Why so little critiquing?

[David Somers]

Aloha everyone!

I was wondering why we seem to do so little critiquing of work that is posted on the site?

I see lots of nice comments, but very few comments where someone suggests an improvement to a piece.

I happened to think about this after getting some very helpful comments on some pieces I posted on the WOW website. There seems to be more in the way of helpful critiscism between the participants there than on this site.

Now please don't get me wrong. I realllllllllly value this site and get a great deal from it, especially the forums. But it seems to me as if the other opportunity we have to help each other, by critiquing our work, is soft pedaled for some reason.

Perhaps a section on the site could be set up where people actively seeking a critique might post their work? Then we would all know that the shots were not just being shared, but that we were actively seeking opinions and help.

I am as guilty of not critiquing as anyone. I am still a pretty new turner and not all that confident in being able to explain why something works or doesn't work for me. And critiqueing work takes time and I often can't do much more than pop in, browse things quickly and then get out again. But it seems as if, when we do make comments, we keep them collegial and nice. Great for building our sense of self esteem, but not really helpful when we are looking to improve.

Anyone care to share their thoughts on this???

By the way.....Although I haven't been on AAW all that long I have seen more than enough of it to trust in everyone. I know if you did offer critiques they would be friendly and helpful, and not demeaning. We might snipe occaisionally about politics, but when it comes to turning we are definately a caring group of people.

Mahalo everyone!!

Dave

 

[Angelo]

Critique

Hi Dave,

My experience is that people can become very defensive when a good critique is given of a piece. I tend not to offer my thoughts unless specifically asked for comments both pro and con.

One thing people that are seeking critisim, must keep in mind, is when they ask me for a critique they are asking me to compare their work against my sense of aesethics and general design ideas.

I am happy to provide my thoughts, pro and con, if asked.

Angelo

 

[Steve Worcester]

I value a good critique as well, but in the case of the web, we don't know if that person is (how do you say) worthy of giving it. In addition, we don't know if the person posting it would welcome our criticism.

Maybe we start posting photos with critique in the title or comments or search words or something indicating they would desire a well thought out constructive criticism?

 

[Mark Mandell]

Probably a bunch of reasons, David.

First, lots of people don't want to subject their work to detailed scrutiny; an "I like that" or "Neat" i.e simple positive reinforcement, is all they're looking for.

Second, meaningful critique takes time and should really be an "in person" thing rather than done from a photograph. All too often the comments (including on WOW) are more valid as comments on the photograph than the turning.

Third, meaningful critique requires background and training to do the analysis and THEN put the concepts into comments that are not personal value judgments. Perhaps you caught my critique of Peter Rand's "tossed" piece on WOW and then viewed the next one in his series.

I had a piece critiqued at a AAW symposium. Unfortunately it mostly had to do with vague value judgments like "something wrong with this part" or "seems almost flat". The person was simply not in a position to make meaningfull comments, but was in the position of having to say something.

Forth, a good critiquer must be fluent with design concepts being used in the work being reviewed so that the comments can be geared to the maker's visual vocabulary used in the piece. Ultimatly, the piece has an internal validity that forms the basis of the analysis. Comments like, "If I were doing this, I would . . ." or "I'd like it better if . . ." are completely worthless, and will usually result in the maker becoming defensive and closed rather than energised and eager to get back to the lathe for the next piece.

I've seen several attempts to arrive at a set of "standards" for evaluating a woodturning. That's a valid effort if used in a contest judging situation, but critique is a very different effort. The commenter must be able to get inside the piece, sort of put it on like a jacket, see and visually feel how and where it "works" or doesn't, and then show the maker those views in a way that the person can understand and use.

Come to Richmond and bring your stuff!! There's going to be a panel discussion on critiquing and, of course, a critique in the Instant Gallery.

mm

 

[David Somers]

Angelo, Mark and Steve!

Thanks for the reply!

This is a bit of a tough one. I understand Angelo's reluctance. When you critique both the turner and critiquer are taking a chance.... Is the turner welcoming advice? Will the critiquer be snapped at for offering either unwanted or unappreciated advice? I would hope not, but I can see that sometimes seemingly innocuous things set us off on the site. I kind of figure that just the act of posting on a site like ours or WOW invites comments, good or bad. I post because I AM looking for comments, as well as sharing something. If I am not willing to accept some judgements on a piece I just won't post it.

