I'm interested in what people think about an online critique of woodturnings. I know that there a couple of forums online that do this informally as a part of their messageboards. I'm looking at the possibility of something a bit different though.
What kind of critique would be possible only from a picture or even a series of pictures? Juried shows and galleries do this all the time.
What kind of structured critique form would be appropriate for an online, picture-only format?
Would a panel of "expert" critiquers from different aspects of the woodturning, art, collector, gallery universe be able to be formed to critique some of these turnings?
Should it be just a "public comment" sort of critique?
Could it be a combination of the above two approaches?
Is there any interest in both critiquing AND offering up pictures of items to be critiqued?
Would this help the woodturning community?
Any comments on these questions or anything else would be helpful,
I enjoyed 'The Art of Critique' article in the last 'American Woodturner' by Jim Christiansen. I can certainly see the improvement after the critique on page 55.
I don't know if it would help the whole community, but it sure helped me when I've posted pics of my meager turnings on ABPW. I always got excellent feedback that helped with design, form, and balance.
What would be nice is if those taking the pic might put in a scale of some sort to get an idea of proportion and size. Not that it matters to the overall design if a turning is 6 feet, 6 inches or 6mm tall as the proportions should be complimentary to the size and form.
Sounds like the Wow group. The pictures are not judged but the comments from the members are very helpful. And there are a lot of highly skilled turners there that are more than willing to share thier experience. While there is a bit of discussion it's primarily a pictures group. IMHO it's the best turning site online. Could this be what your describing?
Andrew, you are putting the cart before the horse, in my opinion. You are designing the 'product' before deciding what the 'design statement' is. It is a common pitfall. It is akin to solving a problem not knowing what the problem is.
What is it you want to accomplish? Once you know, then you can decide how to go about it. Your last question (above) is really the first question to ask first and not the others.
Dan
PS: I occasionally critique pieces on WOW as the spirit moves me.
Yes, I've seen the WOW online forum. It's a fine format for what it is but it's not what I have in mind at all. I don't want to go too much into my own feelings regarding this topic right now. I really would like to get some input from the group without my own notions getting in the way at this point.
So, what would you like to see in an online critique of woodturnings? Stretch out and throw some ideas or suggestions around.
"It is akin to solving a problem not knowing what the problem is."
Amazingly, that's very much my "day job". I'm always being charged with solving problems that aren't problems yet and, interestingly, aren't even considered problems at the time. I get paid to know what is a problem and solve it before the product is even created. It's not a problem until it causes one but I don't let it get that far ... or at least not that I'll admit.
Please don't mistake a person asking questions of a group as that person having not asked (and answered) those same questions to himself ... another common pitfall I believe. I asked those questions in my original post because I wanted the input of a wider audience of just myself and a few others I've consulted on this issue. They are not rhetorical questions to just amuse myself but are intended to understand what others consider important (or unimportant, as the case may be) concerning the topic.
I know what *I* want to accomplish and have a fair idea of how to go about realizing it but that's not the most important thing in this case. This little idea is about what the woodturning community wants, needs, and is even interested in concerning woodturning critiques online. I suppose you could look at it as if my original post was the RCW's "voice in its head" asking the questions that I (and others) have been asking in our own heads for many months now.
So, perhaps you were wanting a more direct and suitable question for the group first? OK. I can spell that out a bit more clearly and slowly ...
What would YOU, the RCW community, consider a great "design statement" for a online woodturning critique site?
Thanks, Ray. Not quite what I had in mind to my questions but it's a nice response anyway. Considering the critiques you've received so far (with the mild exception of one), I think you've shown better than mere words the need for something a bit different in the way of online woodturning critiquing.
Hello Friends, My answer to this is in the form of a question.... Can you handle having your feeling hurt??? Online critiques on woodturning forums are generally from other (friendly) hobbyists, not professional reviewers and not from regular humans. They all seem to take the form of a pat on the back, a 'good job' or a ataboy. Why? Because we all want to encourage other turnerss AND BECAUSE if someone honestly came out and said, "I think it looks like crap", the community would come down on the person so hard no one would ever say a bad thing again. It is just part of our politically correct society. No one can say anything bad because if you hurt the person's feelings they may never turn again. The bad part is....it might actually look like crap. SO, IMHO you will never get an accurate critique unless it is in a forum where people can give an honest (even when uneducated) opinion without reprisal. Remember, "I DON'T LIKE IT" really is an accurate and acceptable opinion - even when it doesn't line up with your opinion. Consider it. Peace.
