As far as having no skill, I disagree. Weazel has plenty of skill compared to some others. Until one can produce a work that is of a greater caliber than the art being ridiculed, their argument is invalid.
Yeah, no. 'Do it better' is not a valid rejoinder to critique and never has been. It's 'I know you are, but what am I?' restated. Siskel and Ebert weren't filmmakers, but they were highly respected critics because they knew film history and filmmaking technique despite that.
On the other hand, 'You have no skill' is not critique. It's just as lazy, stupid and immature a dismissal, and doesn't help anyone-- including the asshat who squeezed it out. You've got to back that stuff up! Is there something weird about the proportions? Shading? Is the hair too hairy? There's got to be something there that can be considered and acknowledged or refuted. 'You have no skill' isn't a critique, it's just an asshole trying to make someone feel bad.
This pic does show improvement, so apparently the time spent was worthwhile!
Also, one can critique art without being able to do it better. However, the level of critique sought or the helpfulness of the critique given can create a mismatch: if the artist recognizes flaws and sees it as part of an improvement process, pointing out that there are flaws is redundant and silly. If the critique is "it's bad," that's not useful. *shrug*
To add a comment, please sign in or create an account.
Red_Sun
I SEE NO TRANSFORMATION IN THIS
Allepic
Well I can look at it as a TF :)
Gdhusali
If you look closely, you'll notice his hands and feet are still changing
ClockworkKnight
As far as having no skill, I disagree. Weazel has plenty of skill compared to some others. Until one can produce a work that is of a greater caliber than the art being ridiculed, their argument is invalid.
Siaon
Takes practice to become better either way.
wheezil
Yeah, no. 'Do it better' is not a valid rejoinder to critique and never has been. It's 'I know you are, but what am I?' restated. Siskel and Ebert weren't filmmakers, but they were highly respected critics because they knew film history and filmmaking technique despite that.
On the other hand, 'You have no skill' is not critique. It's just as lazy, stupid and immature a dismissal, and doesn't help anyone-- including the asshat who squeezed it out. You've got to back that stuff up! Is there something weird about the proportions? Shading? Is the hair too hairy? There's got to be something there that can be considered and acknowledged or refuted. 'You have no skill' isn't a critique, it's just an asshole trying to make someone feel bad.
YoshiFan64
"Until one can produce a work that is of a greater caliber than the art being ridiculed, their argument is invalid." <-this
Rey
No, not that.
Ciervo
This pic does show improvement, so apparently the time spent was worthwhile!
Also, one can critique art without being able to do it better. However, the level of critique sought or the helpfulness of the critique given can create a mismatch: if the artist recognizes flaws and sees it as part of an improvement process, pointing out that there are flaws is redundant and silly. If the critique is "it's bad," that's not useful. *shrug*
YoshiFan64
btw post-tf is still tf to me. Nojo did a FANTASTIC post-tf piece a while back. the key is to capture the human emotion within the transformed subject