Quote by Minitokyo Policy
Galleries
* All posts should contain detailed constructive criticism specific to the submission in question.
I use to wander around galleries in MT, just to find if there are artworks or scans I'd like to download. Normally as I can see, I found out that the submissions' page might hold many entries therein -- especially when they're into popular or highlighted items.
In some way, this indirectly shows how popular the work might be (at the least degree, it can insist people to type their comments :)). However, something frequently irks me while seeing some of the gallery posts.
As we run into a popular submission's gallery page, there might be so many posts in it. Even so, (based on my experience) most of the posts will say like this: "I love the art!", "love it!", "waa, you did a great work!", "it's so cute!".... and else like that. Of course this isn't very bad; to some degree it expresses how the poster loves the art -- and might be a start of friendship between the poster and the artist.
However, can that be categorized into "constructive criticism", as the MT policy quoted above state?
In my humble opinion, that hasn't yet been a constructive criticism. As I look at it, a constructive criticism should, at least, highlight an aspect of the artwork, and then gives comment on it. It can be a praise, like "great wallpaper! you caught the dark atmosphere with the purple tone", or critique, like "I think the perspective in your wall is a bit skewed". As far as the aspect in question be mentioned, there will be some "construction": if it is a praise, then the artist will understand that he/she has caught something right. If it is a critique, then the artist will learn on how to create better art -- at the least, he/she won't do the same mistake over again.
However, that's just the least. When a criticism highlighted an aspect where the artist is weak at, and the criticist gave an advice on how to overcome it, this can be a leap on the artist's ability. Maybe he/she will learn a new trick, or a new point of view... this is assuming that the criticist is a real talent, rather than just a boaster, though.
What I want to point out here is that there are too few constructive criticisms; or even just "adequate" criticisms, here in MT. Since MT aims to only present materials with highest possible quality (according to its policy), such process is inevitably in need. When a constructive criticism is posted on a gallery, it's not only the artist who gets a feedback; even those, who read it on the gallery, will have something to learn.
For example, there's a gallery comment saying this: "I like the waterfall you created in your wall. It gives a relaxing effect". Then, as someone-unrelated come to the gallery, and he/she sees the artwork, he/she will see the waterfall. This person knows that this artwork is nice; but can't explain it. Now he/she reads the comment, and then understand: the waterfall might have contributed to the "niceness" of the pic.
There are many other examples: "The pillar you create gave mysterious effects" might trigger someone's imagination to create something mysterious using pillars; "you create harmony using contrasting colors" can lead into understanding on coloring concept, etc, etc. There are so many things to be revealed when we have constructive criticism -- including advices, of course. At least, we can see what a "weird perspective" is like, or what can be a "lacking-depth-of-field" drawings -- while also getting tips on how to overcome it.
So... let's work on creating more constructive criticisms in our next gallery comments. At the least, just point out what we like or dislike from an artwork -- it may lead for an improvement from the artist, if he/she accepted it.
Shall we? ;)
~~~~~~
just my personal opinion; please correct if I mistook something. :)
