INTRODUCTION

We've all been there at one time or other - the ubiquitous group critique. A group of artists take turns showing their work, while the other members of the group offer their opinions on it.

This is usually done fairly quickly, often 'tagged on' at the end of a meeting, or done as a quick preamble at the beginning of a class, the object of the exercise sometimes seems to be to 'git er dun' as quickly as possible. Members of the group are anxious to get to the 'real' reason for the gathering, or else they're anxious to get home as soon as possible, if the meeting has already taken place.

Because of this 'rushed' atmosphere, a potentially valuable source of peer feedback becomes instead a form of 'mutual admiration society', with comments such as: “What a great painting!” ... “I really like this one!” ... “I love the colours!” ... and more of the same. Nobody wants to say anything 'negative' about someone else's work, because we all secretly want to hear positive comments about our own work.

A pat on the back is always nice to get, of course, and goes a long way to boosting the ego, but is that what a critique is really all about? Such comments really don't give us much in the way of insights to work with, and contribute little to our overall growth as artists.

DEFINITION OF 'CRITIQUE'

Some artists cringe at the mere thought of having their work critiqued. The very word 'critique' is based on the word 'criticism', and in our culture that word has taken on a negative connotation, since to criticize something usually means to point out its faults.

The dictionary definition of the word 'critic', however, indicates it is 'someone who passes judgement on something, usually in reference to art and literature'. That is a neutral statement ... the 'judgement' could be either positive or negative, or a combination of both.

FINDING THE CRITICAL BALANCE

So how can we improve group critiques? If we are to comment on each other's work in an effective and constructive way, it helps to pay attention to a few basic guidelines. The overall goal is BALANCE between what is working in the painting, and what could benefit from a different approach or further thought.

For the person who says they “really like the painting” --- Why? What is it about this particular painting which appeals to you? Is it the balance of lights and darks? Do the colours match the colours in your livingroom? Is it the fancy frame which appeals to you? What else?

For the person who says they “love the colours “ --- what is it about the colours you like? Is it the balance between brights and subdued tones? Is it the juxtaposition of complements that catches your eye? What else?

For the person who says “it's a great painting” --- why do you feel it's a great painting? Great compared to what? Is it the composition? The treatment of subtle details? The skillful handling of the medium? What else?

Once you identify what does appeal to you about the painting in question, then it's time to take the next step and  pick out one or two elements which the artist could perhaps approach a little differently. That is balance.  That is neutral. That is constructive.

BASIC GUIDELINES FOR CONSTRUCTIVE CRITIQUE

Art is a language, and like any other form of communication, it consists of two parts -  the Intention, and the Perception.

Paintings elicit definite emotional responses in the viewer.   The process of critique allows the artist to determine whether their 'intended message' is the same as the 'perceived message' which the viewer feels when they observe the painting.

When doing a critique of someone else's work, it's important to do it in a constructive manner. It isn't necessary to comment on the entire painting ... sometimes it can be far more helpful to zero in on one element which is working well, then pick one element which could benefit from a different approach.

The first question should be “What were you attempting in this painting?” ... the answer to that question often paves the way to constructive comments on various elements in the painting.

ELEMENTS TO EXAMINE:

• artist's statement - what was the artist's intention? Is it finished? Are there any particular problem areas where the artist would like feedback?

  • Emotional impact - how does it make you feel? Does it match the artist's intention?

  • Title - does the title give a sense of the artist's intention? Is it self-explanatory?

• technical skill – how well has the artist handled the medium?

• Unity - is the medium and subject matter handled the same way throughout the painting?

• Presentation - brush hairs? Scratches? Fingerprints? Appropriate framing?

• Composition -

  • Subject matter - does it convey some sort of 'life' or 'story'? Is it varied? Interesting?

  • Format - arrangement of shapes, suitability of painting size & shape ...

  • Perspective - consistent throughout painting?

  • Colour - use of complements ... balance of brights and subdued hues ...

  • Focal point - easily identified? ... suitable location ?

  • Texture - consistent throughout painting? Consistent with subject matter?

  • Value range - pleasing arrangement of tonal values?

Ideas ...

• turn the work upside down, to check for balance of design elements ...

• look at the piece from a distance and then from closeup ...

• look at the painting through squinted eyes ...

RECEIVING CRITICISM OF OUR WORK

Since we all have different backgrounds and experiences and educations when it comes to art, no two critics / artists will ever give the same opinion of a particular piece of art. Most importantly, we need to remember that the critique is of the painting, and not the painter.   It's not personal.

The person on the receiving end of a critique has the option, of course, of whether or not they decide to make use of any suggestions being offered by the group, or by an individual critic. But even if they end up making no changes on the painting being appraised, the suggestions and comments will be absorbed into the subconscious, and will likely come into play at a later time, with a different painting.

THE GROUP CRITIQUE EXPERIENCE

There are advantages to having our work critiqued by an art professional, for sure. Those individuals offer their expert opinions based on extensive training and/or experience, and can be an invaluable addition to our overall art education.

However, a well-focused Group Critique, where the members of a group pass comment on each others' work, can be equally valuable. For one thing, members of a group tend to know each other fairly well, and can be more open about making suggestions or asking questions.

Some members of a group might feel they are not experienced enough or knowledgeable enough to critique someone else's work, but the truth is that we all have something valuable to offer. Any person who attempts to put pigment to paper or to canvas has the ability to contribute to a group critique. We all know “a little something” that the next person may not be aware of, or may not have thought of.

As individuals, we learn just as much from seeing someone else's work being critiqued, as we do from critique of our own work. In a group environment, it's like receiving numerous 'little lessons' for the price of one, so to speak. Our minds register all these little nuggets of information for future use, even if we're not aware of it happening.

As a result, every member of the group ends up growing as artists.

-----------------