We would like this forum to be very laid back and fun. We only ask a few things. Please do not get personal with your critiques. Do not attack someone because you do not agree with their work. Do not say: "This sucks" or "What is this supposed to be?" etc. Constructive criticism is greatly appreciated. I also ask that artists post no more than three (3) new posts per week to give other artists an opportunity to be seen.
There is no structure to what your critiques should be like, just honest opinions are all that is required. We do however have a set of guidelines if you need guidance in your critique or do not know what to write.
The following outline is adapted from Edmund Feldmanâ€™s Varieties of Visual Experience (Prentice Hall, 1972).
Make objec!ive* or value-neutral* statements about the work in question. Exclude interpretations and evaluations, and instead take an objec!ive inventory of the work. Point out single features such as objec!s, trees, and people. Then point out abstract elements such as shapes and colors. Finally point out textures, which can lead to a description of the "characteristics of execution." *A test of objec!ivity would be that most people would agree with your statement.
B. Formal analysis
Make statements about the relations among the things you named in the descriptions (part A). You should note similarities in formal elements, such things as color, shape, or direction. Then note dissimilarities (contrasts) in those same elements. Take note of continuities (such as the color red repeated throughout the work) and of connections (for example, the shape of a window repeated in the shape of a table) between these formal elements and the subject matter. Finally, note the overall qualities of the work.
Make statements about the meaning(s) of the work. This is the most creative part of your critique. Using a hypothesis, support it with arguments, based on evidence given in the description and formal analysis (parts A and B)
This is the most complex part of the critique and requires an opinion regarding the worth of an objec!, based on what was learned in the previous stages of the critique. Are you moved by this work? What do you think of it? What is your aesthetic judgment? And on what is based?