The Joy of Crit: G-rated

The Joy of Crit: The G-rated version

Please indulge me in a thought experiment.  Imagine that you drank some herbal tea that you found in the kitchen cupboard, not realizing that it would make you unable to tell a lie.  Now, what if later that evening you were planning to attend your high school prom with someone you would be dating for the first time?  You spend hours in the bathroom getting ready.  Finally you meet up with your date and he or she asks, "so, how do I look?"

If your date looks wonderful, this question is easy to answer.  A few superlatives, and maybe a comment about something you especially like, such as their hair style, just so that your praises don't ring hollow, will more than suffice.  However, if the date looks so-so or is having a desperately bad hair day... Well, I'm sure you can see how answering this question the wrong way could end up with you dancing by yourself.  

It's not difficult to understand how criticism of someone's appearance is going to be filtered through their sense of self-worth.  Likewise, if they're honest with themselves, writers and artists (henceforth referred to as 'artists' or 'the artist') will admit that their feelings about themselves are bound up in how others receive their work.  A brutally honest opinion could lead to a bruised ego, or worse, a crushed spirit.  

You, having had that herbal tea that compels you speak the truth, may well ask at this point, what's with all this sensitivity?  Isn't honesty always the best approach?  Shouldn't people who put their creations out there toughen up and learn to take criticism?  Maybe if their work sucks, it's kinder to let them know, rather than tell them white lies and give them false hope.   

Yes, artists shouldn't expect everyone to like their work.  Yes, they should learn to take criticism with grace.  And, yes, a less than honest critique would be misleading.  However, writing a critique does not give you the status of a critic, who is paid to rave or pan a piece with no regard for the feelings or career of its creator.  A critique is a thoughtful, respectful assessment of a creative work aimed at assisting the artist to improve and grow, by offering up an outsider's perspective.  Notice I didn't use the word, 'objective', which belongs in the realm of math, science and philosophy, not the arts.  While you can be more objective about a piece than its creator, and this can be very useful to the emotionally invested artist, it's important to realize that your critique is your very subjective opinion.  You come to any painting or story with preconceived notions, cultural influences and personal preferences.  

For this reason, opinions and impressions expressed in a critique are worthless without supporting examples and explanations.  In addition, opinions based on personal taste should be qualified as such.  For instance, if abstract art isn't your cup of tea, be sure to say so from the outset.  Most important, any negative criticism of a piece should be constructive as opposed to destructive.  This means that when you point out a weakness in a piece, your critique should include reasonable suggestions for improvement.  

Let's go back to your prom date and imagine that the roles are reversed.  This time, it's you who is posing the question, "how do I look?"  First of all, since you are in a vulnerable position, you'll want to hear about the things you got right, not the things you couldn't help, such as having the standard configuration of facial features (as opposed to being a Cyclops), but rather for the taste and effort you put into your appearance.  I don't care how bad a dresser you are, with a moment to consider, there is always something good that can be said.  Once this very human need for validation has been met, any negative criticism that might follow will likely be easier to take.  Still, being mocked or labelled, or told to change who you are as a person or told that you were so fashion-impaired that even the makeover show, "What Not to Wear," couldn't help you – would make you rightfully angry and/or hurt.  This is where constructive criticism comes in.  Being told that while that your outfit suited you, the amount of product in your hair ruined the faux-leather upholstery of your mom's car and put the couple in the backseat into a state of anaphylactic shock, could be viewed as useful information for the future, if your date suggested some do-able way to improve on your hair style, such as using a tad less gel wax.   

Okay, the awkward initial impressions are over with and you and your date share pizza with another couple, ride in the limo to the prom, and dance the night away.  When the prom is over, you walk your date to the door.  More awkwardness is about to ensue.  The question of what the evening meant remains.  Your date is asking, "did you have a good time?"  This question is full of implications, namely, whether there will be a second date, and whether you'll kiss goodnight, just shake hands or wave at a distance.  In the arts, this part of the date would be analogous to discussing any themes raised and emotions evoked by a piece.  In other words, the touchy-feely, airy-fairy stuff.   Many people faced with this sort of inquiry take one look inward at the rapid firings of synapses among the confusing convolutions of grey matter and find some way to change the subject or excuse themselves to the powder room.   Some, caught up in the moment and wanting to please, might prematurely blurt out the 'L' word.  