Steve suggested that we put Critique or some other indicator in the title that might show we welcome more than pleasant comments? (this sounds like I am belittling those pleasant comments and I don't mean that. I really appreciate them.) That would work for me. Or perhaps we could set up a sub forum where people could post something they would like critiqued? That would make it easy for someone to go to one place where critiques were invited. It would also give those of us just lurking a single place to look if we wanted to see more thoughtful discussion of pieces.

Another thought might be to include a check field in the gallery where you could indicate you want critiques. Being able to sort or filter on that selection would make that method useful. I don't know if our gallery software permits that however, or how much work it would take to implement.

As for me.....when I get a comment from someone other than a positive one I tend to look for more of that persons work to get a feel for where their skill level is, though as Mark said, that is difficult to do from just a photo. I also try to apply their advice to various other people's work in the gallery and see if I follow what they are suggesting and agree with them If they have given a bit of background in their profiles that helps too. Another way to say this is that unless I know the critiquer, or immedietly see their point, I will be disciminating in taking their advice.

A good example of this is some advice Kelly Dunn kindly gave me on some pieces in WOW. I know Kelly and his work and his background and trust his thinking. He gave some things to think about that I am having trouble understanding or seeing though. When I have a chance I would like to sit down with him and see if I can understand his thoughts better. Admittedly, that is harder to do with posted comments, but a bit of dialog can usually get past an issue like that.

I also am not sure how much my experience matches other peoples, but my work and my location keeps me from getting to many of our club gatherings where I can lay a piece in someones hands for a discussion of it, and I don't see these folks outside of the meetings that often. AAW and WOW are often my only avenues for seeking some timely advice. As Mark said, its not the best medium to get advice like this from, but often it is all many of us have (I think <grin>)

Unfortunately, I won't be able to make the symposium this year, or probably the next few years for that matter. The next few locations are big time travel for me living in Hawaii. I look forward to the next symposium though, and will hopefully have some pieces I can bring in to sit down with folks about, and to keep getting to know some of our members better.

Dave

 

[Keith Burns]

There is a very good outline put together by the AAW on this site on how to critique work. I agree without the piece in hand it is difficult but it can still be done.

 

[odie]

Ask, and ye shall receive!

David......I would suspect you'd get quite a few critiques if you specifically ask for it.

I'm like most people here.......I might give a word of encouragement on a turning, but am very reluctant to give my thoughts without being asked for them.....especially if I thought improvements can be made.

In spite of all that.......remember this......YOU are the ONLY one you have to please. Because I understand that, I could care less what anyone else thinks of my "artwork"......and my satisfaction in what I do isn't based on any group think mentality.

....and, as Steve Worchester indicated, you are likely to be critiqued by a few turners that aren't worthy of giving one......and that probably includes me, since I have no recognized formal credentials in the woodturning world.

otis of cologne

 

[George Guadiane]

Definition of Terms

David,
Like everything else, "critique" is often trained out of us (courtesy and all). I too have gotten some really good insight about my work on Wow. One guy told me the perspective I needed to shoot from if I REALLY wanted a critique. I re-shot the piece and learned of a weakness I had really not considered. So, I'd like to hear critique...
On the one hand, the "experts" can add technical insight, but we "lesser talented" might see something that is meaningful to us and helps the poster.
Also, there is more than one book on bowl turning, that's because people take in and deliver information in many different ways... Without common terminology, a thing may need to be said many ways to be properly heard.

Angelo,
I think people get defensive because of vocabulary. If we don't have a common set of terms and definitions, almost anything said by almost anyone could be misinterpreted... That happens to me fairly often.
"Critique" to ME means tell me what you see, tell me what is good AND what could be improved. If one needs an "attaboy," then ask for that. If one uses the word "critique," it shouldn't be open season on the one hand, but when I ask, I want to hear what needs improvement, I want to get better. I don't see how I can do that if everyone just "plays nice."

Steve,
I want to "critique" one element of what you said:
I don't think that an "unskilled" person has nothing (or little) to add, the truth is the truth, and if someone sees it, they should be able to say it... They are only words after all, and if given honestly and without venom, there should be no harm, it seems to me. I think of a critique in the same way I think of money. If you drop a $20, it's still worth $20, whether you are rich or poor.

