The Nightstar Zoo

Nightstar IRC Network - irc.nightstar.net
It is currently Sat Mar 25, 2017 2:54 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 18 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Two Dogmas of Criticisms
PostPosted: Wed May 05, 2004 3:25 am 
Most artists, writers, dreamers, poets, say they enjoy and welcome creative criticism... and most I find actually don't like it upon reception. The ones who do honestly take in the feedback, and shifts through what they are told and finds what parts he's willing to adjust for and what parts he is going to keep the same.

Others tend to bow to the will of their critics, which lead to comments that they don't have the courage to stick to their guns. We'll call this the Crowd-pleaser Dogma.

Others still will dogmatic go about their own way, ignoring the comments and they get labled as being petty or full of themselves or immature. We'll call this the Self-pleaser Dogma

No. Granted, the tired and true thing of "Find the friggin balance and use some common sense" approach probably works.

But common sense is boring. Dogmatic assertions are interesting.

So.

Of the two, which Dogma is more acceptable?

And if you have any other modes of behavior, feel free to add them.

Oh. And if anyone says "Let sleeping dogmas lie", I will El Kabong the post.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 05, 2004 1:21 pm 
Neither is particularly good. If you take everybody's advice you end up with a piece of work that is de facto designed by committee. If you take nobody's advice your understanding of how it works rarely improves (even if you're highly self-critical, you won't correct problems that you don't notice).


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 05, 2004 1:40 pm 
I guess it can be important to listen to other people's opinion for the information it provides. But if you're listening just so that you can please them, without trying to decide for yourself if their criticism is valid, then you're missing the point.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 05, 2004 3:39 pm 
Art by committee is almost always bad, while art without attention to criticism is only usually bad. Therefore, if those are the only two options, ignore critics.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 05, 2004 4:51 pm 
gwalla wrote:
Neither is particularly good. If you take everybody's advice you end up with a piece of work that is de facto designed by committee. If you take nobody's advice your understanding of how it works rarely improves (even if you're highly self-critical, you won't correct problems that you don't notice).


sun tzu wrote:
I guess it can be important to listen to other people's opinion for the information it provides. But if you're listening just so that you can please them, without trying to decide for yourself if their criticism is valid, then you're missing the point.


Those are the rational, boring answers! C'mon, defend some extreme position!


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 05, 2004 8:27 pm 
Art isn't the only place this stuff affects. In code, I've found it usually better to go for the crowd pleaser. People who write maintainable code generally do. Nine times out of ten, self-pleasers make pathetically poor team mates. This is why the Maverick coders are less and less an asset to their employer.

More broadly, who has to consume your creation and what is it purpose? Is it to make people examine something they don't want to (as art used to be)? Then go for the self-pleaser, because the crowd will most assuredly want you to tone it down. Is it something other people are supposed to enjoy? Educated people tend to know what they like. Listen.

As for the uneducated, feck 'em. ;) They've got no business asking you to change when they don't understand what's going on.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 21, 2004 1:44 pm 
Self-pleaser. You'll never be able to entirely please everyone with your work, so I say go with what makes you happy. What you consider your best effort. Because there will always be criticism.

But there is the person who is learning, and happy to learn, who will take constructive criticism and consider it, and in most cases take it, and keep just what makes the work theirs. They realize the value of taking advice from people more knowledgeable in the field than they are, and re-apply it in their own way to their work. They improve themselves in the direction that they want to improve.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 21, 2004 11:42 pm 
Offline
Vorpal Bunny Slipper
Vorpal Bunny Slipper

Joined: Sun May 12, 2002 2:54 am
Posts: 2707
Shoot everyone who criticizes you in the head.

_________________
Scharr, scharr, verscharr das Gebein, grab es tief unten im Keller ein.
Später dann graben es andere aus, und nennen dein Haus das Knochenhaus.
Scharr, scharr, verscharr das Gebein, leg auch ihre weißen Schädel hinein.
Mit Beton gießt du es aus, das Fundament vom Knochenhaus.
Scharr, scharr, verscharr das Gebein, da ist noch Platz, da paßt noch wer rein.
Hier tobte sich der Teufel aus, unten im Keller im Knochenhaus.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Sep 22, 2004 8:21 am 
Making things topical...

Has George Lucas bastardized his movies over the past 10 years or so with his Special Edition stuff? Should a creator go back and alter his or her work like that?


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Sep 22, 2004 1:37 pm 
Gerald wrote:
Making things topical...

Has George Lucas bastardized his movies over the past 10 years or so with his Special Edition stuff? Should a creator go back and alter his or her work like that?


Has he? Yes. Should one? Depends. Is it a good idea? Usually, no.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Sep 22, 2004 5:01 pm 
The answer to that is the answer to this question: is it necessary?


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Sep 23, 2004 4:04 pm 
Vaguely ontopic, this is amusing.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 27, 2004 1:20 pm 
Screw the critics and do what you feel is right.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 27, 2004 5:37 pm 
Crowd pleasing is how you end up with pop music.

Actually I think that as an artist becomes increasingly experienced hir need to pay attention to critisism becomes diminished. Someone just starting out is going to have difficutty getting hir message across. While a more experienced artist who payed attention to critisism earlier has already heard and adapted the thing that s/he wishes to adapt. Unless someone comes out with new critisism, and I think that that is unlikely, an exprerienced artist has nothing to gain from paying attention to the critics.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 27, 2004 8:34 pm 
I believe that you have to be willing to have someone be offended. Someone will take anything as a personal attack. There are people offended over Mr. Magoo or Porky Pig.

It's better to ignore the critics than pander to the idiots with too much time and not enough brains to know what they are talking about. Too many critics would rather degrade something good, than admit they don't understand in the first place.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 27, 2004 10:23 pm 
Offline
Knight of Daisies, Tulip Slayer
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 11, 2002 3:03 am
Posts: 1621
Location: Sector ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha
I think Lazarus Long put it best.

Lazarus Long wrote:
A "critic" is a man who creates nothing and thereby feels qualified to judge the work of creative men. There is logic in this; he is unbiased-he hates all creative people equally.



God, I love that man.

_________________
Fandemonium 2010 -- No Boundaries.
http://www.fandemonium.org
Friday - Sunday, August 6th - 8th, 2010
Nampa Civic Center - Nampa, Idaho (Only 20 minutes from the airport!)
(Idaho: It ain't just potatoes anymore.)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 28, 2004 10:40 am 
Offline
Janitor
Janitor
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 11:15 pm
Posts: 2388
Location: In the middle of the Pacific Ocean, somewhere.
Ah, I see.

Feral dogma vs. domesticated dogma.

What amuses me is critics on movies.
There have been plenty of movies where the professional critics and the amateur critics agree...but I take great amusement when all the professional critics say "It SUCKS!", but the amateur critics--the ones voting with their feet instead of with a word processor--just keep packing those theatres.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 28, 2004 1:52 pm 
You also have to admit the possibility that your work sucks. It's all very well to say that critics are uncreative, mean-spirited, bitter, worthless people. But they can be right all the same.

So I suppose you should be able to critic the critics.


Top
  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 18 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group