HOME | DD

dictatorofrandomosia [2007-09-07 21:41:20 +0000 UTC]

Rather lengthy.
Oh, and look at that first comment. Ack. @_@
Despite the GLARING HUGENESS of it, it's a very good guide. Could use a bit of telling the reader to personalize theur comments, but the key points that you talk about are extremely helpful for any critique.
... No, I'm not using the format described to comment on it. It'd take me too much scrolling up and down and thinking, and my brain basically fizzled out just from reading all of that text. (It's still very good, I just didn't expect it to be that long.)

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Bolognist [2007-01-27 10:57:49 +0000 UTC]

to be honest....I think its nice just to have a simple "nice" from time to time as well....

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

blushark [2006-09-24 17:20:41 +0000 UTC]

hmmm.. don't you think this kind of step-by-step guide for dummies will actually start wave of uniform comments?

because if 100 people comment 1 deviation using your guide, the better they do it, more alike their comments will be. and that would truly suck.

the real commenting problem on dA is self advertising and/or comments that sum it up in 2 words or less: "wow" "great pic/shot/capture" "nice colors/job/work"

please don't take offense, it must have been a lot of work and everything, but i felt chills down my spine at the prospect of repeatedly getting copies of the same comment on the same deviation.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

justthorne [2004-12-01 06:52:38 +0000 UTC]

Hey dear, only time for a quick thought now, but I'll likely be getting back to you (once I've had time to read :devinzuladun:'s thoughts above...)

My main observation is there should like be a paragraph about Craft in here. You know, whether quality of exposure or ableness of rendition or what-have-you. Many of your specific points reflect aspects of craft, but Craft with a capital C should probably be brought up.

Here's a minor distinction about a minor point, if you care to complicate it. Using "you" is perfectly fine when you're praising someone! Or, more accurately, when you're speaking directly to the issue of their decisions and process in the work. But your simpler, broader point is probably best for simplicity's sake (espec. since "not using you" is a hard habit to overcome anyway.)

I'm really impressed with the substance of this. As deeply as I care about the art of commenting, I simply couldn't have ever produced such a voluminous (and yet, surprisingly svelte) survey of the topic. Great work you're doing!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

ivyc [2004-11-29 23:18:38 +0000 UTC]

Oh its fine really.

Thanks your comment was wonderful. I don't want to go in depth in my reply but will certianly note you again with some of my responses. As you can tell, I'm terrible with gramatics and spelling.

You raise several valid points. I did contemplate adding a "personal touchup" Section while I was outlineing the guide however once I started writing that section I realized the danger of undermining my entire point, so I stopped. What I may add to this is an explaination that the comment created here is mearly a template of aspects that can be covered and personal suggestions and observances. I made it robotic almost on purpose because if I were to reflect a personality in a guide who and what would it be? If I use my own flare and personality, it could be construed as trying to get everyone to comment like me. Alternately, I wouldn't want them to because, Its my style and it makes up part of online persona as a deviant. I suppose I should explain more clearly that it is more of a disection sentance by sentance of a critique.

I'll address other topics with you via note. I really value your opinion and think you are dead on with many things you say here. I would really benefit from some discussion on this perhaps if I explain where I'm coming from on some of these topics we can iron out an efficiant way to resolve them. This was my skelleton which is why I listed it as a scrap rather then a final deviation. I wish I could get the other folks to give me such useful feedback as you have. I really appreciate your time .... it must have taken you an enormous amount of time here and I appreciate it a more then you can imagine.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

inziladun [2004-11-29 20:16:23 +0000 UTC]

This was a real treat to read, it must have taken a lot of time and energy too. The layout is what I'm most impressed with, it looks so professional and minimalistically stylish. The only thing that bugged me about it was the fact that "Back to navigation" pops up everywhere, it gets a little annoying after a while. Maybe it could be with a very small font, or otherwise more inconspicuous? On one hand they break up the 'essay' very naturally, creating a stylish pause between the discussed subjects and making the layout look generally balanced. But maybe you could change the words into just a symbol, like the "^" pointing upwards, and that could be placed in the centre of the page?
I also think that the title of this is too ambitious; even though you do talk about commenting in general (very well I might add), the emphasis is clearly on the assessment of visual deviations. I think maybe the title itself should indicate that the essay is really just about photography (and other visual art, sure, but photography is what is given centre stage in the examples), and that the sub-heading could be something more general, indicating that there isa great amount of genreal reflection and discussion about cmomenting as a principle. The word "Complete" is what bugs me the most; this isn't 'complete' in the normal sense of the word, despite the fact that the guide is very thorough and very helpful. It also doesn't tell you how to comment on "anything", just visual deviations.
My main qualm with the guide is that the comment you compose at the end is extremely robotic, very lacking in personality and flow. I'll get to that in due course. I've seen your comments, and you don't comment robotically at all; why have you done so here?

I'll go through this bit by bit, to give you a holistic idea; the red bullet () indicates typos or a grammatical glitch, the green bullet () indicates excellent things, and the blue bullet () indicates flaws. I hope you will appreciate my frankness, I don't mean to be rude at all.

Introduction
The mention and discussion of "seemingly insignificant motivations" is too abstract, you don't make any clear point with it. You say that deviantART's commenting system provides an "edge"; to what? To submitting deviations? To commenting on them? It isn't clear; I do actually see what your point is, but I think it's not a very strong way to start the essay. The discussion of motive is fine, a great idea in fact, but make the centered subject within the topic of 'motivation' more clear and more addressing.

Dirty facts in the second paragraph is needless, and a rather unsuccessful stab at humour (no offense).