Mark,
I would grant you that detailed critique should be hands on, but (as in my case) when the lumpy curve (flat spot) was pointed out in the picture I posted, I could see it. Before it was pointed out, I was too full of myself to look that hard.
I would agree that a good hands on critique would be better done with a specific vocabulary with specific definitions to enable genuine information to be transferred, but that DOES take time and requires a common effort to a common education.
"Design concepts" can be limits and almost every true artistic breakthrough requires the testing of those limits... I think that "If I were doing this, I would . . ." or "I'd like it better if . . ." are intended to be softening mechanisms, designed to allow the person who did the work an opportunity to explain their intentions and perhaps show another interpretation (their own) of what is seen... I had a box with a foot that someone said would (not might, WOULD) look better without the foot - I LIKE the foot... If I had left it off, or removed it, it would have been just another box with nothing of my perception (IMHO). I suppose that if one wants to find the most conformed, accepted designs, a critique by a "qualified" critiquer should be the gold standard, but...

David (again),
I collected honu (turtles for the non Hawaiians), partly because of this saying:
"Behold the turtle, he never gets anywhere unless he sticks his head out."
I think your idea of investigating the person giving the evaluation is a good one, I tend to do the same. It does give some kind of insight into what the evaluator's skill is and what they value. It also helps me to understand what they value and how the describe things.
Kelly Dunn is one of the guys who has helped me A LOT on Wow, buy telling it like it is, NICELY... I think that's the whole thing, be honest, but be kind and if you can't be kind, be quiet....
Which might be why more people don't post critiques?

 

[Bill Boehme]

I think that Steve made an excellent point. I can relate to what what he said. I participate in a photography web site where one of the forums there is dedicated strictly to critiquing photographic work. Initially, the critiques were very valuable and most of those doing the critiquing appeared to be well qualified. Lately, however, there has been a very definite decrease in the usefulness of that forum as numerous participants feel compelled to offer criticism despite the fact that they have no idea what they are doing. I think that many, if not most, of the more serious photographers have given up on that critique forum as it is being turned into something far less than what it once was.

I also agree with Angelo. Critiquing someone else's work is difficult and it is far too easy to crush someone's ego. The Internet is often rather impersonal because written words can be mulled over and interpreted with various shades of meaning and looking at a small photograph of a turning doesn't even remotely compare to seeing the actual piece. It may boil down to a case of how good your photography is rather than how good is your woodturning.

My opinion is that only a very basic critique can be given when looking at a picture of something unless it is the picture itself that is being critiqued.

Bill

 

[Mark Mandell]

George,

The bump or flat was pointed out to you, but was there a discussion of what the resulting "problem" was or its effect on the piece? Everything we make is the result of a whole string of decisions, selections between several options, some of them unconsciously made as perceived preferences. The success of our work depends upon the interrealted harmony of the elements we have used. A critique by someone able to read the piece can be very instructive because the commenter may verbalize the decisions and options that we have made. Ideally, we can learn more about our work process than we did before the analysis. Not that a critique cannot express successful elements (its certainly not just to point out errors or weaknesses), but the success should (in my view) be keyed to the piece's internal structure and the clarity of the maker's decisions. When I was teaching, my students learned early on to accept "mistakes" as learning opportunities without feeling bad or defensive. I had a sign in my classroom that summed it all up. "It's better to be clearly wrong than unclearly maybe."

My students developed the tendency early in my courses to comment on each other's work often, but always in an atmosphere of personal validation. The result was they they not only made art, but they also developed the ability to verbalize the design vocabulary they used and the decisions they made.

 

[Jim Keenan]

Not all of have developed right brains. Similar forms can be set side by side and instinctively we prefer one shape over the other. We just can’t figure out why. The truly gifted have the innate ability to know the difference. The best way I know how to improve my design skills is to request input from those gifted ones.

Many times the change needed is very small, a little rounding at the base or more of a curve in the form or a little smaller foot.

If you are thin skinned, don’t ask for comments. But if not, just ask for critiques and comments and hope the “gifted ones†can help us out.

It would be great to have a critiques and comments section.

