Harishankar wrote:But judging for your own private reasons and keeping it private is different from putting the entire judgement in a review format and then putting it up in the public domain, particularly when the artist has not requested a review. I think it's in bad taste to write unsolicited reviews of artists who don't specifically go about seeking publicity, even though they might have put their work on the internet.
I think what's even more in bad taste is to bash a creator's work in spite of the creator acknowledging that they might not be all that good in the first place.
I think everybody is judging something or the other at different levels and for different reasons every day. And most people probably keep it to themselves.
If reviewers choose to review out of turn or otherwise express themselves freely and unreservedly on somebody else's work then reviewers shouldn't be hypocritical when the comic artists turn around and attack them viciously either.
Reviewers cannot have it both ways either. And I say this in the same sincere spirit that you call upon artists and creators to not take it so personally.
I say this because reviewers turn all defensive and huffy when the creator asks the reviewer about their own achievements outside of the reviewing sphere.
I'll admit that I find BWW entertaining in a really horrible sort of way. On some level, one might consider those reviews to be at least a little helpful, though the hyperbolic writing style tends to make each review less about the comic and more about the poor, poor reviewer having to read such an awful thing. But it saddens me that people hear "webcomic reviews" and immediately picture the BWW style of "review." There are plenty of good reviewers out there who take care when writing their work, but people think of the "swear-word, swear-word, vulgar phrase, ad-hominem insult" manner that comprises the Bad Webcoimcs Wiki, and then they assume every other reviewer is like that.
I agree with this. When someone receives critique (even if it's just in the form of someone leaving a comment saying "The anatomy looks a little warped in the third panel" or something), there are people who will whip around and insist that they weren't asking for your opinion anyway. Like hell! If the commenter had left them a praiseful comment, I doubt they'd be saying the same thing. An artist saying they don't want people's opinions would be like someone signing up for an online dating website and then getting mad when people try to put the moves on them. If an artist doesn't want anyone's opinions, there's a simple solution- don't let anyone see it.
Regarding expertise/knowledge/ability on the side of the reviewer:
My anatomy isn't that great. My backgrounds aren't that great. My coloring isn't that great. But that doesn't mean I can't spot bad anatomy, backgrounds, coloring in other comics. I don't need to be an ace at something myself before I can help someone else. Otherwise who would be able to critique the really "great" comics?
Obviously understanding the way something works is pretty important as a revieiwer, but I don't really think anyone's arguing against that
It's not very different, specially on internet where everything that's said remains, there's a very slippery slope between private conversation and published article.
I'm sick and tired of people hiding behind "it's just a hobby" to excuse poor work.
Let me ask a question. Supposing a really nice old grandma living in your neighbourhood draws really bad drawings/paintings and then presents them to your friends. She does it in her old age and derives no other pleasure in life than to draw. She makes no money off it whatsoever. Now you see those pictures apparently in the public domain, hanging in several of your friend's houses, and feel the need to tear it apart. Do you go take your time to write and publish a newspaper article denouncing that grandma's art and tearing her apart or do you keep your views to yourself?
Now I ask, why is the internet so different? Why is it that, "if it's on the internet, it must be fair game" is such a popular notion? Because there's a screen between the object of your hatred that allows people to express themselves so recklessly?
There are people and real human beings involved. And their feelings. In general, I have to ask thisL why do you Westerners place so much weight on "Freedom of Speech" as your birthright and prefer that over considering another human being's feelings?
Just for discussion, what the bloody hell is wrong with this attitude? Why do critics care so much about improvement in random strangers who have no connection with them whatsoever?
I think we will fundamentally disagree on this point that anything on the internet is fair game. Legally you may be right. But at a higher level, I think there is no meeting point. My attitude towards life is to live and let live. Maybe that's why I get so worked up over the "right to speech" excuse raised in defence to every attempt to instill a bit of balance and perspective.
After all, if someone is a hobbyist and does comics as a relaxation, but when he gets criticized he's suddenly so attached to the comic that his feelings are hurt, isn't that a bit contradictory?
McDuffies wrote:I think that's the gist of what Robby was saying. I think he doesn't mind hobbyists by themselves, he just thinks that many people use this as the last ditch excuse against criticism, while in their mind they very much hope that they'll get the kind of approval that someone who put more effort into it gets.
RobboAKAscooby wrote:McDuffies wrote:I think that's the gist of what Robby was saying. I think he doesn't mind hobbyists by themselves, he just thinks that many people use this as the last ditch excuse against criticism, while in their mind they very much hope that they'll get the kind of approval that someone who put more effort into it gets.
Pretty much. I almost always encounter it as an excuse after the fact.
Hey comicking is just a hobby for me too but I'm realistic about it, I do want to improve my drawing so I can illustrate my novels but other than that art is just a hobby for me yet I realise by publishing my work (yes putting it online is publishing) that people are going to see it and may talk/write about it, that's just part of the game.
McDuffies wrote:To rephrase my thoughts from earlier: you may not consciously ask for judgement when you put your work in public. But you are, in fact, signing an implicit social contract that says you will be judged, and you have agreed to this clause in advance.
This is freedom of speech:
You can say to me: “You can't tell me what to think or what to say”,
But if that is so then you too cannot tell me what to think or say.
So if I want to tell you what to think or say I can do,
This is freedom of speech.
But you don't have to think or say what I tell you to.
This is freedom.
robotthepirate wrote:This is freedom of speech:
You can say to me: “You can't tell me what to think or what to say”,
But if that is so then you too cannot tell me what to think or say.
So if I want to tell you what to think or say I can do,
This is freedom of speech.
But you don't have to think or say what I tell you to.
This is freedom.
Harishankar wrote:Assuming for a moment that we all agree about the freedom issue and that everybody has it, can we go further?
robotthepirate wrote:Harishankar wrote:Assuming for a moment that we all agree about the freedom issue and that everybody has it, can we go further?
That wasn't an aguemental point on my behalf, thus far I've been happy to agree with both sides of this discussion at the same time. The posts are all too long for one thing.
Harishankar wrote:Honestly, reviewers tend to be quite conservative and toned down when approaching already established artists because they're inherently scared of making obvious mistakes in critiquing, offending the artist's fans or too intimidated by their "professional" status. And also there is a subconscious voice telling the reviewer "he/she must be doing something right to get so many fans" etc.
This movie doesn't scrape the bottom of the barrel. This movie isn't the bottom of the barrel. This movie isn't below the bottom of the barrel. This movie doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence with barrels...
1. Reviewer admits not to making an effort to read the comic archive because a few of them are very bad.
I think if anything, the reviewer should err on the side of the writing part, because comics are so dependent on the quality of the writing than on the art. Art can be improved with practice, but writing well is critical for success. So many comics have great art but the writing sucks - almost as though the comic creator hadn't given a second thought about that aspect.
Years ago I would have kinda agreed with you, but nowadays I disagree. I think that art can go a long way towards interpreting the script in one way or the other. Only yesterday I read a french serial which switched artists midway and to my surprise turned from barely readable fantasy drivel to a reasonably entertaining adventure. The scripts were pretty much illogical and derivative as before, but new artists was expressing ideas in a clearer, more organized, and frankly prettier to look at way, for instance due to his drawing, his expressions, paper cutouts suddenly became characters. I think that art sometimes works so subtly on interpretation of the script that we congratulate a script for something that is result of art.
Return to Technique Tips and Tricks
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest