[rYaNn]

and you did a very nice paintover in that thread "my first cg"
==============================
Gimbal:
sorry if i got huffy earlier. here's what was going through my head.

in my thread, i saw your criticism and thought, Oh nice. i can use that. then i saw duckman's and my attitude from there reflected what i thought of his criticism.

then i came in here and that first post was posted about duckman, not yourself.

well i remember seeing your criticism in comparison to duckman's and seeing them as my first tastes of good and bad criticism, then i came to this thread and saw your FIRST post here and thought, now i really like this guy. maybe ill come to him for
some advice whenever i get something new up on here.

then all of a sudden it was like i was this spoiled little brat to you because you misunderstood me and it was like you were spreading word that i was unable to take criticism. i mean man, you hardly gave me a chance. hell, i loved your stuff and at first was very glad you came and got involved, and it's just like now im feeling the exact opposite way.

the first person i respected on the board is now making me look like an ass. i mean, wouldn't that get to you?
anyway, there's my story. im sorry for the misunderstanding i hope we can just get past it. it's just a forum anyway.

[ February 18, 2002: Message edited by: rYaNn ]

[Anthony]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Snake Grunger:
It's easier to lick ass than to kick ass.

---

Haha, I'd have to disagree on that point ^_^

[Gimbal8]

Ryan, I got your message just now. The reason I didn't get it before was because I was at work. It doesn't change anything though since the reason I posted that wasn't because I mistook anything you said. I'm not trying to make enemies either, but your reaction to people comments are a perfect case study of learning why some people don't bother to post their comments anymore.

The rest of this is rather predictable so I feel no need to drag it on. I think everyone sees through all this and has seen it many times before.

[Gimbal8]

Oh and Ryan, No hard feelings. We have seen things like this happen in the past and it is always the same way. I seriously doubt anyone wants to make enemies here. And I know I've been a real ass about this to you. Hopefully we can agree to disagree and move on. But our disagreement here is one of the things I want to learn about. This is one of the reasons I brought this topic up.

[a_sh]

first of all, i would like to point out that i personaly haven't given out nearly enough crits to people here yet to have a valid opinion about how to give crits...

i do have some thought on the paint-over subject though.
i believe that as everyone here have said, paintovers are the sole nr.1 way to crit someone! it's simply so much more natural to show how or what to draw by drawing than by talking (typing).

however, i CAN imagine a downside to paintovers. i experienced it first-hand with my first post here. I had posted an in progress image of a knight on horseback. i knew it had alot of flaws but could not fix them, so i asked specifically f�r crits on those areas. i got alot of great crits and also a SUPERB paintover by stahlberg (thx man!). it helped me alot!
he made some great changes to the anatomy of my horse (which was my biggest problem area). they were so great that i simply had to implement them all, thus effectively ending up with a mix of mine and his horse.

here's where the downside comes in though. this is all great and fun, as long as we're talking about my progress and skill development as an artist. but the thing is, the picture was not something i was merely doing to improve my skills. it was an illustration of a friend of mine's rpg-character, that i later gave to him. that means that it was something that i was going to say to the public was MY work.
while i'm sure stahlberg wont sue me or anything for using his horseanatomy, i still can't really tell myself that it was 100% my creation either... and personally, that makes me feel somewhat like a thief or lier

to avoid feeling like a thief or lier i would have had to deliberately take a different route with my horse than stahlberg did.
the paintover now suddenly removed a possible (and very good) solution to my problem instead of helping me solve it

to sum it up:
paintovers are GREAT to show what you mean, but they do take away some of the feeling of accomplishment from the artist. my advise is to use them with some care when the picture is intended for more than excersize.

of course, this is only my thoughts on the matter. do you guys feel the same, or is it only me?

finally, and i cant stress this enough: steven, this post is in NO WAY meant as something negative about your paintover! i'm ever so gratefull for it. it was great! i could never have dreamed of getting one from you on my first post! it made my day
i was not payed or anythong for the image or so, so i never really felt like a thief it made me start thinking though... what if it HAD been a prestigios work? i guess it's up to the artist to point out if paintovers are suitable or not.
default value is definetly ON though
at least for me...


enough of my ramblings now...

[Gimbal8]

LOL. Trust me I understand what you are saying. I don't think anyone is going to haunt you over all this. But this isn't about the critique I gave you. It is about your reaction to others.