 

[George Guadiane]

George,

The bump or flat was pointed out to you, but was there a discussion of what the resulting "problem" was or its effect on the piece? Everything we make is the result of a whole string of decisions, selections between several options, some of them unconsciously made as perceived preferences. The success of our work depends upon the interrealted harmony of the elements we have used. A critique by someone able to read the piece can be very instructive because the commenter may verbalize the decisions and options that we have made. Ideally, we can learn more about our work process than we did before the analysis. Not that a critique cannot express successful elements (its certainly not just to point out errors or weaknesses), but the success should (in my view) be keyed to the piece's internal structure and the clarity of the maker's decisions. When I was teaching, my students learned early on to accept "mistakes" as learning opportunities without feeling bad or defensive. I had a sign in my classroom that summed it all up. "It's better to be clearly wrong than unclearly maybe."

My students developed the tendency early in my courses to comment on each other's work often, but always in an atmosphere of personal validation. The result was they they not only made art, but they also developed the ability to verbalize the design vocabulary they used and the decisions they made.

Mark,
In the case I am referring to, pointing out the flat spot allowed me to see it...
Once I saw it, I backtracked to see how I got there. It became clear that I had not blended the curve as I was removing the tenon and creating the foot... I THOUGH I had, and it looked "pretty good," but I have since taken a longer more careful look at that stage of my work. It made me better.

I think that in my case, I understood the critique and looked at the piece like it was someone else's work. In setting aside the personal element, I was able to accept the observation without "taking" it personally. I just heard it, looked at the piece and used the information to improve subsequent pieces.

AND, in this case, the critique was of a classic "mistake" - lines should flow or be intentional when they don't. This was neither.

Clearly, your students learn a valuable lesson when they find a common language and a means of stating and hearing that language used in a validating atmosphere.

 

[David Somers]

So,

Angelo and Steve (and the rest of our web crew), is there a need to provide a clear way to ask for advice on a piece? I took Steve's suggestion about adding the word critique to your piece's title or elsewhere, but in examining that idea I noticed that with the new Forum/gallery combo page design all you see below the a gallery entry is the persons name on one line, and a set of 3 dots on the next. To see if someone wanted a critique you would need to open each photo. Kind of awkward. Not horrible though.

Is it worth looking at some other way to "formally request" slings and arrows that is easy for people to spot? If so, what options might we have the wouldn't cause our web folks undo effort.

Its been interesting to hear all your thoughts on this! All the feedback is appreciated! As always...

And a last note. ANYTHING you see me post is wide open to feedback. I always appreciate comments and promise I won't take offense at anything you have to offer.

 

[Bill Boehme]

I have one other thought about asking for a critique. I think that proper protocol should be much the same as if it were a "live" critique. That is, thank those who responded to the critique request, but do not try to rebut comments or justify what you did. Do any "explaining" in your initial post. My rationale is that you are being defensive when trying to rationalize your work and at the same time, you are saying that you reject the critique. It takes fortitude and discipline to listen to a critique without responding, but it enables you to become more objective about your own work rather than trying to defend it.

 

[pfduffy]

Critiques

Many excellent comments have been made about the process. When I see a piece I really like, and give it a BZ in my comments, then it could not be done better - - in my view. If I see things I do not like I have to ask the question; is it me, or the piece? Sending someone a PM instead of making a public comment has a lot of value and keeps the negative aspects of comments off the web. Philip

 

[Ruth Niles]

Dave, my first thought is if you're getting excellent opinions and advice on the WoW site, why are you still looking for more opinions? More opinions only cloud the original ones you liked.

Frank Sudol made a whole video on why you should never ask for a critique. I whole heartedly agree with him.

True story: (years ago) AAW Instant Gallery critique, Ellsworth holds up a bowl, (paraphrased) "this is a perfect bowl form, tiny foot elevates it enough to accent the form". The next year just about every bowl in the Instant Gallery had that tiny foot, Ellsworth holds up a round bottom bowl, (paraphrased) "this is a perfect bowl form, round bottom, ......"

People seek "critiques" to make their work look just like someone else's. That's why so many turnings of a particular shape or design all look alike. I've never read a critique on WoW that encouraged a turner to do anything different than what everyone else was doing. I remember one box with a finial getting a few criticisms to make the finial taller and much thinner, the turner did, it was a great Drozda finial, it was no longer the nice, user friendly ring box.

Learning form and proportions is good, I agree. This applies to simple forms and we all have favorite bowls in the kitchen to compare shapes or vases. If you're turning something different or unique, then you are the only one who can criticize it.

