Well since it is just a demo animation I did not include any other dinosaur to cause distraction.......he does not fall by itself, he is being pushed or attacked by other beast ! A little strugle before falling...If I have had included the fighting beast on the side...the illusion would have been different.
This is when your imagination comes to play!
Seriously though, whilst I agree that criticism (of the constructive side ) is extremely beneficial I also feel that it helps to counter-balance that criticism by telling the poster what you like about the model/what you think they are doing right (even if its a simple comment like "nice start").
Not only are you letting them know there is something wrong with the model but your also helping build their confidence which I think is equally important.
Naturally there are people resistant to criticism (and i'm sure there were a few pros here who were the same when they started out) but usually with time they change and adapt to the community. I think its very important to let some people develop that thick skin at their own pace rather then barraging them immediately.
On the flip side, some people who will just never listen.
EDIT: One last thing, since this forum is read by a fair few artists (some who may end up working with you some day) its very important to be careful what you say. A bad reputation can be very difficult to shake off and the industry is very small so its very likely you may bump into someone who posts/reads these forums.
Being a good artist is great but having a high level of professionalism/etiquette is equally as important.
i haven't posted much but what i have posted so far has been some straight criticism. The majority has been received objectively (as it was given) but a few have seemingly taken offense. albeit i had used some sarcasm in one of my critiques that didn't help things.
Ha, this turns out to be a real comedy show at the later pages
Good read for anyone doing a article on trolling perhaps.
No thanks to Leigh van der Byl; seriously; what a talentless, egotistical c**t. How she is still head honcho at CGTalk I will never know. I like her casual dabbling in defamation of character towards the end of the thread.
I always found the criticism here healthy and straightforward. lets face it in the industry you always get straightforward 'pointing out of flaws', which is fine.
I don't tend to crit too much theses days as you never get a response or if you do not even an acknowledgement that you had helped/hindered whatever, which reduces me to pointing at the nicest work and syaing 'hey that really nice':/
In any case any kind of criticism these days can be deflected away with 'hey its a stylistic choice'
No thanks to Leigh van der Byl; seriously; what a talentless, egotistical c**t. How she is still head honcho at CGTalk I will never know. I like her casual dabbling in defamation of character towards the end of the thread.
Speaking of which...they kinda look back to front here -
There was a great thread with another guy convinced he was a CG badass on the same forum but can't remember the link - I just remember a render he showed where the character was wearing a metal mask (similar to the high end armor paladins would get in WoW,) and the word 'SOON' plastered across it
Love this comment from the guy as well:
"Yes crying..LEIGH does not let me get in MacDonalds...ahhhhh..buagggg" lol
When someone who is not talentless (if I do say so myself :poly136:), has no ego, is not a cunt and is not the head mod of CGTalk, calls someone all those things, the word you are looking for is not 'irony'. So please do improve your vocabulary before you decide to hit 'Submit Reply' next time. :thumbup:
Mrskullface: The satellite soda rules post sounds amazing. I should start posting art over there.
Thread: IMO, The macho toughguy ruff critz attitude is toxic. It also promotes a very technician minded attitude -- that there are mechanical, cut and dry solutions to an individual artist's problems, and that they have made a wrong choice, and just need to change that portion of their drawing to the 'right' choice. So if you abuse them enough, they'll learn the error in their ways, and stop making bad art!
Typically speaking, NO ARTIST IS MAKING BAD ART BECAUSE THEY WANT TO, and any flaw in their art is the consequence of failures of their abilities, which doesn't have an easy copy and paste solution.
I prefer crits that attempt to get to the cause of an artist's problems, instead of simple solutions. For example, conte and zwebbie have off and on hounded me in threads of mine about specific deficiencies in my knowledge, with advice (book suggestions, suggestions of doing more studies, etc) on how to address them. Those are good crits.
So, to sum up:
Discussing an artists' weaknesses and helping them improve their overall skillset is a good crit.
Telling an artist to thicken up a given line or adjust a given form or 'use more ref' (???) or 'make less fellows' is a bad crit.
Some example 'good' crits by my standards:
"You should try more gesture drawing, try and focus on conveying the weight of a pose"
"One thing that really helped me with structure was this thread"
"It looks like you rushed this, try devoting more time to the polishing stage"
"How to you use reference? I see a lot of distortion in your study, perhaps your problem could be..."