I disagreed with your initial reaction to the first batch of comments to your work, not any reaction to me specifically. You never said it, but people can read between the lines. What I saw was that you countered the criticisms with excuses and people interpret that as a defensive ego. Although you might not have meant for it to come out that way, that is what people where seeing.

I wouldn't worry about it so much. If you post something again people will usually comment on it and I doubt too many people are going to snub you when you ask for help. Many of us can be passionate about things and sometimes we clash but I think you'll be surprised about how well we can get along after airing our differences.

BTW, I've been known to give bad advice and I'm glad that there were times people decided not to take my suggestions. You are free to decide what you find helpful to you or not. If the first message of this thread is any indication, I sometimes worry if I'm a help or hindrence. But what Duckman was trying to tell you was a very important lesson. It has been said many times and many ways and many a great artist would probably tell you the same: You have to learn the rules before you can break them. Rejecting that is like rejecting 1+1=2 which is probably why people are confused about your reasoning. But it is ultimately up to you to decide.

[Gimbal8]

a_sh: I understand what you are saying. How does one take a paintover and make it their own again? Sometimes it must be difficult to see an alternate solution to a problem when you have a solution right in front of you. Sometimes there may be only one solution to a problem.

I guess this would fall under the realm of collaboration?

[Lunatique]

I have a simple solution:

Just say the piece is a collaboration of you and the person that did the paintover.

Can you imagine that? "Oh yeah, I did this piece together with "big name artist. *ahem*"

Hahaha. I think when someone takes the time to download your pic, load it up and paint over it, they kinda know they are giving you the option to take the direction they've pointed out for you.

But, if it's a paid piece, I'd state it as such when asking for paintovers(or after you got one, mention it and ask if it's ok to keep the changes and then develop the piece further).

[ February 18, 2002: Message edited by: Lunatique ]

[Steven Stahlberg]

a_sh, cool, I'm glad you liked it (it was a quicky without reference and I wasn't that happy with it... which means that if you got some reference out, or practised drawing horses, you could probably kick my ass in horse-drawing - I don't feel very comfortable drawing animals, if I do a tiger without reference it usually comes out looking like a bear, very frustrating...)

I don't think you have to feel guilty about the horse not being 100% purely your own creation or something... maybe this ties in to the 'using reference/tracing' thread?

[rYaNn]

uggg
you people are NOT getting me. please gimbal, understand that we are NOT disagreeing on anything. i agree on the critiquing that you gave me. i am utilizing it RIGHT NOW.

you think i can't take criticism, but what's really going on is that im picking and choosing what i listen to. i will be wrong sometimes but that's better than going along with everyone isn't it?

don't you see gimbal, i agree with you. i just don't agree that you think it was YOu i disagreed with lol.

anyway, im turning out to be way more of a pill on these forums than i know that i am. everyone has this altered impression of me now that i can't seem to work past. i could flat out say "I SUCK!" and people are still going to say
ryan you have a problem with being critiqued. well hell, how could i have a problem with being critiqued if i frankly think i suck. yet that's going to be everyone's answer to anything now. i can accept criticism, but if i disagree then i'd appreciate it if the person could also accept that their criticism isn't accepted.

let's put it this way, let's imagine that you give me a critique. you're (in a sense) going to value it like a very miniscule piece of art you made. that critique is art in it's own way. well if i don't like it, you should be able to take it right? just like i can take it if you just flat out don't like my art.

it's stupid, i don't even know how to get past this whole idea everyone has that im never going to accept any criticism cuz i have too much pride. i mean admit it, that's how everyone sees me now. im not going to get past it, and frankly im not going to try.

[Ben Barker]

I'll just be using these images for crits from now on.

[Kaete]

Ben - LOL! Those pics are great.

[jr]

hahahahaha great pictures!
I think paint overs are good. my teacher does it all the time in painting class and it's really helpful. painting with an inflated ego is no good, if you think your paintings are soo good that no one could touch it, you'll never learn anything.

[Bump]

I've not been here long enough to talk about paintovers but I definitely have to say that people should try just a little bit harder to at least reply to a tread, comm'on we're all here to share, that means both critiqueing and "praise". I dont wanna sound stupid but for example I've posted my two first tries at digital, and I got like 2 responses, I dont care if they were critique or praise, its all about being a part of the community, I know those pics kinda sucked but I was expecting a "welcome here man" or "try a different subject" at least. I'm no master, but since I registered I've tried to give my humble 2 cents to most people, and I'm actually very busy in school.

Oh well, sorry, just had to let it out

[ February 19, 2002: Message edited by: Bump ]

[Gimbal8]

Ben, those kill me.