Maybe we should have a "suggestions" or "basic form tips" rather than a "critique" (aka criticize my work) section on the forum. There could be a page of shapes like the one in Raffan's Bowl book.

I'd want my work critiqued by Michael Hosulak!

Just one woman's critique on critiques.

Ruth

 

[Ron Sardo]

Dave, my first thought is if you're getting excellent opinions and advice on the WoW site, why are you still looking for more opinions? More opinions only cloud the original ones you liked.

Well, not everybody is a member of WOW and this is the AAW, which, I believe, should be the axis for the advancement for this Craft/Art.

I wonder if there is a way to setup an online form, where a person can mark, on a scale of 1 to 10, the mechanical aspects of a critiqued item. I'm thinking of maybe 10 or so points to be rated.

The last question could be called "IMO" where the person doing the critique has a chance to voice their opinion on the overall appearance of the item.

 

[Barry Elder]

Critiques

Here's another $1.298!
Thanks, Ruth, for pointing out how shallow we are. Don't have Sudol's video but I feel that I would agree with him. I can't critique someone else's work because I can't set standards for another person's soul. I call what I do in my retirement as wood art, but it is all fun to see what can be created from God's trees. I would not want to try to correct David's judgement or anyone else's. We all need to keep learning every day and help others when we can or else just crawl into the box and get planted. Last week I made a challenge to myself to turn a bowl from a piece of Australian Pine from a stump that had been on the beach for 20 years and had been on my shelf for 4 years. I finally figured out how to turn this piece of living steel and watched in awe as the shape still shifted after so much drying. Every time I sealed a crack, I could watch a new one form nearby. Just Awesome! Still learning that I'm just a speck of dust in this world.

 

[Bill Boehme]

........ Frank Sudol made a whole video on why you should never ask for a critique. I whole heartedly agree with him.

True story: (years ago) AAW Instant Gallery critique, Ellsworth holds up a bowl, (paraphrased) "this is a perfect bowl form, tiny foot elevates it enough to accent the form". The next year just about every bowl in the Instant Gallery had that tiny foot, Ellsworth holds up a round bottom bowl, (paraphrased) "this is a perfect bowl form, round bottom, ......"

People seek "critiques" to make their work look just like someone else's. That's why so many turnings of a particular shape or design all look alike. I've never read a critique on WoW that encouraged a turner to do anything different than what everyone else was doing. I remember one box with a finial getting a few criticisms to make the finial taller and much thinner, the turner did, it was a great Drozda finial, it was no longer the nice, user friendly ring box.

Learning form and proportions is good, I agree. This applies to simple forms and we all have favorite bowls in the kitchen to compare shapes or vases. If you're turning something different or unique, then you are the only one who can criticize it.

Maybe we should have a "suggestions" or "basic form tips" rather than a "critique" (aka criticize my work) section on the forum. There could be a page of shapes like the one in Raffan's Bowl book.

I'd want my work critiqued by Michael Hosulak!

Just one woman's critique on critiques.

Ruth

Ruth,

I really like your comments on this subject. I think that they are spot on! I am also becoming increasingly convinced that online critiques really amount to critiques of the photograph more than it is of the turning.

It is also interesting that before this thread appeared, I was cleaning up my shop this past weekend after reaching critical mass (meaning that I no longer was able to navigate through all of the shavings and junk scattered about) and came across some of my early bowls from a few years ago -- they were just plain bad ... no matter how they were viewed (they did have a nice finish ), so into the trash they went. If I had to critique them, my comment would have been, "cereal bowl". They broke all of the rules of design on their way to full-fledged ugliness. I have been tempted to photograph them or rescue them as reminders of where I once was (and perhaps where where I would still be if it were not for resources like the AAW and my local club, the Woodturners of North Texas).

Bill

 

[Steve Worcester]

It may boil down to a case of how good your photography is rather than how good is your woodturning.

Bill

This is unfortunately all too true. If you are submitting your photos/slides to a jury for judging so you can get into a show, (as David E says) you have 15 seconds to impress the judge. A poor photo and they will concentrate on that. The quality of your work immediately gets diminished because of the visual context it resides in. With a good photograph, your work gets better because of the stunning presentation.

