FA+
Shop
About critics and characters
11 years ago
The first thing I would like to talk about is critics.
I'm not someone who ignores critiques. I like them, specially if they come from another artist. Even better if it's from someone who visibly bares some knowledge about what they are criticizing. It doesn't mean that I will ignore critiques from non-artists, but I hope you got the point. If you never studied anatomy, how can you say anything besides "It looks weird." or "I don't know what it is, but something is not right."? Sometimes the artist already noticed that there's something strange on the look of that torso, but they can't point out exactly what's wrong with it. That's when we need a good critique from someone who will say "the rib-cage on that pose would work this way, not that, so change these few things and it will look better!"
So yes, criticism is welcome and much appreciated! Just keep that in mind and try to give artists some helpful criticism. Don't be the jerk who just comment with offenses and call himself a critic.
The second thing I would like to talk about is objectification. More specifically, fursona objectification.
I know some artists just create a character to please their viewers, their public, but it's not the same with everyone. Some artists do have a 'sona, which IS NOT a character. They use their 'sonas to express themselves, their feelings, their desires. It doesn't have to attend their viewers' pleasure. And that's my case.
My "character" is something deeply particular, it's a representation of me, completely bound to my own self. Every form of it is a representation of my own personality. For example, the anthro isn't just the anthro form of the feral, it has a different personality as well, representing some part of me. The same applies for the feral and what I call "fursona". Here's a stupid sketch explaining it a bit.
When someone comes and say "I like your character more like this than that" or "I think you should make it skinnier/bigger/stronger", it's not a critique. It's some sort of objectification.
It's ok to watch an artist because of their personal "characters". Just don't bother them with whatever idealization of their 'sonas you might have. That's kinda creepy.
I'm not someone who ignores critiques. I like them, specially if they come from another artist. Even better if it's from someone who visibly bares some knowledge about what they are criticizing. It doesn't mean that I will ignore critiques from non-artists, but I hope you got the point. If you never studied anatomy, how can you say anything besides "It looks weird." or "I don't know what it is, but something is not right."? Sometimes the artist already noticed that there's something strange on the look of that torso, but they can't point out exactly what's wrong with it. That's when we need a good critique from someone who will say "the rib-cage on that pose would work this way, not that, so change these few things and it will look better!"
So yes, criticism is welcome and much appreciated! Just keep that in mind and try to give artists some helpful criticism. Don't be the jerk who just comment with offenses and call himself a critic.
The second thing I would like to talk about is objectification. More specifically, fursona objectification.
I know some artists just create a character to please their viewers, their public, but it's not the same with everyone. Some artists do have a 'sona, which IS NOT a character. They use their 'sonas to express themselves, their feelings, their desires. It doesn't have to attend their viewers' pleasure. And that's my case.
My "character" is something deeply particular, it's a representation of me, completely bound to my own self. Every form of it is a representation of my own personality. For example, the anthro isn't just the anthro form of the feral, it has a different personality as well, representing some part of me. The same applies for the feral and what I call "fursona". Here's a stupid sketch explaining it a bit.
When someone comes and say "I like your character more like this than that" or "I think you should make it skinnier/bigger/stronger", it's not a critique. It's some sort of objectification.
It's ok to watch an artist because of their personal "characters". Just don't bother them with whatever idealization of their 'sonas you might have. That's kinda creepy.
Also, I'm glad you decided to share this. A lot of artists don't respond well to any sort of criticism, and a few have even gone so far as to delete their entire galleries here over the constant barrage of unhelpful comments and nitpicking. I tend to see a higher frequency of these unhelpful critiques coming from users here that are not artists themselves. I know it shouldn't, but to me that makes it much more annoying.
As to people requesting alterations of how anyone's artistic representations of themselves need to appear, I can't get over how selfish and rude that is. I just don't understand why people think that it is ok to say "You have designed yourself poorly, change it to fit my desires." I'm sorry if you have to put up with that ever. That really is just a sign of immaturity in the person making the request.
But I've seen people objectifying other artist's characters, as if the artists only drew it to please that person. I find it a bit disturbing.
Also, are you talking about my poor english? =x
If so, please, feel free to correct me. It's not my native language.
A critic is the person. A critique is the thing they say.
So I would be the critic, and my comments about how you could improve would be my critique.