We're all taking this journey together, and it is a journey, and one that it can be very hard to find direction in -- telling someone that they went wrong isn't going to help them start going the right way.
What bothers me about the dislike of "shit sux" comments that is propagated above is that it encourages a habit of critiquing only the areas of a piece that can be fixed, and leaves out that some pieces are just problematic at their very core for what they represent. It is, in my experience, unacceptable to call someone out on making an utterly bland fantasy or science fiction character or environment, or doing the same subject matter over and over, or making something that cost more effort than it did thought, or something sexist. Technicalities are generally well critiqued. Style, occasionally so. Subject matter, never. Your latissimi dorsi are called into question, your taste never is. At what point is critcism just polishing turds?
When someone who is not talentless (if I do say so myself :poly136:), has no ego, is not a cunt and is not the head mod of CGTalk, calls someone all those things, the word you are looking for is not 'irony'. So please do improve your vocabulary before you decide to hit 'Submit Reply' next time. :thumbup:
I was under the impression that the irony was you criticizing them for defamation of character after you called them a talentless, egotistical c**t who has no business running their website, but I may have misinterpreted.
More on topic, one of the biggest problems I've always had with "unwanted criticism" threads is how everyone and their mother has to jump on the bandwagon. It's like, "Hey guys! Another young artist isn't taking criticism well, they're making excuses for every critique __(artistwerespect)__ is bringing up, let's get in there and repost shit that's already been said with slightly different wording to show everyone we know whose side to choose (and whose ass to kiss)!" I've never been a fan of needlessly hammering people into the dirt, it's petty and really lessens the chances of people learning from their mistakes. That CGTalk thread is a good example of this - I didn't actually think it was that bad for the first 3 or 4 pages, seemed like a select few people with too much time arguing through what seemed to be a bit of a language barrier. Then shit got weird and everyone had to jump in and prove they're not like the OP. (I also think that thread title could have read, "How not to handle forum administration", but who am I to judge, that's another matter).
It used to be that I sought criticism of any sort. "shit sux", "coooool", a paintover (aka, a godsend), etc. I tried to give a lot more critique, as well. Funnily enough, the more I work the less I feel like I know, the less qualified I feel to give other people advice.
Over the past couple years I've really grown to appreciate other people being open with their own work & process. I find it just as helpful if not more so than receiving personal critique. On one hand it helps me to become more efficient at self improvement, figuring out what to look at or what else to consider, and it comes with the added benefit of me not having to actually post anything (I find posting stuff very frequently to be kind of distracting). It's one reason I'm such a fan of contests, or things like Hazardous' character course threads in the recent past.
Concerning personal critique I would or would not want to receive, I guess I'm fine with just about anything. I can't really be mad at someone for giving me some of their time, and I can't see any way that someone will be harder on me than I am on myself.
What bothers me about the dislike of "shit sux" comments that is propagated above is that it encourages a habit of critiquing only the areas of a piece that can be fixed, and leaves out that some pieces are just problematic at their very core for what they represent. It is, in my experience, unacceptable to call someone out on making an utterly bland fantasy or science fiction character or environment, or doing the same subject matter over and over, or making something that cost more effort than it did thought, or something sexist. Technicalities are generally well critiqued. Style, occasionally so. Subject matter, never. Your latissimi dorsi are called into question, your taste never is. At what is critcism just polishing turds?
As much as I like Kevin Smith and his work, I think he's a pretty good example of a person who just can't take negative critique and thinks it's all a personal attack on him. The whole "if you think I'm such a bad film-maker then how about you do it yourself!"-attitude is a big sign of this. Critics can be harsh and if the movies suck, then why not? Critics are there to warn us if we're about to waste our money on some shit movie.
Some critics are just assholes though and I'll give him that but why judge the person giving you the feedback? I've seen this kind of bias here at PC as well where WHO the person giving feedback is becomes essential. Do I need to show that I have a great portfolio? What If I was a super good artist with 255 years of experience but I simply forgot to put my stuff online? Maybe I was a concept-artist before becoming an animator, does that mean that I can't judge your concept-art? You've never heard of me, why should that even matter?
As long as it's good constructive feedback, nothing else should matter.