But then again, it works the same as in the way you present your product at the show. If you are commanding $300 for a bowl, you won't be as successful if they are just sitting on a table covered with a sheet.

The other problem we have here is as pointed out, we don't know who is qualified to give the critique. The only way be know is if they have photos up here or we have heard of them/know their work. The same issue holds true in that I can't limit who can post a critique and who can't, and then, how do I decide (who is worthy)?

 

[Mark Mandell]

. . no matter how they were viewed (they did have a nice finish ), so into the trash they went.

Yo, Bill, Your bowls, they are calling you, man . . . "Res-cue Me! Keep me in your heart, Res-cue Me . . . "

Don't turn your back on your own history. Holding examples of your own work from all stages will function as the best self critique you can ever have. They will speak to your "improved" vision and ability in a way that an outside critic never could because they are you talking to yourself with (often brutal) honesty.

Hint: Keep them long enough and you'll begin to see the good parts as well.

 

[Ed_McDonnell]

As they say, "beauty is in the eye of the beholder". Woodturners almost certainly have very different criteria for evaluating a turning than collectors and the general public.

I was examining a collection of turnings that were being donated to a charity auction by one of my clubs. A few of the pieces didn't have any signature / mark indicating who the turner was. While the pieces didn't push the edge of the envelope artistically or technically, they were good competent turnings. When I asked the turner why they didn't sign their work,they explained that they felt their work was inferior to the work produced by the "best" turners in the club and they didn't want their name on second-rate work. Everyone's entitled to their opinions, so I didn't push the issue.

Interestingly enough, while I was giving an advance showing of the collected pieces to the representative of the organization receiving the work, he asked if he could take one piece early to award to a very special volunteer / donor.

Which piece did he pick? One of the pieces that were deemed unworthy to bear their creator's mark.

No matter how much we might wish that there were solid objective criteria for seperating the good from the bad, in the final analysis, once you are past the technical basics (e.g. no tearout, sanding scratches...) all judgements are subjective and there is no accounting for individual tastes, good or bad.

Ed

 

[Mark Mandell]

No matter how much we might wish that there were solid objective criteria for seperating the good from the bad, in the final analysis, once you are past the technical basics (e.g. no tearout, sanding scratches...) all judgements are subjective and there is no accounting for individual tastes, good or bad.

I've done lots of salad bowls for friends. Guess what? They LIKE HEAVY! Offer one with 1/4" and one at 3/4" walls, they pick the 3/4" every time. Do a Stocksdale/oriental small-foot bowl, they want a foot 1/2 the bowl's diameter. Oh, and cracks (repaired, of course)? They LOVE THEM and ask if I have any that are cracked. Apparently they make it more like wood rather than the "Simulated Wood Grain" plastic they get at WalMart. They appreciate fine finishes, but I've actually been asked for roughouts. Sure, don't make'em round, just hit'em with the 120 grit and soak some oil on, and they're good to go! Talk about different strokes . . .

There are two kinds of turnings, I think. Those that are made for turners, and those that are made for everyone else!

 

[MichaelMouse]

There are two kinds of turnings, I think. Those that are made for turners, and those that are made for everyone else!

Amen. The type of critique which is most meaningful is the one backed by cash. I have several pieces every season which sell slowly because they are turned as "degree of difficulty" pieces. I do 'em to show what I can do, but only other turners tend to be impressed.

If you think about it, isn't the form of the object as pleasing with 1/4" thick walls as 1/8", especially when the entire piece is enclosed? Of course you have to hang them closer to the trunk of the Christmas tree when they're heavy.

 

[Ruth Niles]

There are two kinds of turnings, I think. Those that are made for turners, and those that are made for everyone else!

AMEN! A lot of what I see posted are what I call "woodturners' challenge" pieces and are just to impress other woodturners. Not that there's anything wrong with that!

I have a hollow form done by a famous name, it's shape is lovely but it's so thin (uniformly thin) that I had to fill the bottom with stones to keep it from toppling over from the slightest breeze. So what was the use of hollowing it so thin? ................ because he could.

Frank Sudol said never throw away your beginning works or ugly pieces because they are your "lessons" and when you throw them away, you lost what you should be learning from to become a better turner or artist.