I hope I'm following this rather rambling discussion correctly, and if so, my answer would be "Yes, I would love to have an honest place to present my work and get honest answers." I also belong to a bonsai forum that has two forms of critiques. One is for most works and the general on line group comments. The rule is that if you ask for an honest appraisal, you get one. Not, mind you, "this is crap" as that is a personal put down. But certainly, "this isn't really a bonsai tree...it's a bush...". etc., etc. The other critique is a special one for trees that are "show ready", meaning they are already close to works of art. Those are critqued by a true master of bonsai and then others can comment.
I have found that forum of tremendous help and have received advice that money can't buy. I would love to see that kind of place for woodturning. I might add that the forum also has a gallery, which is primarily for posting photos of your work, by name, but there is no critique and it isn't allowed. That makes a clear distinction between works to be critiqued and those that you just want others to see.
After I discovered WoW I came to the conclusion that there is one major shortcoming to it and other similar forums--they exclude the general public. Everything is peer-to-peer--nothing wrong with that, but I don't see anything connecting the woodturning artisan/artist to the lay public. I see it as a big hole to be filled, perhaps with something similar to WoW but open to comments from anyone. I think that honest critiques by qualified individuals could also be valuable to woodturners interested in refining their technique and style, and that a combination of the two concepts could make for an interesting endeavor.
Nick, You bring up some valid considerations and make some good points while, I think, exaggerate others.
I know what you mean, AND if you have a thin skin, then don't put your piece up for criticism. Its their choice, as is feeling 'hurt' is there choice, too.
That's generally true, well, except for my critiques...
Yep. You hit this one right on the head.
This is exaggeration, Nick, and if you worry about this then aren't you being politically correct, too?
This is an interesting thread. First, if you have a woodturning, woodworking, pottery, whatever critique website, you will get people who do those things critiquing. You're not going to get the average person because that person goes to art/craft shows to see these various mediums.
As to the WoW site, it is peer-to-peer but aren't they the best ones to critique our work as to design suggestions?
You will never get a "public" site with "public" input on the internet. You have to be face to face with the buyer to know if your work is good. And "good" is as good as it gets when people are parting with their hard-earned money. The only thing you get with online critiques is another turners' opinion.
I'm not saying another site similar to WoW, but public, would not fly, but there is the binaries, Woodcentral, WoW, Yahoo turning forums and a few others where you can post pictures and get opinions. All you have to do is peruse the turning books and you can compare how your work measures up; and there is every possible design feature in these books. You are not turning something "new".............. as Darrell once said, (paraphrased) "the Ancient Greeks copied my design" : ) I love that!
The only way you'll get the "public's" opinion or critique is to present it to the public, but you'd have to do that in every country, every state, every town and then you still wouldn't know for sure if your work was "good".
Too much of what is called critique is mutual stroking. I've seen far too many really poor pieces with "critiques" of "great!!!" - "really fine work" - etc. and nothing about the weaknesses of the piece or suggestions for improvement.
A particularly useful source for critique would be from the buying public, including collectors and Collectors (little vs. big "C"). Also gallery owners & buyers for galleries, shop owners, etc. It would be important to know which type the critique came from. Depending on intent, I might be more interested in comments from the buying public or the Gallery/Collector crowd. Also, it would be extremely useful for the opinion/comments/suggestions to give a rough estimate of price range, i.e 2. A particularly useful source for critique would be from the buying public, including collectors and Collectors (little vs. big "C"). Also gallery owners & buyers for galleries, shop owners, etc. It would be important to know which type the critique came from. Depending on intent, I might be more interested in comments from the buying public or the Gallery/Collector crowd. Also, it would be extremely useful for the opinion/comments/suggestions to give a rough estimate of price range, i.e $0, up to $20, Around 50, under $100, $1-200, $2-500, $500+, and "If you have to ask, you can't afford it".
3. Another (though it's doubtful they could/should devote the time) extremely useful source of critique would be from the people who really know what they are talking about, e.g. Richard Raffan, Mike Darlow, David Ellsworth., up to , Around 50, under 0, -200, -500, 0+, and "If you have to ask, you can't afford it".
Another (though it's doubtful they could/should devote the time) extremely useful source of critique would be from the people who really know what they are talking about, e.g. Richard Raffan, Mike Darlow, David Ellsworth.
#1 - An on-line input for peers or others to provide constructive criticism of a woodturner's piece being offered for consideration. #2 - An on-line exchange for peers to learn how to provide appropriate criticism: comments that praise when appropriate, point out specific design, execution or other "defects", and give specific improvement suggestions or comments based upon the reviewers' opinions. Comments should be actionable as Jim Christiansen suggests. #3 - An on-line experience for third parties to view the piece offered for review, read the critique comments and learn from the exchange for their own improvement.
