Ayame's

I aim to explore the motivations of the critic, and hope this little article can be a guide to artists to understand what lies behind criticsm.

An artist receiving criticism must ask themselves several questions. Who is the critic? What is the critic's background? Is he or she familiar with the kind of work that I am interested in creating? Does he or she like me? Is this person honest?

Some of these questions may seem a little personal, but the truth about the world is that impartial criticsim is really impossible. We are all human, and that will always color a critic's suggestions.

The only truly impartial criticism can apply to non-human things, such as the mechanics of perspective, anatomy and color theory. These things are basically mathimatic and scientific. Criticism received based on such subjects can be considered valid nearly every time as long as you are receiving it from somebody who does know what they are talking about (ie, another good artist, an art teacher, a good observer of the world). If you get criticism on these subjects, you can usually take it to heart. Such observations are meant to help the artist succeed and really can't be construed as attacks on the artist.

You might say, "It's my style to skew perspective or to have bad anatomy." That may be true and if it's important to your work, stick with it. Famous artists (Francis Bacon and Edvard Munch come to mind) use distortion to tell a story with their art or to create an emotional response. However, keep in mind that it's often best to show others that you already know how to draw perspective and anatomy and that you're using it in a different way for effect. This lends you legitimacy, but in the end isn't really important. Many "outsider" artists (such as Grandma Moses) never took an art class or worried about such things in their work. However, it does limit you, so keep it in mind, that's all.

Now, some critics attempt to steer artists away from illustrative influences. By this, I mean that the critics don't like to see, for example, Disney, anime or comic book influences in the artist's work. This is not a valid criticism and one must try to evaluate why the critic is attempting to steer the artist away from their own influences. It has been my experience (especially in art school) that critics will try to steer artists towards a "fine art" path. They want to see realism in its strictest sense. They want the artist not to generate what is in his or her imagination, but rather exactly what is in front of the artist. While this may be valid for a certain assigment (ie, draw this naked figure in class), it's not valid for the artist's work as a whole. Realism itself figures as a small percentage of artforms. Go to any art museum and check out the medeival art or Japanese art. These works are abstract and no less important or interesting because they are "less realistic." The goal of art is not to produce realism: it is to express something. If the artist chooses to use a different approach to art besides realism, it is not less valid.

In my art school days, I was aquainted with a drawing major who was considered to have very real talent, except for the fact that she used a "comic book style" to portray her subject matter. She dealt with abandonment, rape and violence and her work was like looking at a panel lifted from a comic book. The viewer had to piece together the story from this little (painful) slice of life. Her drawings were very powerful like this. But teachers and other artists were at her, trying to convince her to change her work--so that it was less "illustrative." Eventually, she did, and while she kept a lot of her influences, she stopped telling stories with her art, creating instead vague, abstracts using the human figure. In this way, she lost the powerful statement her work was making using the common-ground reference of the comic book. Her art, the last I saw of it, was vague, confusing and had less impact. But the art teachers and other trendy artists were happy with what she had done. To me, it was one of the most disappointing things I'd seen in art school. She let them change her vision and her art suffered, in my opinion.

Why do so many critics attempt to steer artists away from non-realistic portrayals of subject matter? I suspect that it has roots in 2 places. One is cultural expectation and the other is a matter of control.

Most people in the general, Westernized population, regard art as something that is "beautiful." Art is not beautiful. Aesthetics are the study of beauty. Art is an attempt to convey something human, to express something. This something may or may not be pretty. It may be a painful cry of human suffering, or it may be an ugly portrayal of how humans treat one another. It can be beautiful, it can be erotic. The point is, that art can be many, many things. It does not have to be limited to beauty.

However, the concept of beauty has been intrinsically linked to art in people's heads from an early age. It's like teaching a child that the sky is blue. While the sky is often blue, it is just as often black, gray, red, pink or even white. It would be better to teach a child that the sky can be blue, rather than it is blue. Many people are unable to think out of this box, hence they push art students into drawing that which is beautiful.

Where does realism come into the pursuit of beauty? In order to capture that which is beautiful in the world, one must be able to portray it as realistically as possible, these critics reason. When they see a flower, they want to capture the flower as closely to the original as possible. The pursuit of realism becomes the pursuit of beauty.

When critcs attempt to steer artists away from something they want to do, they are trying to make the artist think the way they do. Look at what the critic does. Is he or she a painter of realistic subject matter? Does he or she view illustration as somehow less important than fine art? Chances are, many of the critics who frown on Disney, anime or comic book influences do not understand that art because they only understand what they do. They want the artist to pursue what they are pursuing because it will make them feel good to have a student follow in their footsteps.

Still with me?

The last part I'd like to deal with is truly hurtful criticism meant to tear an artist down. Do not listen to this kind of criticsim! The critic is trying to hurt you because they know that art is an important part of your life. After all, you are trying to communicate with your art. To be told your communication is "crap" hurts. Don't listen. Don't even ask yourself if you have enough talent to be an artist. Everyone can be an artist. They have to want it more badly than the people who want to hurt you.

My last word is the same as my first: "Don't let the bastards grind you down." Pursue your dreams. Be influenced by whatever you want. Create and create some more. Pretty soon you'll be happy with yourself and your art and it won't matter what anyone thinks. You can laugh at their comments and criticism and know where it's coming from and why.

Just always follow advice on perspective, OK? ;)