A group of us were in the Instant Gallery, talking turning eek, one of us asked "ever wonder how the Native Americans made sure beautiful pottery without a critique?" hmmm

Ruth

 

[odie]

No matter how much we might wish that there were solid objective criteria for seperating the good from the bad, in the final analysis, once you are past the technical basics (e.g. no tearout, sanding scratches...) all judgements are subjective and there is no accounting for individual tastes, good or bad.

Ed

Interesting......and, I think a lot of truth in that, Ed.......

One thing about it.......the technical aspects, or mechanics of making a bowl is easier to critique, than artistic concept. After all, the latter is what makes the "world go around".....but, there isn't anyone who can define it so that all tastes are served.

otis of cologne

 

[waltben]

OK, I've got to weigh in here. I'm one of those 'minimalist' turners that doesn't add carving or colors, etc. (Got to admit that I do now burn my signature, but that's all.) I sell pieces regularly at the shows my wife and I vend at, as well as through several galleries. None are salad bowls. All can be functional if someone wants to put something in them. I've put a few pieces in turning seminar galleries, but they didn't seem to be very interesting to the folks judging them. One of those sold a few months back for $500. What people want is not the same as what we turners think is great. They look for color, figure, texture, form, etc., but they want it to fit into their own space - unless they've a museum.

 

[waltben]

Figured I'd better back this up with a shot of what I'm talking about. This is a piece I just finished - simple, no carving, no coloring. It'll sell this year for certain.

 

[Ed_McDonnell]

Figured I'd better back this up with a shot of what I'm talking about. This is a piece I just finished - simple, no carving, no coloring. It'll sell this year for certain.

For $500?

Ed

 

[MichaelMouse]

"Location, location and location" is what they say in real estate business. I find "vacation, vacation and vacation" a good saying. People are willing to spend more outside their own back yard.

 

[Ruth Niles]

...... All can be functional if someone wants to put something in them. I've put a few pieces in turning seminar galleries, but they didn't seem to be very interesting to the folks judging them. One of those sold a few months back for $500. What people want is not the same as what we turners think is great. They look for color, figure, texture, form, etc., but they want it to fit into their own space - unless they've a museum.

The key words "what people want is not the same as what we turners think is great".............. that's it in a nutshell. I've attended a lot of shows, never put my work in the Instant Gallery, I've supported myself with lathe work for over 12 yrs., my work would not get a second glance from woodturners so I really don't want their "critique". Of course, most of my work is spindle turning (architectural reproduction) and wholesale items like bottle stoppers and coffee scoops (my original design). My bowls are too thick and sturdy for a critique, my customers love them for that very reason. I don't have a "name" so my signature adds nothing to the value, I have to depend on good, useful designs. The lids on my boxes can be lifted with one hand, people who use the boxes usually have something in their other hand they want to put in the box and it's a real pain to put that down, pick up the box so they can experience the perfect woodturners' suction fit. As a woodturner, I love that suction fit but it doesn't sell. I have several antique boxes that I reproduce the shape, it's a shape woodturners would critique as "not quite right", it's a proven shape that works for me. My customers critique my work.

Maybe I've just been living alone too long!

Ruth

 

[Jake Debski]

"Location, location and location" is what they say in real estate business. I find "vacation, vacation and vacation" a good saying. People are willing to spend more outside their own back yard.

MM, I think is spot on. People love to own things no one else has. A bowl bought in East Overshoe increases those odds.

 

[Ed Koenig]

A new twist on the subject

A few days ago I went to my AAW gallery to see if any comments had been left about a new piece I posted. I noticed someone had left what I thought was a comment on an old piece in my gallery. When I opened the old photo, I was horrified. Someone rated this plain simple bowl with a "1" but did not say why. What kind of mean person does such a thing? I could not imagine why anyone would be so cruel. The least he could have done was say why. I was so embarrassed I immediately deleted the photo which now I'm sorry I did.

The interesting thing is that this person leaves a signature with every post and a link to a web site where his personal photos can be seen. Now I'm starting to get angry. I want too know who he is and see his work. I went looking for his AAW gallery and could not find one picture. Did I do something to anger him? I seldom comment here and never have had any conversation with him. What exactly is going on?

I decided to take the bait and follow his link to the picturetrail web site. Along with personal photos were photos of his work. I understood why he didn't have a gallery here. I decided to just let it go and move on.

