Guide to giving honest and beneficial critique
This is something that all artists, musicians, voice actors, animators etc. can all benefit from. This is pretty thorough, so head past the break if you want to read, though note I don't discuss elements that you look at for critique, but rather how to present and receive critiques so they are most useful.
This could be thought of as a tutorial on communication--now if only I weren't so long winded.
Critique is an art form in of itself. The goal is to encourage the artist to improve. This is done through 2.5 ways:
Amplifying their strengths
Exposing their weaknesses
Encouraging new thought processes and methods
Most importantly though, critique is an appeal to logic. Here are the things you should NOT do when critiquing:
w is good
x is bad
y is better than you
you are better than z
There's no explanation of 'why'--in short these are an affront to logic. While you do need to keep in mind emotion helps with reception, logical appeals are the most reliable. If something is well done, explain specifically what. "I love the contrast of color used here," "the samples used sound a little hollow," "easing would make the transitions feel more natural," "the inflection puts a great level of haughtiness in the voice." And, save for special cases, you should NEVER compare an artist to another in terms of hierarchy, as that yields no benefits for the recipient.
On that note, hierarchical comparison is generally a bad idea for critique. It can be acceptable when it's in regards to an established archetype (textbook definition), reference, or to the artist's prior work, but from one artist to another there are too many variables at play to rank one as truly 'better' than the other.
That said, there can be an appropriate time to compare. Say there are two voice actors that are known for the same role. Both are very skilled and play the role well, but have different interpretations. Explaining why you like one actor's interpretation over the others' does not imply one is better, but simply that you agree more with the first actor's take on the character rather than the second.
Additionally, you don't want to come across as talking down on someone: presenting yourself like a peer is the best way to be heard, even if you are more experienced or seasoned than your recipient. One example I can bring up was a friend of mine was having trouble with some VA recordings. Something was wrong with her samples and she received some critique, but the way it was presented made it feel like it was her fault for whatever was going wrong, and didn't offer any insight or explanation on what the issue was. Later on, by simply asking her to try different things with her equipment instead, we were able to determine that the source of the problem was a very easily correctable mistake.
When it comes to giving critique, there are 3 methods I like to think of:
1. Sandwiching. This is the most common: you point a positive or well done aspect to start the critique, then point out a flaw or two, then conclude with something else you like. This method may not be a complete commentary on a piece, but can point out a few issues while keeping the artist motivated, and is generally the safest.
2. Extrapolation. This is my preferred method: I start by pointing out as many positive aspects I can find, then as many negative ones, however I exclude things I think may be artistic choices in both cases. I conclude by discussing what may be an artistic choice and offering suggestions on what may be done differently, touching on what the resulting effects may be. It is up to the artist to decide on the considerations, as they may or may not improve the piece, but are worth thinking about. This applies well to things such as style, color setting, and composition. Additionally, this is a great avenue to go down if you want to offer ideas to get the same effect that the artist was aiming for, but via easier means.
3. Rip apart. This one is a brutal form of critique that is best used only upon request by the artist. That said, you can still be tactful in giving it. Essentially, you focus on as many things you can that need to be improved, even to the smallest degree. When I use this method, I also imply what needs to be improved more over other adjustments, and also state that not necessarily all these improvements are totally necessary. Ultimately, it is up to the artist to decide how worthwhile a change is.
In giving critique, the power of suggestion is huge. In many cases, a mistake may be a simple, fixable oversight, or an artist may be already aware. By phrasing a comment as a question, or as a more passive statement, an artist may be more receptive if it was a conscious choice or they had already noticed it--and if they haven't, the results are often silly but positive, and often results in a quick correction.
Changing a statement into a suggestion is quite easy: simple use of qualifiers such as "a little bit" "somewhat" etc. to mitigate the severity of a statement is all that's necessary. Additionally, phrasing a statement as a question can also be effective: "Have you considered using x for y?" And, in the end, the point is still made that something is off. While pointing out what's wrong is the first step, simply getting an artist to look at what might be wrong is usually enough.
Now, I'm an engineering major. I am programmed to explore as many avenues of explanation as possible. This is where the power of suggestion really comes in handy: by treating most of my commentary as options, the artist is still free to consider what I've said without feeling threatened. There still are mistakes that come up that wind up being important to address directly, but by gauging critiques in terms of severity, it's quite easy to decide what should be expressed as an option and as a mandate to improve.
However, that brings me to my next point: nitpicking. If you haven't learned to gauge critiques yet, chances are you're likely to offer a comment that is nothing more than a nitpick, but the way it's expressed looks like a critical fault. (One example would be Luna's mane in my animation, Daylight's End-- despite explaining the reasonings behind the direction of her mane, I received endless comments expressing end-of-the-world sentiment because I had (actively chosen to have) her mane flowing forwards.)
The rawer you can make your critique, the better. If you need to pick at something small, such as hair direction, or a small oversight in the lineart, or a missing shadow, preface that comment as just being a minor nitpick. Things that are very broad, such as composition and color choice, or inflection/personality for VA work, or character positioning for animation are, on the other hand, seldom nitpicks and are usually good things to comment on. And, that said, it's almost always a good idea to comment on several things-- critiques on single aspects have a high risk of rejection (unless of course it's something like "I think x could have been done like this, but other than that, good job.")
The hard part about nitpicks is sometimes they may exist because you're simply unfamiliar with the software used. Many people underestimate Flash, and assume that a change that would be small to do in say, Photoshop, would likewise be small and simple in Flash, which usually winds up not being the case, given the nature of both programs. Suggestion can be a saving grace here: if you're unsure of a change, phrase your comment passively or as a question.
Remember: the person you are critiquing is a human being like yourself. It is critical when sending information to know how it will be received, so try to understand how your commentary will be heard to ensure that it will be productive. At its best, critique should be a mutually symbiotic exchange: the artist should gain insight on their work, and the critic develops a better understanding of the medium. The goal is to get both parties to think.
And, as an artist, try to be as critical of your own work as well (even if you have to turn a drawing 90 degrees to remove perception bias). When asking for critique, point out the flaws you see right away (helps to reduce repeated comments on aspects you're aware of), or ask for commentary on specific aspects. But, most importantly do NOT make excuses for mistakes. While you can defend some aspects as being artistic choices, keep in mind some artistic choices may still negatively impact your work. (This is doubly true for the age-old 'it's my style!' defense in regards to anatomy.)
Understand that all critique should be given and taken with a grain of salt, and work on developing a thick skin and a good humor. You'll find that being a critic can help you take critique as well, and in both offering and receiving critique you can develop well as an artist.
...Wow that was long. Anyway, just as a final note, here's a link to a critique I gave to a novice artist by request, that I feel to be one of the most informative ones I've done, as an example that you can critique literally anything objectively and in a fashion that benefits the artist. [X]