As much as I like Kevin Smith and his work, I think he's a pretty good example of a person who just can't take negative critique and thinks it's all a personal attack on him. The whole "if you think I'm such a bad film-maker then how about you do it yourself!"-attitude is a big sign of this. Critics can be harsh and if the movies suck, then why not? Critics are there to warn us if we're about to waste our money on some shit movie.
Some critics are just assholes though and I'll give him that but why judge the person giving you the feedback? I've seen this kind of bias here at PC as well where WHO the person giving feedback is becomes essential. Do I need to show that I have a great portfolio? What If I was a super good artist with 255 years of experience but I simply forgot to put my stuff online? Maybe I was a concept-artist before becoming an animator, does that mean that I can't judge your concept-art? You've never heard of me, why should that even matter?
As long as it's good constructive feedback, nothing else should matter.
Yes I agree with you. It doesn't matter who gives you feedback. For example, people who aren't animators can tell you if something in your animation feels off, or if something doesn't come across as intended etc. It's really all about whether it's constructive or not. But I also believe that crits should be neutral, specific and layered. The process of giving feedback has imo solely one reason: To communicate to the artist what can be improved and consecutively how the artist can improve overall.
I am neither an expert in this, not at all, nor do I necessarily always follow what I'm about to say, however I do try to get there. Assuming that the person receiving feedback is NOT like the dino guy in the cgtalk thread (because honestly I think they are a lost cause), I think feedback should ideally answer these questions:
- What works well?
- What doesn't work? Why doesn't it work?
- How can that be improved specifically?
The person receiving feedback should know what works in their art, so that they can utilize that properly in their future art or just so that they can keep that in mind when approaching new challenges. It helps to understand what doesn't work, why it doesn't and then how to fix it. Just to say it a reaaaally cheesy way: You gotta see white, to understand black.
Just pointing out that they have to look at more references isn't going to do the trick.
With that being said, I am not implying that things should be sugar coated and that feedback should be accompanied by rainbows and unicorns. All I am saying is that it should be given with one thing in mind: How can I efficiently help the artist improve? That way it doesn't matter, thick-skinned or soft-skinned, the message comes across properly.
Comments like "You suck so bad, just go hang yourself" or "omg, this is the best work of art I have ever seen in my entire life" is not feedback in my opinion, they are just comments.
I've seen this kind of bias here at PC as well where WHO the person giving feedback is becomes essential. Do I need to show that I have a great portfolio?
As long as it's good constructive feedback, nothing else should matter.
Part of me agrees with you there...and I think an artist should be grateful for any feedback...however I think that the skill of the critic becomes important when weighing whether or not to adopt certain feedback on more subjective matters.
There's the question of taste and experience that comes into play. Not all advice is created equal, and if the critic is good themselves, then that advice SHOULD get more consideration because its presumed that following it would take you a step closer to the skill of the critic.
That's not so say that the other guys advice isn't useful but who would you rather take weightlifting advice from? A fat guy or the bodybuilder? It's that kind of situation.
But yes, I'd agree that there's plenty of kinds of crits, maybe even most of them, that it shouldn't matter who they come from. Gut reaction feedback is one ("This art is too sexist/bloody/emo/mylittleponycutesy/etc!"), as is the more clinical stuff like: "This looks too muddy to figure out what's going on," or "That hand is foreshortened too severely and looks awkward,"or "The texture res looks too low in this spot," etc. That's all skill agnostic feedback.
Part of me agrees with you there...and I think an artist should be grateful for any feedback...however I think that the skill of the critic becomes important when weighing whether or not to adopt certain feedback on more subjective matters.
There's the question of taste and experience that comes into play. Not all advice is created equal, and if the critic is good themselves, then that advice SHOULD get more consideration because its presumed that following it would take you a step closer to the skill of the critic.
That's not so say that the other guys advice isn't useful but who would you rather take weightlifting advice from? A fat guy or the bodybuilder? It's that kind of situation.
I am not so sure that I agree with this. I think that someone who is classically trained will be able to give you more in depth critique but someone with no 3D experience can tell you when something doesn't look right. My wife may not be able to critique edge flow on a character, but she can tell me that my proportions are shitty.
I used to have an awful habit when getting critiques that I would immediately try and find that persons portfolio or threads with work in it. "Well, what have THEY made? How good is THEIR work?" And that is a really fucking stupid mindset to have. I'm not saying that everyone is going to have A+ amazing critiques and they're always right, but I have learned to take critiques for what they are (no matter who they're from), weigh them, and then make a decision.