To avoid such potentially disastrous responses, take a breath and think.  Weigh what your heart is telling you against what your head has to say.  For those writing critiques this equates to taking both your emotional and intellectual response to a piece and trying to phrase it in some coherent and relevant way.  "It's like Star Wars, Man," or "awesome," isn't helpful.  Dig deeper into your own experience or that of your friends and family and you might just begin to grasp what the artist was getting at.  You probably know someone whose boyfriend's sister's dog, cat or iguana was tragically run over by a car or whatever.  So many experiences discussed in art are universal or close to it.  Now, start typing.  Give examples from the piece that support your interpretation, because that's all it is – an interpretation.  The artist might have been trying to say something else entirely.   But if they are open-minded and interested in other interpretations of their work (as they should be) they will respect what you have to say.  Once they put their piece out there, it is available for anyone to interpret as they wish.  In a way a piece of art takes on a life of its own, beyond that of its creator.  The majority of artists understand and accept this.  For the minority of the divas who don't... be prepared to extricate your foot from your mouth, but I'll have more to say about this later.  

As for the complexities of metaphors, recurring motifs, imagery and whatnot, when critiquing, having a set of criteria by which to judge the piece can be invaluable.  "I don't know anything about art, but I know what I like," just won't cut it.

Your criteria will be different from mine or the next person's.  Often it is a list of qualities that appeal to you aesthetically, intellectually and emotionally.  It may also take into account factors such as timeliness and context and morality.  

Here is my criteria for judging a piece of art, writing:   
I look for qualities including:  creativity, imaginativeness, originality, self-expressiveness, boldness or alternatively subtlety and unity (whether harmonious or chaotic).   I attempt to determine what the artist may have set out to do, and whether this (or sometimes something better or worse) was achieved.  I also judge whether the piece engages me initially and makes me take yet a second, deeper look.  Afterward, I consider whether the piece leaves a lasting impression or better still gives me something interesting to ponder.  All good art, I have found, ultimately poses questions about human nature or the human condition whether directly or indirectly.  Some pieces call into question your morality and ethics.  I do not believe in censorship as a rule, but even I have limits.  Some things are morally repugnant to me.  This is a very individual call, however.  Occasionally art can question art itself or the form or genre.  These are often valid questions.  It is in the nature of art to question itself from time to time.   (Dadaism is one of the most famous examples of this.)  As for technique, if the artist has a good command of the basic skills that's enough; it's what he or she does with them that matters most.  Sheer exceptional skill can be dazzling and praiseworthy, but without art it's just craft.  

Having a general set of criteria will allow you to critique the major aspects of any form of creative work.  All forms of art are for everyone.    For instance, readers do not have to be writers, people visiting galleries do not have to be painters and so on.  Being a consumer of art is all the qualification you need to give a basic critique.  For more detailed, technical evaluations of a piece, you may either have to do some homework or qualify your critique as being limited to the scope of your experience.  In spite of this, your opinion, if you say it constructively and with respect, is of value.   

Many volumes have been written on criticism of each form of art.  The following are beginners' guidelines (in the form of questions) to critiquing basic technical aspects of prose, poetry and visual art:

But first, the 'title':  this is the introduction to any piece of any art form.  Like the name of a date, it sets up expectations.  Is Erwin destined to be a nerd?  Can Jane go beyond plain?  Similarly, with titles you can ask yourself:  Did it reveal just enough to catch your interest or did it reveal too much?  Was the title too obscure, too nondescript or off-putting?

Prose:
Does the language, whether obscure, flowery or clean, fit with the setting, characters and themes in the story?  Does the language flow or must you constantly and perhaps annoyingly re-read?   Is language used well to enhance the pace of the story?  
Does the author's voice seem inconsistent?   Did the author resort to too many clichés, axioms, figures of speech where plain language would have done the job?
Did the story engage you right from the first few lines?
Did you have a hard time putting the story down or were you bored after the first few paragraphs or chapters?
Could you picture the setting, action and characters clearly in your mind or were you constantly confused?
Were you transported to the world in which the story took place?
Did the author use imagery that you could relate to and that echoed what was going on in the story?
Were there egregious spelling errors, typos and grammatical errors?
Was the author too timid or too self-indulgent or too didactic?
Did the author make observations about society or human nature that got you thinking?
Do you identify with or care about the characters even if they are quite unlikable and unlike you?  
Did the dialogue seem natural?
Did the author choose the right point-of-view(s) (first-, second-, third-person) to tell the story?  Or did the author bounce between characters in each scene leaving you feeling like you were watching a ping-pong match?
Were there too many flashbacks or confusing time jumps?  
Did the characters change or grow over the course of the story?
How did the story make you feel, if anything -- touched, empowered, joyful, annoyed, angry, sad?
For humour, were the jokes funny and in context or did you feel story was sacrificed to punchlines?
Did the themes leave you with something worthwhile to ponder?  
Did the story end at the right point or did it seem truncated, or  conversely did it go on too long, explaining too much?  Was it too pat?  Had you predicted the ending from the beginning?

