Original Alear Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 Thor - as far as I know, criticism and a critique can actually take the form of positive comments. Or just explanatory/investigative/analytical discussion of a work, without necessarily praising or criticizing it. I've seen it used in this sense many times. However, I do think that constructive criticism would mostly consist of what can be done better and how, with constructive being the key word. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thor Odinson Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 (edited) critique can and sometimes i just end up typing that instead of criticism because english sucks -- in art class critiques usually are composed of, well, critical analysis on the works of fellow classmates etc, but oops hand slipped and my mind can't keep two very similar sounding words straight criticism has pretty much evolved to mean an analysis of flaws in modern usage though Edited March 24, 2015 by Thor Odinson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rehab Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 this is still criticism...it pretty much says that it doesn't look like a bunny to the viewer Hence criticism and being an asshole aren't mutually exclusive Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eclipse Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 Ask yourself who benefits from the "criticism". Constructive criticism - This is meant for the other person. The goal of this should be to encourage the other person to change. Insults, whether it be to the work or the person behind the work, should not be seen at all. Asshole - This is meant for the poster. The goal of this is to either make the other person look bad, or the poster look good. Sometimes, it's both. If "constructive criticism" is hostile, it falls under asshole. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Makaze Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 Ask yourself who benefits from the "criticism". Constructive criticism - This is meant for the other person. The goal of this should be to encourage the other person to change. Insults, whether it be to the work or the person behind the work, should not be seen at all. Asshole - This is meant for the poster. The goal of this is to either make the other person look bad, or the poster look good. Sometimes, it's both. If "constructive criticism" is hostile, it falls under asshole. I endorse this post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deleted35362 Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 I endorse this post. good, because it's wrong Insults, whether it be to the work or the person behind the work, should not be seen at all. yeah no; whatever attitude or intent or insults or whatever constructive crit is still constructive crit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Makaze Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 good, because it's wrong yeah no; whatever attitude or intent or insults or whatever constructive crit is still constructive crit "Constructive criticism is the process of offering valid and well-reasoned opinions about the work of others, usually involving both positive and negative comments, in a friendly manner rather than an oppositional one. The purpose of constructive criticism is to improve the outcome. In collaborative work, this kind of criticism is a valuable tool in raising and maintaining performance standards. Constructive criticism must always focus on the work rather than the person. Personality issues must always be avoided. Constructive criticism is more likely to be embraced if the criticism is timely, clear, specific, detailed and actionable." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructive_criticism Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eclipse Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 Example time~! good, because it's wrong This post offers no explanation as to "why" it's wrong. Furthermore, it doesn't tell Makaze what he should change. Therefore, I think that the goal of this post is to demean Makaze - hence, it can't be constructive criticism. yeah no; whatever attitude or intent or insults or whatever constructive crit is still constructive crit Insults are meant to demean the other person/make the poster look better. The goal of constructive criticism is to help the other person improve. They're contradictory principles, with insults trumping the intent of constructive criticism. Sometimes it falls under the guise of "being honest" (one can be honest while being mindful of how the other person will feel about it), "tough love" (insults with the intent to demean aren't a sign of affection), or "that's how I express myself" (this is a selfish attitude to take, as it pays no heed to the other person, which is counter to the purpose of constructive criticism). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Interest Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 (edited) Ask yourself who benefits from the "criticism". Constructive criticism - This is meant for the other person. The goal of this should be to encourage the other person to change. Insults, whether it be to the work or the person behind the work, should not be seen at all. Asshole - This is meant for the poster. The goal of this is to either make the other person look bad, or the poster look good. Sometimes, it's both. If "constructive criticism" is hostile, it falls under asshole. Example time~! This post offers no explanation as to "why" it's wrong. Furthermore, it doesn't tell Makaze what he should change. Therefore, I think that the goal of this post is to demean Makaze - hence, it can't be constructive criticism. Insults are meant to demean the other person/make the poster look better. The goal of constructive criticism is to help the other person improve. They're