Bump: I know that kinda sucks, but it happens. Don't be discouraged though. I've posted stuff when I first came aboard that had no replies at all so I know what you mean. I know I don't look at every thread in every section because there is just so much stuff goin on here so I am bound to miss all kinds of things. I'm sure that as busy as some people are they have the same problem. I'll take the time to look for your stuff and try to help if I can though.

Oh, and welcome to Sijun.

[dogfood]

This is a fantastic discussion, perhaps to the very heart of what I believe is the board's greatest tool and reason for posting.

I often find it difficult to c&c a piece because there is no indication of what the artist was trying to do. I don't want to walk all over someone's anime work with "eyes are too big" comments. One of the strengths and weaknesses of the board is the variety of subjects and styles. This leads to a little confusion many times, and I feel it would help tremendously if each piece could have a blurb regarding it's origin, aim and help-wanted level. I know that's asking a lot, but I tend to critique only when a piece or an artist strikes me the right way (not that anybody is out especially hunting down my opinion, mind you ). I take it seriously when I see a sincere effort to learn (by explaining what the desired output is, or where the difficulty lies), vice the ubiquitous "I know this sucks, but here it is". I also like the cookie-cutter method (along with Blackpool and Kaete), the chocolate oreo cookie with fuzzy liverwurst filling.

I also love paint-overs, but am usually a little gun-shy on giving them unless they are up my alley. I live for the day I get "spooged". (of course, it would probably help if I posted more often). As far as a paint-over being considered a cheat or not 100% one's work, there is certainly no reason to continue working on an over-paint if you feel uncomfortable. Personally, I would rather try and incorporate my own version of the over-paint into the original, then, as Steven says, it would fall into the "reference/tracing" catagory. I'm a pretty basic, monkey see/monkey do kind of guy.

And I think I'm going to start using Ben's pics as a precursor to each future crit. Thanks, Ben!

[ February 20, 2002: Message edited by: dogfood ]

[Gimbal8]

We could use these alternatives to Ben's pics in case there are copyright issues:

[spooge demon]

quote

Quote:

I often find it difficult to c&c a piece because there is no indication of what the artist was trying to do. I don't want to walk all over someone's anime work with "eyes are too big" comments. One of the strengths and weaknesses of the board is the variety of subjects and styles. This leads to a little confusion many times, and I feel it would help tremendously if each piece could have a blurb regarding it's origin, aim and help-wanted level.

exactly!

[Marvel]

Great thread people, this is just what I (atleast) want to read here - it's impossible to know how exacyly people think about a certain subject, so a talk like this gives a clearer picture.

And on the subject, I too, as well as many others, just plain love paintovers - Spooge did me one and it was great (even though had some flaws of its own, but that's not important now ). My mistake on following Spooge's paintover was to take it too literally - as pointed out earlier, paintovers are not to tell you how to do the picture, but to say how one can proceed with it, give an alternative view on the subject. Also when doing paintovers, I don't always know if people find it helpful or not - of course it's an easier way to illustrate an idea than just writing it down, but eg. with my lack of routine, if you will, the result isn't always what even I yearn for.

What then about critizism? Don't take me wrong here, but I think part of the reason for 'sugar frosted' comments comes from your cultural/social background - there's, in my mind, a difference between the American and the European thinking - in America it feels one can't be but happy, if one is neutral, people come ask what's wrong, can they help you etc. ... the same applies for critizism. In Europe (again to my experience), people state things more 'as is' and don't exaggerate as much. I.e. here one is 'allowed' to be neutral or even unhappy, without people coming over to ask you what is the matter. And what has this to do with art and critizising it? Well, I feel that us Europeans tend to give out harsher, and also more realistic, critisizm and possibly also take it more easily. I for one can even be devastating when critizising stuff, but still think I keep it constructive - also vice versa, if people are hard on my pictures, I learn from that output and learn to see my mistakes more easily.

I'm not sure if I made any sense up there, nor did I want to hurt anybody's feelings - this is just me, I tend to give out stuff flat out (some people even say to me that I don't seem to be able to find good stuff in any of their work - but that's just because I have a quite high level of self critizism and 'handle' other people like they were me).