Poetry:
Some of the above may apply to poetry, such as voice, characters, dialogue, setting, point of view, imagery, language, observations and endings.   Poetic forms are many.  Whether the poet has used the chosen form to its best advantage can be important, but sadly, I don't have room to go into this here.
Does the poem read well aloud?
Was there a rhythm that was either consistent or fitting with the pacing, subject and meaning?
Did the words flow in a way that enhanced the pacing (meter and enjambment), meaning and imagery?
What was there a rhyme scheme or was it open?  Was meaning or sense ever sacrificed for rhyme scheme?  Did the rhymes seem natural or musical?  Did rhyme deflate the seriousness of the subject or make it seem grand?
Were there breaks or unexpected changes in the rhyme, meter and/or rhythm that underlined the subject or meaning of the poem?
Was there a visual aspect to the placement of words, lines and stanzas?  Did this confuse you or bring out the poem's subject and meaning?
Did you relate to the central idea(s) in the poem?  Were these ideas conveyed well?
Were you left with something interesting to ponder?  Did the poem burn itself into your mind?

Visual Art:
Is the space whether 3-D, 2-D or ambiguous interesting or confused?
Are the colours whether harmonious or competing doing their job?
For realism, were colours, value, line, form naturalistic?
What did you feel when you looked at this picture the first time?
Do you find yourself returning for a second look?
Do the lines of the painting direct your eye off the right side of the painting?  Or do they cause you to wander over the canvas/paper to see all the main objects?
Does the painting seem unbalanced, tipped to one side or the other like a leaky boat, or top heavy or bottom heavy and about to sink?
Does the imagery of painting remain in your mind after you leave the gallery?  Or is it forgettable?
Whether energy or calm is apparent in the brushstrokes, does this enhance the feel, look and meaning of the painting?
Does the painting seem amateur or unfinished in a way that might be unintended?
Does the painting draw your eye to elements that allow you to decode its story or message?

You're just about ready to go out there and offer some good crit.  I can't promise that you'll never put your foot in your mouth.  I can't say the same thing for myself either.  I still have a sock aftertaste over telling a talented writer in my writer's group that her journalist character didn't sound or act like a journalist, only to discover (embarrassingly) that the author herself had been a journalist for many years...  But there were no hard feelings, because she understood that I was only expressing my opinion.  It wasn't personal.  This is how most artists graciously receive criticism.  In person, your facial muscles and body gestures are there to help show that your intentions were good.  On the net you only have words and emoticons to make yourself clear.  Sometimes they won't be enough.  Apologize, do your best to clarify what you meant and move on.  
  
Are you ready?  To recap, a good critique will include:
1) A discussion of the work's best qualities, giving supporting examples and reasons.
2) A discussion of areas that need improvement, qualifying opinions based on personal taste, and providing supporting examples and reasons, as well as constructive suggestions.  
3) State your emotional response to the piece and/or discuss its main themes and how well they were realized, giving supporting examples and reasons.  

One more thing before you and your heavily gel-waxed date part ways:  it's important to note that much of what happens when you fall in like, (or perhaps in love) and likewise with art -- is magic.  I don't mean to mystify romance or art.  I'm just saying that it's human nature to allow ourselves to suspend our disbelief and become caught up in something that makes us feel like we're part of something greater.  Reading a novel lets us walk in the shoes of another and experience things that may never occur in our lives.  A painting invites us into a different sort of space or presents us with images we find ourselves inexplicably drawn toward.   Just as love can give life a deeper meaning, great art can bring meaning to our lives.  But the not-so secret, secret is that art is achieved through what can only be described as a bag of tricks.  In writing, the illusion is achieved via literary devices, in art, its optical effects and for most art forms, artists call up imagery designed to speak to our hearts or minds.  Good artists are in a way, magicians.  As someone who is both a visual artist and a writer, I can spot the literary devices and optical illusions right away.  Sometimes this can really spoil my enjoyment of a good book or piece of art.  I have to sort of trick myself into letting myself be tricked.  I also have to let go of my personal taste and vision.  If you are a poet, prose writer or visual artist, this is something you have to be aware of as you approach the work of another artist in your field(s), especially with novices.  Handle novices with care.  They are as fragile as newly emergent butterflies.   

-- by M. Alice Chown