I've gotten in the habit lately of saving out multiple files when getting critiques. I've been surprised at thinking a critique was bad, weighing it, giving it a try on a copied file, and then realizing that the changes made it 100% better even though it was against my initial snap judgement.
Hm...yeah, I'm with you there... hunting down the portfolio of everyone who crits you with the "oh, yeah!?!?" attitude is a bad mindset. I was basically just saying when someone I really respect artistically drops me feedback...I put on my best listenin' ears and I think that's an ok bias to have.
But ANY feedback can have value... because after awhile of staring at your own work you've lost the ability to look at it impartially and fresh eyes can reveal many problems you're blind to.
What bothers me about the dislike of "shit sux" comments that is propagated above is that it encourages a habit of critiquing only the areas of a piece that can be fixed, and leaves out that some pieces are just problematic at their very core for what they represent. It is, in my experience, unacceptable to call someone out on making an utterly bland fantasy or science fiction character or environment, or doing the same subject matter over and over, or making something that cost more effort than it did thought, or something sexist. Technicalities are generally well critiqued. Style, occasionally so. Subject matter, never. Your latissimi dorsi are called into question, your taste never is. At what point is critcism just polishing turds?
Surely you have to understand that If youre going to be a good at making game art, or traditional sculptures of animals, or hell even completely abstracted personal work that involves anything remotely mammalian or humanoid, or even fruit bowl paintings for that matter, that producing fundamentals is just a given.
It is the same subject matter over and over again to increase your skill and understanding of executing fundamentals - because most 'artists' myself included, cannot even get these right.
Never mind the idea or what you perceive as the message or core behind whatever the piece ends up - because thats different for every viewer and every artist.
Also tbh maybe its a sign of my artistic immaturity but I just dont yet see merit in critiquing another artists 'idea' or interpretation of something. Raw untainted interpretation is often the best window into what makes an artist tick.
I enjoy seeing an expertly crafted muscly man, sci fi alien or big boobed pinup girl just as much as I enjoy watching belias building his wacky masterpieces. Okay MAYBE I enjoy belias's pieces more
Who are you (or who am I) to tell them any of them they are executing their core ideas wrong and they should be trying something else?
I guess my point is theres a commonality of progression in skill for game artists. And it runs (generally) the exact opposite of your list of what gets critiqued most to least. Fundamentals first, then we branch out to find a style... and then once our techniques are refined, we mature as people and as artists, we start trying to give meaning and voice to our pieces.
Unfortunately most of us never even get good at the basics or past stage 1. THATS why our latissimus dorsi are constantly called into question.
Even though I do actually share the belief with you that the meaning / voice / core is the most important and often most overlooked aspect - without the foundation of the first 2, I think for any artist attempting to go straight to the end first, would only result in the message / idea being lackluster, weak and foundationless - and a better clearer result could probably have been achieved with a page of words instead.
Haz, I've got to say that while our visions are almost as a rule diametrically opposed and while I have been and continue to be critical of your work not that I imagine that poor Zwebbie's opinion keeps you awake at night while all that's true, I always appreciate the depth and honesty of posts such as these that you make.
I see what you're saying, and understand that nobody would benefit from a three-page discussion on how a newbie who hasn't worked his way through his Loomis and Bridgman can best represent love in a postmodern world, or something. But let's take a step down from meaning then and go to design. Eons ago, I drew a concept for a guy with robot arms coming out of his back. Gauss came up and I believe he said that my design was flawed in being too uncreative; it didn't stand out as a piece on its own, but went straight into his robot arm guy category (Gauss was a master of these things before he lost his heart to firearms). And while I never did make anything worthwhile then, that advice has always been in the back of my mind: don't let your art be easily categorisable.
As an example, have you been following ysalex's Space Dive character? Some very capable artists have been creating science-fiction characters both in far and recent past, but this one in particular is one that I'll remember. Not because it's that much better executed than others (it is no doubt well executed, but so are a lot of others), but because the concept he picked is (at least in my personal opinion) much better. It subverts expectations and avoids clichés. Instead of hexagons, its texture is inspired by arabesques, how cool is that? Hexagons, glowing bits, oversized shoulder pads, hoods, panel-filled corridors, etc., they're all shortcuts for design. It's incredibly lazy, and what's more, such things easily get filed into categories and they're soon forgotten. It's not just that, but it's part of it.
