind of exercise in sounding superior by tossing out language that is esoteric jargon, but using a common vocabulary that we all can make sense out of. If I were to participate, I would want to talk about the design concepts that relate to how a piece is composed. I would be happy to explain a concept if it seems relevant.

To play Devil's advocate for a moment, consider 2 different, fused and slumped bowls.

One is merely 2 layers of glass, fused, cold worked and slumped. No design, no content, just well executed.

The other is identical, except for a simple powder butterfly.

They get discussed individually and not as compared to anothers work. Find out what the maker has in mind, what are their concerns and intent for this work and what are they trying to achieve. Then talk about the things they did that supported their intentions, and what things they might consider doing to further that agenda. I want to hear the talk about the Why as well. If you say, 'Those two colors look snappy together...you can also talk about why they do, and how you can tone it down or beef it up...or just leave it as is if the combinations succeed in expressing the intent of the maker. Color theory is fun and simple and a real boon to your work if you can step beyond good instincts and learn how to manipulate them. I used color theory simply as an example. It could be line quality, contrast, balance...all easy concepts to get a handle on if you want to explore them in terms of design as well as the basics of kiln forming.

And Linda, I won't quote you, but rather I will say...YES!!!

[Brock]

I think most people asking for a critique are hoping for constructive feedback and will be able to see where the critiquers are coming from and filter the advice accordingly as it suits their situation and needs. Don't you?

Linda


Absolutely. I think if a critic or reviewer has an agenda, other than constructive criticism, it is immediately apparent. At least to me.

And, filtering the advice accordingly as it suits their situation and needs, is probably the most important part of the whole process. Brock

[Don Burt]

clip

I always think I come across as snooty, when that is the last thing I intend...

Maybe, but art criticism is snooty by nature. I'd rather you didn't abridge
the words that first come to mind, just to avoid making someone feel...snooted.

You found the right word for Artspeak, which is vocabulary. I am not interested in engaging in some kind of exercise in sounding superior by tossing out language that is esoteric jargon, but using a common vocabulary that we all can make sense out of. If I were to participate, I would want to talk about the design concepts that relate to how a piece is composed. I would be happy to explain a concept if it seems relevant.

Artspeak runs out of stuff to say pretty quick. Ultimately after talking about formal design you have to discuss art in terms of its entertainment value (pardon me: its value as art). That requires leaving artspeak and talking about everything else in the world. Then it's even easier to get snooty as we try to explain why butterflies don't interest us, but icebergs dyed red do .

But I like the formal criticism here. I bet its worthwhile to people of all levels of participation.

Red Iceberg:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/03 ... ceberg.ap/

[The Hobbyist]

Is it just me or has anyone else noticed that we seem to chew some of these topics to death and end up taking no action. Either there is no real interest in a critique section by anyone other than a meager handful or they're all waiting for engraved invitations to participate. A third possibility is that there is a long line forming to start the process as soon as they're sure we are finished discussing it.

I posted a piece earlier (in Photos and Stuff)) to "prime the pump" and it got some, but limited, response. There hasn't exactly been a stampede to follow my lead and put a piece up for critique. Maybe the responses to mine were intimidating and/or inadequate and thus discouraging to the waiting throng, if there is one. I, for one, could be easily convinced that what is most wanted is the "pat on the back", "good job" responses even if they're not overly sincere. Status quo, so to speak. I hope I'm wrong and that there is sufficient interest to get this off the ground. I'm being purely selfish, I would like a designated place to get help to improve something other than technical problems.

I'm pondering if I should try again. Maybe this time I should provide more information. such as: Why I made it, How I made it, What the intended impression was. and ?????

Yea or nay? In Photos and Stuff or here? None of the above?

Jim

[Brock]

Everyone is on their own ride Jim, hard to herd 'em. I think this can work, but everybody goes at different paces. If you have work, and want input, stick it on up. Others will follow. Or not. But, you'll still have your input. Brock

[Linda Reed]

I agree. I think this thread (for those stalwart enough to have followed it through time) will bring results.