contradictory principles, with insults trumping the intent of constructive criticism. Sometimes it falls under the guise of "being honest" (one can be honest while being mindful of how the other person will feel about it), "tough love" (insults with the intent to demean aren't a sign of affection), or "that's how I express myself" (this is a selfish attitude to take, as it pays no heed to the other person, which is counter to the purpose of constructive criticism). Well said. A tad more eloquent than the points I made on the previous page. Incidentally, do you mind if I PM you something? Could use a bit of feedback and it's highly relevant to the topic. Edited March 24, 2015 by Interest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Makaze Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 (edited) In before "it wasn't supposed to be constructive criticism". Edited March 24, 2015 by Makaze Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peener weener Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 PLlssss if u beed to twll. Youve already fcucked up Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eclipse Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 Well said. A tad more eloquent than the points I made on the previous page. Incidentally, do you mind if I PM you something? Could use a bit of feedback and it's highly relevant to the topic. You're free to PM me~! If I don't respond, it means I got busy with RL. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Makaze Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 PLlssss if u beed to twll. Youve already fcucked up Go back to the forest, necktie. You're drunk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Interest Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 (edited) You're free to PM me~! If I don't respond, it means I got busy with RL. Done :P Also we should totally move this to Serious Discussion (it wouldn't be too bad there due to the nature of this topic). Edited March 24, 2015 by Interest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peener weener Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 Go back to the forest, necktie. You're drunk. Im not dtunk im jusy too vayy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Makaze Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 (edited) Done :P Also we should totally move this to Serious Discussion (it wouldn't be too bad there due to the nature of this topic). This idea is bad and you should feel bad. /constructive criticism Edited March 24, 2015 by Makaze Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrhesia Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 Ask yourself who benefits from the "criticism". Constructive criticism - This is meant for the other person. The goal of this should be to encourage the other person to change. Insults, whether it be to the work or the person behind the work, should not be seen at all. Asshole - This is meant for the poster. The goal of this is to either make the other person look bad, or the poster look good. Sometimes, it's both. If "constructive criticism" is hostile, it falls under asshole. The correct post and best description imo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peener weener Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 Im not dtunk im jusy too shirrwdy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Interest Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 This idea is bad and you should feel bad. /constructive criticism I wasn't being completely serious :P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Makaze Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 I wasn't being completely serious :P This joke is bad and you should feel bad. /constructive criticism Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Interest Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 (edited) I already feel bad though. I'm using gnome child as an avi for a silly montageparodies-related joke. Edited March 24, 2015 by Interest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peener weener Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 Dank Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deleted35362 Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 "Constructive criticism is the process of offering valid and well-reasoned opinions about the work of others, usually involving both positive and negative comments, in a friendly manner rather than an oppositional one. The purpose of constructive criticism is to improve the outcome. In collaborative work, this kind of criticism is a valuable tool in raising and maintaining performance standards. Constructive criticism must always focus on the work rather than the person. Personality issues must always be avoided. Constructive criticism is more likely to be embraced if the criticism is timely, clear, specific, detailed and actionable." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructive_criticism http://i.gyazo.com/ea8f2853d46a5607c8084bd010f169e5.png http://i.gyazo.com/27dad6b5f544473a8ceffb05489c78bc.png Example time~! This post offers no explanation as to "why" it's wrong. Furthermore, it doesn't tell Makaze what he should change. Therefore, I think that the goal of this post is to demean Makaze - hence, it can't be constructive criticism. Insults are meant to demean the other person/make the poster look better. The goal of constructive criticism is to help the other person improve. They're contradictory principles, with insults trumping the intent of constructive criticism. Sometimes it falls under the guise of "being honest" (one can be honest while being mindful of how the other person will feel about it), "tough love" (insults with the intent to demean aren't a sign of affection), or "that's how I express myself" (this is a selfish attitude to take, as it pays no heed to the other person, which is counter to the purpose of constructive criticism). that was a nice try at isolating a section my post to call the whole thing an example of not being crit....makaze was LITERALLY doing nothing but +1ing your post, and then i explained why it's wrong right after. to you. i'm not responding to makaze, i'm responding to you. you you you. you repeated yourself with more words, albeit with your point a little cleaner this time, but i'll level with you...constructive criticism specifically is an explanation of something's faults or whatever, right. let's say not even labeling a whole statement, like "you're a bad artist because that drawing's eyes are terribly uneven as usual" and just highlighting the part about the eyes being uneven as the crit. why say something like "If "constructive criticism" is hostile, it falls under asshole."