All,
I personally subscribe to Jim Christiansen's critique methodology. It is direct, purposeful and without malice. I think it is a great format for use. The problem with online critique, however, is that there is much that cannot be accurately viewed through a photo.
- Camera angles will mask or change percieved shapes. - Background colors and textures will distort the view. - Lighting will enhance or detract from the experience. - Finishes are very difficult to judge through a photo including sanding as well as finishing materials and techniques.
Also, WOW already provides a forum for woodturners to show their work. Instead of starting another woodturning site, I would rather request that the WOW forum be used in an improved critique methodology if we go this way. we will then need to decide if the critiques are public or private.
Joe, Everything you say is clear, reasonable, do-able, and valuable. Good solutions for Andrew's design statement. You end with this:
You say that WOW is capable, but not delivering. I've noticed that too. I've posted critiques occasionally over the past two months and watched what happened.
Question. What is keeping WOW from being an ideal critique area now?
To me, there are two things missing. First, by-and-large craftspeople aren't asking for critiques. Second, when they do, they aren't getting them.
Although, it does happen occasionally on WOW. When it does I've noticed two things. The artist says thanks for the input. Despite it being valuable to the artist other people (rarely the artist) condemn the critiquer for being harsh. Interesting social dynamic don't you think? This tends toward making sure that all critiques are 'attaboys'.
Your suggestion for a methodology would be useful, but don't you need permission and encouragement first?
Finally, for all the people on rcw that belong to WOW and would like to give or receive critiques, why aren't you? I challenge you to go to WOW and do so. If you want change, don't talk about it, just do it. See you there, Dan
On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 16:33:54 GMT, "Dan Bollinger" hurled these words of wisdom into the ether:
I've not found that to be true, myself, on WoW. I've gotten them both when I asked for one, and when I didn't. There are a certain few who tend to come off, sometimes, as the sole arbiters of "what's right" and let posters know about it in no uncertain terms. I know from emails from other members that this has kept some people from posting their offerings.
My belief is, if people want >>constructive criticism>askedYour suggestion for a methodology would be useful, but don't you need permission
One would assume that if they posted their work on a site that was meant as a place to get it critiqued, then that pretty much grants permission, yes?
See above.
There are enough unsolicited remarks there already. When someone spends hours of their precious weekends and evenings working on a piece and wants to show it to someone other than their significant other whose "duty" it is to "ooo" and "aaaah" over everything they make, and post it to a site where people they admire and respect post their offerings, they likely don't do it with the intention of those same people telling them what an "adequate" or "interesting" job they have done or how, "it just doesn't do it for me," particularly when they are looking for approval. After all, unless you ASK someone what you've done wrong, you probably don't want to hear it.
When I first started posting there, I made a number of "critique-ish" comments about people's postings,...not negative, but more of a creative nature, which seemed to be the trend and the custom. However, I noticed that the comments got to be more and more critical, and less and less constructive until several people were being downright rude with their comments. It was at this point that I decided that unless someone specifically asked for critical comments, I'd keep any uncomplimentary remarks to myself, and hoped that others would have the same courtesy. Some do, some don't.
My mother always used to say to me, "If you can't say something nice about (whatever), you might better say nothing at all." In this case, I couldn't agree more.
- Chuck *#:^) chaz3913(AT)yahoo(dot)com ANTI-SPAM Sig - Remove NOSPAM from email to reply <
There are two key issues with a public web site as a critque forum.
First, does the turner want their work criticized publicly? Some people want criticism and some don't. When in doubt, I praise publically, but send criticisms privately. I will often offer criticism to people I know unsolicited, and to others if their initial posting requested it. The down side of this is that others cannot benefit from my (dubious) wisdom.
Second, is the critic any good? Anyone can offer a criticism, but is their criticism valuable to the turner or to the general audience? For example, our club sometimes asks members to offer privite criticism of instant gallery entries if the turner desires them. I always accept these opportunities. Once, the critic freely admitted that he didn't turn hollow forms so couldn't really offer me anything. In that case I knew the individual, but on a public posting, how are we to know if the critic is qualified?
What I usually default to is, if I really want a good criticism, I take it to local turners who can see the item up close or email people that I trust to give useful comments for my work. In all cases, I try to not abuse this priviledge.
Until WOW sets up some ground rules for making the experience meaningful to all participants, its hard to keep it from getting messy.
Joe Fleming - San Diego ==================================
InspirePoint website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.