Edit: *reads like a typo*

[ February 22, 2002: Message edited by: Marvel ]

[ValarianROOT]

I've found when having a discussion about semantics, it is important to have a definition of the words at hand:
CRITIQUE: A critical analysis or review.
CRITICAL: 1. tending to find fault. 2. of critics or criticism. 3. Of or forming a crisis; decisive.
All from Webster's New World Dictionary 1990

Even so, critiques definitely have to be tailored to the circumstance: I've read that quite a few of the "old guard" around here like to critique noobies to encourage there development. I can understand trying to be courteous and gentle in that instance. Once, you�ve been around awhile or if you have actually had some schooling with open critiques (I mean a critique where everyone in the class gets to put 2 cents in) you should anticipate some sharp criticism, though. Hell, most of the criticism that hurts is the kind we already know about and just don�t want it to be exposed so we have to do something about it. It�s what we need to hear. The most frustrating thing for me was in school when people would think a piece of mine was �cool� and the prof. wouldn�t say anything constructive about my piece, because he didn�t want to hurt the other student�s feelings. What BS. So it all comes down to, how seriously a person really wants a critique. I try not to shy away from saying what I think about a subject or a piece of work (kind of dangerous for me �cause I�m not the most articulate of people). In the end, particularly with illustration, it�s a �do what ya gotta do, say what ya gotta say, kind of world.�

As for over-paints: I agree they are great help, but� If you don�t understand what a person is trying to show you with one, how is that helping? A short blurb to explain the intent can make all the difference in the world. I mean, if an over-paint is all it took to enlighten someone about a way to fix their work, people could just look at other people�s work, and go to museums to learn to paint. There would be no need for art history class (no need to understand how JS Sargent worked?). I�ve learned more about what my painting profs at school tried to teach me, here more than in school. All because, some of you took the time to put together a sentence or two about my work. They would point to an example I could relate to and �poof� enlightenment.

And then there are the times I, myself, am full of crap and need to be knocked off my high horse (whores?). These are the times I state my opinion and later get proven wrong, I can accept this.

So, I say its not that words hurt, it�s that how the person interprets and decides to receive them goes a long way in determining how much they get out of a critique.

JN
p.s.
Marvel, don�t apologize for your opinion, just be willing to stand behind it, or correct your thinking if you find your wrong. But, until you�ve been proven wrong don�t get wishy-washy. And, hey! I�m unhappy and can give harsh criticism, and am a citizen of the United States.

[Malachi Maloney]

Spooge~ I'll make this quick so as not to waste any of your time.......
I have learned more from your critiques and paint-overs of my work, then I have from any other artistic source I've ever come across.
For an artist like myself that doesn't have the benefits of being able to go to an art collage, being able to receive advice/critiques from someone like you is truly invaluable.

Malachi

[Gimbal8]

Ok, I know everyone has their own opinion on this matter but lets try going for conceptual bedrock and see how we can find the root of the issue. I want to find out what the most ideal situation would be (however unlikely such a situation might come about).

To simplify, there are two people: The person posting the artwork and the person giving the critique in this situation.

As to the person posting the artwork it seems everyone agrees that ideally they should
A) Indicate what their aim is in the picture (what kind of style or look they are going for etc.)
B) Indicate what kind of help they are looking for or what they want help with specifically
C) Be open able to receive all critisicm

Point C may sound a bit vague but I think we all know what that means, but point C should indeed be a prerequisite before posting work. Points A and B will make all the difference in the amount of response one gets to his/her work and will help direct the focus in the areas the poster wants help on. Obviously people are going to comment on things that might be outside of what someone was asking for help on and that falls under point C.

Now for the person giving the critique it is a little more dificult to put any kind of demands on them since we are asking them for help afterall. But for an ideal situation I think we can agree that the person critiquing should*:
1) Indicate where the artist has succeeded or in what ways they are heading in the right direction to their goal (Point A above)
2) Provide possible solutions to point B above
3) Point out any other problems (other then the ones indicated in point B) that the artist might have overlooked.

* It should be noted that the person giving the critique does not have to hit all 3 points. Any 1 of the 3 is all that is needed to provide help.

It is my personal opinion that there is much more resposibility placed upon the person posting artwork then the person posting a critique, as it should be.

Does that sound about right? What am I missing or what do you think I have wrong here?

[BlackPool]

Well, I have given a couple of paintovers since I have been here. When I do it' s only to solve a technical issue like proportion or something like that when it's obvious that the artist was going for a realistic aproach. I would never over paint to solve an aesthetic issue. That's just me.

Gimbal8: That just might possibly work if everyone reads this thread.

ValarianROOT: You were right to spell it H-O-R-S-E. W-H-O-R-E-S is a TOOOOOTALLY different word.

[ladybug]

follow your heart, not your head