Of course, if you genuinely can be as exited over an orc as you can over a more inventive design, then that produces a problem, or at least a situation with no outcome. I can marvel at a really good orc for a minute, but I'll forget it easily. A lot of designs reference each other and reference common tropes, and I'd really like to be able to call out such creative incest.
Haz, I've got to say that while our visions are almost as a rule diametrically opposed and while I have been and continue to be critical of your work not that I imagine that poor Zwebbie's opinion keeps you awake at night while all that's true, I always appreciate the depth and honesty of posts such as these that you make.
I see what you're saying, and understand that nobody would benefit from a three-page discussion on how a newbie who hasn't worked his way through his Loomis and Bridgman can best represent love in a postmodern world, or something. But let's take a step down from meaning then and go to design. Eons ago, I drew a concept for a guy with robot arms coming out of his back. Gauss came up and I believe he said that my design was flawed in being too uncreative; it didn't stand out as a piece on its own, but went straight into his robot arm guy category (Gauss was a master of these things before he lost his heart to firearms). And while I never did make anything worthwhile then, that advice has always been in the back of my mind: don't let your art be easily categorisable.
As an example, have you been following ysalex's Space Dive character? Some very capable artists have been creating science-fiction characters both in far and recent past, but this one in particular is one that I'll remember. Not because it's that much better executed than others (it is no doubt well executed, but so are a lot of others), but because the concept he picked is (at least in my personal opinion) much better. It subverts expectations and avoids clichés. Instead of hexagons, its texture is inspired by arabesques, how cool is that? Hexagons, glowing bits, oversized shoulder pads, hoods, panel-filled corridors, etc., they're all shortcuts for design. It's incredibly lazy, and what's more, such things easily get filed into categories and they're soon forgotten. It's not just that, but it's part of it.
Of course, if you genuinely can be as exited over an orc as you can over a more inventive design, then that produces a problem, or at least a situation with no outcome. I can marvel at a really good orc for a minute, but I'll forget it easily. A lot of designs reference each other and reference common tropes, and I'd really like to be able to call out such creative incest.
Haha!! Calling out creative incest, mate you'll have a fielday with that and it would consume your life. Not something I would reccomend spending your time doing!
See, for me Pyramid head, is an unforgettable design for me as is Lulu from final fantasy X, and any design that isnt as rediculous or bold as those starts to head back into forgettable zone for me.
Ysalex's character is headed in the right direction away from the masses of normality but I attribute that to the contrast of saturated colors used on white more than the design / silhouette / shapes of the character.
If we covered the entire character in a noisy camo texture much of what makes the character currently stand out, would be lost visually, at least to me, because the design extremities in the character ( case in point pyramid heads helmet or the million belt lulu dress ) aren't yet pushed to that level.
Lol Conte - what happened mate? I'll repost what you edited out:
I'm not sure what your trying to say here - but if its in reference to what I mentioned regarding covering a character in a camo pattern - you've got it completely wrong.
Care to enlighten me via PM so we dont have to clutter this thread up?
Replies
http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?f=154&t=880504
Whut.
Ha, this turns out to be a real comedy show at the later pages
Good read for anyone doing a article on trolling perhaps.
Seriously though, whilst I agree that criticism (of the constructive side
Not only are you letting them know there is something wrong with the model but your also helping build their confidence which I think is equally important.
Naturally there are people resistant to criticism (and i'm sure there were a few pros here who were the same when they started out) but usually with time they change and adapt to the community. I think its very important to let some people develop that thick skin at their own pace rather then barraging them immediately.
On the flip side, some people who will just never listen.
EDIT: One last thing, since this forum is read by a fair few artists (some who may end up working with you some day) its very important to be careful what you say. A bad reputation can be very difficult to shake off and the industry is very small so its very likely you may bump into someone who posts/reads these forums.
Being a good artist is great but having a high level of professionalism/etiquette is equally as important.
Just my two cents
Interesting thoughts.
Pics or it never happened.
No thanks to Leigh van der Byl; seriously; what a talentless, egotistical c**t. How she is still head honcho at CGTalk I will never know. I like her casual dabbling in defamation of character towards the end of the thread.