After reading his posts on the why so little critiquing subject, I further understood why he doesn't have a gallery here. I can't be quite any longer. Why does he use this forum to punish others who have the courage to put their work out for critique? In his own words, "I could care less what anyone else thinks of my "artwork"......and my satisfaction in what I do isn't based on any group think mentality."

Quite frankly, I think he does care what others think but doesn't have the courage to put his work on the line for critique. No guts, no glory!

I have no problem with ANYONE critiquing my work. I don't believe in ratings because they serve no purpose. What does serve a purpose are words describing why someone likes or dislikes a work.

I have a problem with a rating system that allows this to happen. I think the AAW should remove the rating system and encourage critiques.

Ed Koenig

 

[Ed_McDonnell]

I was so embarrassed I immediately deleted the photo which now I'm sorry I did.


Ed Koenig

I have to admit that I am very surprised that someone with your talent would be so bothered by someone giving you a "1" with no explanation. Maybe if it was your turning idol that did it to you, but you don't even know the guy. Maybe if it was the only piece you had posted in the gallery, but you have a large body of work posted for people to use to evaluate your talents. Is a bum rating on one piece really that important?

In the end, it's your work that speaks for itself. High ratings don't make it good and low ratings don't make it bad. It is what it is.

Ed

 

[Ed Koenig]

I have to admit that I am very surprised that someone with your talent would be so bothered by someone giving you a "1" with no explanation. Maybe if it was your turning idol that did it to you, but you don't even know the guy. Maybe if it was the only piece you had posted in the gallery, but you have a large body of work posted for people to use to evaluate your talents. Is a bum rating on one piece really that important?

In the end, it's your work that speaks for itself. High ratings don't make it good and low ratings don't make it bad. It is what it is.

Ed

Ed,
Maybe some folks are just more sensitive than others. It's not about the ratings. Thanks for jumping in and making me feel even worse.

Now I realize why I don't participate in these forums, you folks are just down right unfriendly!

 

[Bill Boehme]

Maybe some folks are just more sensitive than others.

A part of the critique process is your choice on what you decide to do regarding C&C. It is not necessary for 100% of the population to be in accord when looking at a piece of art. If you think that a response is off base or not useful, then just ignore it and don't waste your valuable time brooding about it.

 

[Ken Grunke]

I agree with Ed Koenig on the rating system. I see many posts across the board under Gallery photos with only a rating, no comment. If there was a way to just rate a piece without leaving a blank post, that would be better but personally, I never pay attention to the rating and never use it. Omitting it might encourage people to leave a comment. Not my dept., what do you think Steve W.?
I do, however, strongly disagree with your assessment Ed, of the unfriendlyness of people on this forum.

 

[Ed_McDonnell]

Ed,
Maybe some folks are just more sensitive than others. It's not about the ratings. Thanks for jumping in and making me feel even worse.

Now I realize why I don't participate in these forums, you folks are just down right unfriendly!

Well I guess I can agree with you on the "some folks are more sensitive part". I'm as confused by this response as I am about your previous post.

Ed

 

[Brujo]

Hey Ed do not worry about a low rating.

Ive taken a few art and creative writing classes were all your work has to be critiqued by the whole class in front of you. It was always hard for me to be quite and not defend my work.

There is always a couple people who like to say I hate it, yet offer no explanation as to why. Ignore them. If they can't give you a why they are no use to you anyways.

 

[Ed_McDonnell]

I agree with Ed on the rating system. I see many posts across the board under Gallery photos with only a rating, no comment. If there was a way to just rate a piece without leaving a blank post, that would be better but personally, I never pay attention to the rating and never use it. Omitting it might encourage people to leave a comment. Not my dept., what do you think Steve W.?
I do, however, strongly disagree with your assessment Ed, of the unfriendlyness of people on this forum.

I personally see the ratings as a non-technical, emotion driven assessment of the piece. Not everyone is comfortable (or qualified) giving technical critiques, but everyone has an opinion of what they do and don't like. Lots of times people don't even know why the like or dislike something and can't really offer any meaninful feadback. I don't see a need to eliminate it? Maybe the scale could be changed from Poor <-> Excellent to something like Don't Like It <-> Like It A Lot. That would be more representative of what it is, a measure of popularity rather than a measure of technical / artistic merit.

Ed (the other one, not the one Ken referenced)