I'll post something one of these days for critique. There are probably lots of us hobbyists that off and on spend more time on the board than we do in the studio (shame! ). I have a 40 hour per week day job, and a 3 acre parcel of 'in progress' land in need of lots of attending and landscaping and discing and weeding and planting, not to mention decking and patio-ing (and did I mention planting and weeding?), and a house being remodeled/additioned/ tiled, painted 'by owner' (that's half me) not to mention exercise and dog walking and kid driving etc... (ochestra of violins creshendo-ing (sp) in sympathy ... )

So I have glass ideas and I try this and that, and produce less of that and this, and take pictures of even less...

But I am interested in growing, and I know I won't grow just listening to my coworkers and family (coworkers say way cool, family says, jeez, you're weird - neither in 'artspeak'). But actually getting a piece that is a stepping stone piece is what I am interested in now. Then I'll post and try to get direction. In the meantime I am anxiously awaiting the REST of you posting, so I can learn without the trial and error part .

So wha'cha say?? Get those pieces out there for review.

Linda

[Rebecca M.]

I haven't posted anything for a critique, because I don't have anything yet that I want critiqued. I'm working on something now, working out the bugs mostly, that I will post to see if it has any potential and should be explored more or not. I guess I'm prepared for people to like it or not, to see design or color value or not. Mostly though, I'm waiting to see if I like it or not. If that makes any sense. It's kind of like everything else in life and with people. The only example I can think of is pork chops and apple sauce. Some people gotta have them together and some people get the heeby-jeebies if they touch on the plate. And then there are those who just don't care one way or the other. What are you going to do? That's just the way it is. I do know that if and when I ask for a critique that I would hope that Cynthia not abstain. I read in one of these threads or other that someone said you were arrogant in your critiques?!? Well excuse me, but that's just BS. I find your posts anything but arrogant. Certainly not snotty or full of 'artspeak' either. Quite the opposite. I find them involved and informative and especially like the fact that you don't 'dumb down' the vernacular. It's refreshing to 'think' in another way than just 'oh don't those colors look pretty'.

Anyway, this may be off the subject, but it's got me wondering. Does size matter when one talks about excellent works? It seems to me it does. Many of the things I see posted here, in the books, and elsewhere are quite large. And furthermore, does the amount of coldworking equipment contibute to this? Maybe touchy or maybe not.
I'm not discounting smaller things. I happen to love miniatures, but really who can look at Bert or Phil's kiln and not get kiln envy? Or see what effects can be so artfully done with cold-working equipment. Some of us don't or can't have these things. I'm thinking that this might be a major impetus against people posting for critiques. Or even just showing what they're up to. Yes? No? Maybe?

Can small glass work be just as glorious as large? Can something that leans toward the organic be as visually exciting as a technical piece?

[AVLucky]

Anyway, this may be off the subject, but it's got me wondering. Does size matter when one talks about excellent works? It seems to me it does. Many of the things I see posted here, in the books, and elsewhere are quite large. And furthermore, does the amount of coldworking equipment contibute to this? ...
...Can small glass work be just as glorious as large? Can something that leans toward the organic be as visually exciting as a technical piece?

Well, I don't think that "organic" and "technical" have to be mutually exclusive, but that's a discussion for another day.

What sparked my interest here is the small vs. large question. Size is a big contributor to the impressiveness of a piece. You can do much more in a large format rather than a small one simply because of the physical limitations of the material. You can put a lot more stuff in a square foot than in a square inch, so there is much more room for originality. I think this is probably the biggest reason that large-scale fusers far outnumber the ones who make jewelry, when it comes to exhibitors at the most exclusive high-end shows

This is something that I struggle with in my own work. After a few years of making fused jewelry, I got very frustruated because I realized that, although my technique had gotten more refined, I hadn't really been doing anything to truly develop my work. My sparkly blobs looked pretty much the same as everyone else's sparkly blobs, and that bothered me. I didn't want to stop making jewelry, so I put myself up to the challenge of better design work. I have overhauled my whole design process and focused on creating more visually interesting small pieces, without depending on dichroic glass or murrine. It's only been about 6 months now, and I'm gradually regaining my atrophied metal skills as I develop the glasswork at the same time. It's kind of slow going, but I feel like I'm making some progress.

So my answer to "Can small glass work be just as glorious as large?" is: I sure hope so!


Amy