? when you say it like that, it totally implies that the hostility in any statement just invalidates the criticism...but it doesn't. it seems to me that the pure criticism in itself is very neutral. a positive phrase like "i love it" isn't part of the constructive criticism either. but when you called it a "principle" this time, it made more sense, but when you say it as though "intent" makes or breaks the validity of a piece of criticism....you lost me idk what the frick you're talking about then. i didn't give my actual response to makaze i gave it to you, because these people agreeing with you are overlooking the same logic hole. ...unless you're trying to tell me that they added yet, another exception in the english language where when you have the 2 words together like that, you can't take the base definitions at face value anymore and it's just a synonym for "criticism that is constructive; nullified by any ill-mannered words or phrases"? i wouldn't count that out at this point because english has a ton of exceptions already, but if that's the deal then we can just call this a case of outdated information(on my part) but still just plain silly. Well said. A tad more eloquent than the points I made on the previous page. "well said" but still wrong lol. but i'm not surprised. ^^^^^^^see that? there's an example that actually works as an example of not-crit and just being negative In before "it wasn't supposed to be constructive criticism". good guess though Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
euklyd Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 you repeated yourself with more words, albeit with your point a little cleaner this time, but i'll level with you...constructive criticism specifically is an explanation of something's faults or whatever, right. let's say not even labeling a whole statement, like "you're a bad artist because that drawing's eyes are terribly uneven as usual" and just highlighting the part about the eyes being uneven as the crit. why say something like "If "constructive criticism" is hostile, it falls under asshole."? when you say it like that, it totally implies that the hostility in any statement just invalidates the criticism...but it doesn't. it seems to me that the pure criticism in itself is very neutral. a positive phrase like "i love it" isn't part of the constructive criticism either. but when you called it a "principle" this time, it made more sense, but when you say it as though "intent" makes or breaks the validity of a piece of criticism....you lost me idk what the frick you're talking about then. i didn't give my actual response to makaze i gave it to you, because these people agreeing with you are overlooking the same logic hole. whether something is accurate, potentially useful criticism or not, if you make a post with hostility enough that it would be reasonable to expect the person being criticized would react negatively as a consequence of the hostility, then you're not being constructive, you're being an asshole constructive criticism is criticism offered for the purpose of helping the criticized party to improve; being hostile is sabotaging such improvement if you think that being hostile/scoring useless internet points is more important than phrasing things in ways that will not alienate the people you're attempting to help "improve" then your goal isn't actually to be constructive compare the above to: Lol. have fun being wrong and nobody listening to anything you say ever go out to the real world and try communicating with actual people for a change; they don't tend to react well to criticism from obnoxious cunts something fallacy something ad hominauseam alternatively there's a thread where makaze makes a compelling argument for why the antics of **certain people** in serious discussion make a mockery of any actual attempts at discussion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
euklyd Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 (edited) alternatively there's a thread where makaze makes a compelling argument for why the antics of **certain people** in serious discussion make a mockery of any actual attempts at discussion[spoiler=too lazy to dig up more than these]I'll address the point about wisdom because you made an example of yourself with that post. It is unwise to be elitist because shaming others is counterproductive to actual learning, and elitism does shame others. If you haven't learned that it shames others, or don't care, then you have not gained enough wisdom to hold a conversation worth my time. In this case I think it's a moniker for people who believe their entire purpose in the discussion is to show everyone else how wrong they are. Even the wisest and most knowledgeable people have no business behaving that way. In fact, they have less reason to behave that way than others. A shitty poster is someone who makes shitty posts with shitty intent behind them. edit: spoiler formatting sucks Edited March 24, 2015 by Euklyd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.