All the evidence is gone!!!!
EQ may have to post them again, himself...
http://www.polycount.com/forum/showthread.php?t=36373
I don't tend to crit too much theses days as you never get a response or if you do not even an acknowledgement that you had helped/hindered whatever, which reduces me to pointing at the nicest work and syaing 'hey that really nice':/
In any case any kind of criticism these days can be deflected away with 'hey its a stylistic choice'
Speaking of which...they kinda look back to front here -
There was a great thread with another guy convinced he was a CG badass on the same forum but can't remember the link - I just remember a render he showed where the character was wearing a metal mask (similar to the high end armor paladins would get in WoW,) and the word 'SOON' plastered across it
Love this comment from the guy as well:
"Yes crying..LEIGH does not let me get in MacDonalds...ahhhhh..buagggg" lol
I lol'd!
When someone who is not talentless (if I do say so myself :poly136:), has no ego, is not a cunt and is not the head mod of CGTalk, calls someone all those things, the word you are looking for is not 'irony'. So please do improve your vocabulary before you decide to hit 'Submit Reply' next time. :thumbup:
Thread: IMO, The macho toughguy ruff critz attitude is toxic. It also promotes a very technician minded attitude -- that there are mechanical, cut and dry solutions to an individual artist's problems, and that they have made a wrong choice, and just need to change that portion of their drawing to the 'right' choice. So if you abuse them enough, they'll learn the error in their ways, and stop making bad art!
Typically speaking, NO ARTIST IS MAKING BAD ART BECAUSE THEY WANT TO, and any flaw in their art is the consequence of failures of their abilities, which doesn't have an easy copy and paste solution.
I prefer crits that attempt to get to the cause of an artist's problems, instead of simple solutions. For example, conte and zwebbie have off and on hounded me in threads of mine about specific deficiencies in my knowledge, with advice (book suggestions, suggestions of doing more studies, etc) on how to address them. Those are good crits.
So, to sum up:
Some example 'good' crits by my standards:
"You should try more gesture drawing, try and focus on conveying the weight of a pose"
"One thing that really helped me with structure was this thread"
"It looks like you rushed this, try devoting more time to the polishing stage"
"How to you use reference? I see a lot of distortion in your study, perhaps your problem could be..."
We're all taking this journey together, and it is a journey, and one that it can be very hard to find direction in -- telling someone that they went wrong isn't going to help them start going the right way.
I was under the impression that the irony was you criticizing them for defamation of character after you called them a talentless, egotistical c**t who has no business running their website, but I may have misinterpreted.
More on topic, one of the biggest problems I've always had with "unwanted criticism" threads is how everyone and their mother has to jump on the bandwagon. It's like, "Hey guys! Another young artist isn't taking criticism well, they're making excuses for every critique __(artistwerespect)__ is bringing up, let's get in there and repost shit that's already been said with slightly different wording to show everyone we know whose side to choose (and whose ass to kiss)!" I've never been a fan of needlessly hammering people into the dirt, it's petty and really lessens the chances of people learning from their mistakes. That CGTalk thread is a good example of this - I didn't actually think it was that bad for the first 3 or 4 pages, seemed like a select few people with too much time arguing through what seemed to be a bit of a language barrier. Then shit got weird and everyone had to jump in and prove they're not like the OP. (I also think that thread title could have read, "How not to handle forum administration", but who am I to judge, that's another matter).
It used to be that I sought criticism of any sort. "shit sux", "coooool", a paintover (aka, a godsend), etc. I tried to give a lot more critique, as well. Funnily enough, the more I work the less I feel like I know, the less qualified I feel to give other people advice.
Over the past couple years I've really grown to appreciate other people being open with their own work & process. I find it just as helpful if not more so than receiving personal critique. On one hand it helps me to become more efficient at self improvement, figuring out what to look at or what else to consider, and it comes with the added benefit of me not having to actually post anything (I find posting stuff very frequently to be kind of distracting). It's one reason I'm such a fan of contests, or things like Hazardous' character course threads in the recent past.
Concerning personal critique I would or would not want to receive, I guess I'm fine with just about anything. I can't really be mad at someone for giving me some of their time, and I can't see any way that someone will be harder on me than I am on myself.
