Critiquing -- are we just odd?

Artists critique each others work all the time, in a similar way to writing. You can critique someone's composition, colour use, originality... etc.

I don't know enough about music or art to make the comparison, but it seems to me that fiction needs a reader in an intimate way. The reader reads the words and creates the story in their head. It's an experience that takes place over extended time too. I think it's very hard for us to know if we've succeeded in allowing the reader to have that experience unless the reader tells us.

Years ago, when I focused more on art than writing, I often critiqued. Like Polenth said, we'd critique on such things as composition, colour use, originality. There was always heavy critiquing of use of light and such things. Hell, we even critiqued medium... and I'm not even talking types of paint! I mean, 'yeah... it's a nice mural. But I think it would have been better represented in clay, man.'

We critiqued everything. Problem was, a lot of the time a critique would be something you would consider when starting out on the next project... not really something you could incorporate into a finished piece. With me, when it was done, it was done. But I loved the criticism... for improving the next piece.

My guess (related to your thoughts about consensus): Compared to other arts it's easier for writers to find people who can give feedback that is sufficiently accurate, precise, relevant, and actionable.

Dale

Art classes do have quite a lot of crits.

I think it is actually harder for writers to get crits. In the first place it is "invisible," unless you actually sit down for an hour or more with it (several days for a book). With art, you look at it for 2 minutes you can say something about it.

Regarding the what makes a good song, art, story consensus. I think that is relative to the person. I think I can judge all three. I'm not trying to sound snobbish or condescending... not at all. I am an artist. I may not be able to achieve high art, but I can recognize it. Same with story and song. I know what is right and what is wrong... therefore I feel that I can give a good critique. A writer who is not an artist may not be able to decide within themselves what is right and wrong in a piece of art. It is just level of experience in each of the mediums. I've been an artist for about 30ish years. And, besides, art is so incredibly subjective that it's making a liar out of what I'm saying here. I think if a piece of art was put in front of me, or a song, or a story... I'd be able to critique them all with the same level of competence. Or... maybe a bit less competence with a song... but I'd still tackle it.

The consensus is... there is no consensus.

Yes, as an artist, a critique is tough. I was so pissed the first time my work was critiqued by a well known painter. Just so happened, I went to the same church with him. I was still in high school, and my mother of all people, had this guy come to look at my work. He said I was interesting, but I didn't have enough depth, he focused on one particular picture...I was so hurt. How dare him...but I got over it. He was right. A few weeks later, I sat down and added the most beautiful mountains in the background. It really turned out to be everyone's favorite painting and it hangs in my living room to this day. I respect him and his work, even more. So when I started putting my writing out there, I knew, not to take the critiquing personal. Even if someone tells me...I'm awful...to quit...I will not.
As far as music...my cousin is an opera singer...pretty famous in Europe right now. She worked her ass off in school and was told, to her face, to quit by her professor. She refused...and the next year she won a major contest...got to sing for the president's Christmas party. Critics can be a good thing, even if they tell you to quit...if your stubborn like me and my family.
I think it's a necessary evil for all arts.

Musicians totally do the "peer-critique" thing. Masterclasses and workshops are the norm for classical composers and performers; acoustic singer/songwriters and country singer/songwriters do song circles and song swaps as well as workshops; and rock musicians do "battle of the bands" type things as well as talk a lot with other musicians about their work.

Artists crit the hell out of each others' stuff, it tends to be a lot meaner than writing crits. I've never had someone tell me one of my stories was unreadable bad, but I can't tell you how many times I've had someone tell me that my anatomy was so screwed up it was painful to look at. :/ Seems to be kind of a cultural thing, artists tend to be more into the "no pain no gain" and "the apprentices must abase themselves and endure tortures to earn the right to be egotistic professionals" mentality whereas writers tend toward the more practical "tell me something useful" or "balance each negative comment with a positive one".

Looking at some art - who has the right to say something's good or bad?

I graduated from art school. We had brutal crits every single day.

My brother's a composer. To hear him tell it, everybody's a critic.

Mumut said:

Looking at some art - who has the right to say something's good or bad?

Click to expand...

Theoretically, everyone, since (most) visual art is supposed to be immediately accessible to an audience with no artistic training. We all know what people, buildings, plants, and animals look like and will be instinctively disconcerted if they look incorrect. Stories on the other hand come in a variety of difficulty levels, some are not expected to make sense to anyone who hasn't studied literature.

Mumut said:

Looking at some art - who has the right to say something's good or bad?

Click to expand...

But we are talking crits here. When someone says, "How can I improve my skills as an artist? Please critique my work"... you suddenly have the right to say, "Okay, this is very good right here. You could have made a different choice here. I'd take the dancing chipmunk right out of this space here... I'm not sure if the royal Armenian palace would have been inundated with chipmunks in the 1700s."

We all have the right to say if something is good or bad. And we will all have different opinions. But when you are giving a fair and thoughtful critique, you are attempting to give the artist insights into how they can further their creative path.

From someone who has been involved in various forms of art i can clearly say critics are all around us. We all need that feedback, be it good or bad. The main difference i find with writing is its more lonely. Other forms of art you need and crave the interaction with others of a similar passion. Writing too many seem to write and hide away, not sure if they should show the work or not, and look on with caution at other writers. They seemed worried that they may never match up to the standards of others. This i find puzzling as it does not take place so much here, so i like the place for that. We can all gain so much from another with a passion the same as your, encouragement being the most vital. What ever art you may be passionate about, a friendly informative community is a must.