As much as I like Kevin Smith and his work, I think he's a pretty good example of a person who just can't take negative critique and thinks it's all a personal attack on him. The whole "if you think I'm such a bad film-maker then how about you do it yourself!"-attitude is a big sign of this. Critics can be harsh and if the movies suck, then why not? Critics are there to warn us if we're about to waste our money on some shit movie.
Some critics are just assholes though and I'll give him that but why judge the person giving you the feedback? I've seen this kind of bias here at PC as well where WHO the person giving feedback is becomes essential. Do I need to show that I have a great portfolio? What If I was a super good artist with 255 years of experience but I simply forgot to put my stuff online? Maybe I was a concept-artist before becoming an animator, does that mean that I can't judge your concept-art? You've never heard of me, why should that even matter?
As long as it's good constructive feedback, nothing else should matter.
She's nice.
Also, I thought the thread was called unwanted children at first.
Yes I agree with you. It doesn't matter who gives you feedback. For example, people who aren't animators can tell you if something in your animation feels off, or if something doesn't come across as intended etc. It's really all about whether it's constructive or not. But I also believe that crits should be neutral, specific and layered. The process of giving feedback has imo solely one reason: To communicate to the artist what can be improved and consecutively how the artist can improve overall.
I am neither an expert in this, not at all, nor do I necessarily always follow what I'm about to say, however I do try to get there. Assuming that the person receiving feedback is NOT like the dino guy in the cgtalk thread (because honestly I think they are a lost cause), I think feedback should ideally answer these questions:
- What works well?
- What doesn't work? Why doesn't it work?
- How can that be improved specifically?
The person receiving feedback should know what works in their art, so that they can utilize that properly in their future art or just so that they can keep that in mind when approaching new challenges. It helps to understand what doesn't work, why it doesn't and then how to fix it. Just to say it a reaaaally cheesy way: You gotta see white, to understand black.
Just pointing out that they have to look at more references isn't going to do the trick.
With that being said, I am not implying that things should be sugar coated and that feedback should be accompanied by rainbows and unicorns. All I am saying is that it should be given with one thing in mind: How can I efficiently help the artist improve? That way it doesn't matter, thick-skinned or soft-skinned, the message comes across properly.
Comments like "You suck so bad, just go hang yourself" or "omg, this is the best work of art I have ever seen in my entire life" is not feedback in my opinion, they are just comments.
Part of me agrees with you there...and I think an artist should be grateful for any feedback...however I think that the skill of the critic becomes important when weighing whether or not to adopt certain feedback on more subjective matters.
There's the question of taste and experience that comes into play. Not all advice is created equal, and if the critic is good themselves, then that advice SHOULD get more consideration because its presumed that following it would take you a step closer to the skill of the critic.
That's not so say that the other guys advice isn't useful but who would you rather take weightlifting advice from? A fat guy or the bodybuilder? It's that kind of situation.
But yes, I'd agree that there's plenty of kinds of crits, maybe even most of them, that it shouldn't matter who they come from. Gut reaction feedback is one ("This art is too sexist/bloody/emo/mylittleponycutesy/etc!"), as is the more clinical stuff like: "This looks too muddy to figure out what's going on," or "That hand is foreshortened too severely and looks awkward,"or "The texture res looks too low in this spot," etc. That's all skill agnostic feedback.
I am not so sure that I agree with this. I think that someone who is classically trained will be able to give you more in depth critique but someone with no 3D experience can tell you when something doesn't look right. My wife may not be able to critique edge flow on a character, but she can tell me that my proportions are shitty.
I used to have an awful habit when getting critiques that I would immediately try and find that persons portfolio or threads with work in it. "Well, what have THEY made? How good is THEIR work?" And that is a really fucking stupid mindset to have. I'm not saying that everyone is going to have A+ amazing critiques and they're always right, but I have learned to take critiques for what they are (no matter who they're from), weigh them, and then make a decision.
I've gotten in the habit lately of saving out multiple files when getting critiques. I've been surprised at thinking a critique was bad, weighing it, giving it a try on a copied file, and then realizing that the changes made it 100% better even though it was against my initial snap judgement.
But ANY feedback can have value... because after awhile of staring at your own work you've lost the ability to look at it impartially and fresh eyes can reveal many problems you're blind to.
haha yea me too.
I love gossip so the bad threads are always awesome.
man, much appreciated, this is the best thing I've read in months.
Surely you have to understand that If youre going to be a good at making game art, or traditional sculptures of animals, or hell even completely abstracted personal work that involves anything remotely mammalian or humanoid, or even fruit bowl paintings for that matter, that producing fundamentals is just a given.
It is the same subject matter over and over again to increase your skill and understanding of executing fundamentals - because most 'artists' myself included, cannot even get these right.
Never mind the idea or what you perceive as the message or core behind whatever the piece ends up - because thats different for every viewer and every artist.
Also tbh maybe its a sign of my artistic immaturity but I just dont yet see merit in critiquing another artists 'idea' or interpretation of something. Raw untainted interpretation is often the best window into what makes an artist tick.
I enjoy seeing an expertly crafted muscly man, sci fi alien or big boobed pinup girl just as much as I enjoy watching belias building his wacky masterpieces. Okay MAYBE I enjoy belias's pieces more
Who are you (or who am I) to tell them any of them they are executing their core ideas wrong and they should be trying something else?
I guess my point is theres a commonality of progression in skill for game artists. And it runs (generally) the exact opposite of your list of what gets critiqued most to least. Fundamentals first, then we branch out to find a style... and then once our techniques are refined, we mature as people and as artists, we start trying to give meaning and voice to our pieces.
Unfortunately most of us never even get good at the basics or past stage 1. THATS why our latissimus dorsi are constantly called into question.
Even though I do actually share the belief with you that the meaning / voice / core is the most important and often most overlooked aspect - without the foundation of the first 2, I think for any artist attempting to go straight to the end first, would only result in the message / idea being lackluster, weak and foundationless - and a better clearer result could probably have been achieved with a page of words instead.
I see what you're saying, and understand that nobody would benefit from a three-page discussion on how a newbie who hasn't worked his way through his Loomis and Bridgman can best represent love in a postmodern world, or something. But let's take a step down from meaning then and go to design. Eons ago, I drew a concept for a guy with robot arms coming out of his back. Gauss came up and I believe he said that my design was flawed in being too uncreative; it didn't stand out as a piece on its own, but went straight into his robot arm guy category (Gauss was a master of these things before he lost his heart to firearms). And while I never did make anything worthwhile then, that advice has always been in the back of my mind: don't let your art be easily categorisable.
As an example, have you been following ysalex's Space Dive character? Some very capable artists have been creating science-fiction characters both in far and recent past, but this one in particular is one that I'll remember. Not because it's that much better executed than others (it is no doubt well executed, but so are a lot of others), but because the concept he picked is (at least in my personal opinion) much better. It subverts expectations and avoids clichés. Instead of hexagons, its texture is inspired by arabesques, how cool is that? Hexagons, glowing bits, oversized shoulder pads, hoods, panel-filled corridors, etc., they're all shortcuts for design. It's incredibly lazy, and what's more, such things easily get filed into categories and they're soon forgotten. It's not just that, but it's part of it.
Of course, if you genuinely can be as exited over an orc as you can over a more inventive design, then that produces a problem, or at least a situation with no outcome. I can marvel at a really good orc for a minute, but I'll forget it easily. A lot of designs reference each other and reference common tropes, and I'd really like to be able to call out such creative incest.
Haha!! Calling out creative incest, mate you'll have a fielday with that and it would consume your life. Not something I would reccomend spending your time doing!
See, for me Pyramid head, is an unforgettable design for me as is Lulu from final fantasy X, and any design that isnt as rediculous or bold as those starts to head back into forgettable zone for me.
Ysalex's character is headed in the right direction away from the masses of normality but I attribute that to the contrast of saturated colors used on white more than the design / silhouette / shapes of the character.
If we covered the entire character in a noisy camo texture much of what makes the character currently stand out, would be lost visually, at least to me, because the design extremities in the character ( case in point pyramid heads helmet or the million belt lulu dress ) aren't yet pushed to that level.
I think we are way off topic.....
I'm not sure what your trying to say here - but if its in reference to what I mentioned regarding covering a character in a camo pattern - you've got it completely wrong.
Care to enlighten me via PM so we dont have to clutter this thread up?
I remember someone had a cool avatar
Lies and slander.
Most of my character work is victim to broken links on old webservers.