In every community the best way to influence others is by example. This is a little too bold; state it more carefully, e.g. "one of the best ways".

... beneficial comments that everyone will admire. I know your intention here wasn't to give the impression that admiration is one of the motives in commenting, but that is what it certainly looks like. I suggest replacing "that everyone will admire" with something a little more solidary like "that will undoubtedly aid the author", or something. I think everybody involved in the Revolution should be clear about the fact that commenting is an end in itself, it should not be done specifically for glory or for gain; and perhaps our essays should voice that as well (mine does, as I recall).

deviantARt, not "Deviant art".
downfall, not "down fall"
Missing a comma in the first line of the second paragraph: "... images, tips, tricks and..."

The Introduction is very informative and covers everything in the essay that follows it. The mention of the Comment Revolution is great (I think at the end a list of other essays should be included), and the general tone set by the intro is excellent in general.


Description
Description, not "discription"
lying, not "laying"

This is a matter of style, but even so I do not agree with the idea of starting a comment off by describing the piece. It isn't necessary at all, the deviant knows what his own deviation looks like. Stating the obvious is annoying and lacks professionalism of any degree. And in any case, the first sentence of your comment is not a literal description, it is an expression of opinion: "Lovely picture ...", and I think that is what you should emphasise as the first step: "state your general opinion of the piece". And above all I think it should always be emphasised that stating why a deviant feels a certain way about a deviation. That is something you don't point out sufficiently in the essay, and it's something of a shortcoming. You do mention it, in "Justification", which is fantastic; but I feel it should be paramount instead of just a footnote.
Your 'first step' certainly is easy, but that's because it is of little consequence in the comment. And you put emphasis on "the first sentence"; your comment is too strictly structured, and lacks personality.

I think using an example from your own gallery may appear improper; after all, you say nothing but praise about it, so it can be seen as blowing your own horn. I think maybe choosing someone else's deviation would be better, 'politically'.

The images in this guide are really great, they remind and 'force' the reader of it to look at the same picture over and over again, raising the chance that they'll see something new in it on some occasion.


Analysis (I think maybe this should be called "Technical Analysis", so as not to confuse this step with the "Interpretation" portion)
This by far will make up the body of your critique. Shouldn't that be for the person commenting to decide?

Line Structure; this is too vague, and really only pertains to visual art excluding photography, where the artist actually draws/makes the lines himself. Not all visual deviations even have 'lines' per se. You should clarify this point.

Colour; this might be different: different from what? The opening line needs to be rephrased.

Symmetry / Balance; you claim that there is a huge difference, but there is none that I can see. 'Symmetry' is often used in artistic contexts to denote the entire work of art, not just the artwork's subject. Balance and symmetry are essentially the same thing, and I think the descriptions of each should be fused under one category, one of the two. The 'line of symmetry' has directly to do with 'balance', you can't separate the two.
Also, you speak of symmetry as though an artwork should have an equal or stable line of balance, but this is not the case at all. The idea of the 'rule of thirds' and such things is that they are rules that can and should be broken where necessary, and a work of art cannot be judged poor or good just by looking at the symmetry. The idea of 'drawing a line' is also a little unnecessary, again because it implies that a good artwork has such a line somewhere.

Contrast; contrast is a difference in something: far too simply put. It's rather a difference between two or more elements in a visual deviation.

Repetition; Look at repeating themes in the artwork: the word 'themes' is misused here, I think "elements" would be better, since it covers both vidual and conceptual aspects of a work.

Just two more steps and two more sentences. Again you show that one apect of a deviation can only be described in one sentence; my suggestion is to not look at the comment in terms of sentences, because that is just what contributes to the robotic air of the 'exemplary' comment as a whole (which I'll look at at the end).

You use upper-case letters too haphazardly, be careful and consistent of what words you capitalise.
you're, not "your" (in the last sentence).

Your descriptions of all of the sub-sections here, apart from the two I mentioned, are fantastic. Colour, Space, Shape.. All the definitions are spot-on. This section is really thorough, and whoever reads it will get a truly wide picture of the topic. But make sure that the picture you give is accurate.


Interpretation
.. my study of how people comment: this seems a little presumptuous, as though you had conducted some sort of psychological experiment.

Style; Its that extra something that make an image special. Your description of Style is far too brief; you say it is an important ingredient, but leave the reader stumpted as to just what it is, after giving several alternatives. Make this more clear and more precise; imagine that you are outlining these ideas to someoe who has no conception of them whatsoever!

Metaphor; your description here is even more vague and unintelligible. If I werne't familiar with the concept myself, I wouldn't know what you were talking about. The "Ron is a pig"-example is an instance of semantic/linguistic metaphor, which is completely irrelevant when talking about visual deviations. Make your descriptions clear, especially here in the 'Interpretation'-section since it's the hardest to grasp.

Meaning; This is an interpretation. It can not be wrong. yes, an interpretation can be wrong, but only if the image itself does not back up what the person claims to see in it. That is a valid and indeed crucial point, which should be included here (you did well to mention it some while before, to use "what is there" in the image: repeat that here).

Symbolism; symbolism is a movement of art, you should use a slightly different term here ("Use of Symbols" for example). You should make the conection between Metaphor and Symbol, they are two extremely similar concepts.

Emotion; this should be mentioned earlier, but you did very well to emphasise "why".

Again, do not concentrate on the "sentences" like this, it creates a dangerously mechanical set of rules.

The next step is the fun part.. So everything up to now has been boring or difficult or nasty?

Remember proper use of capitals.
Missing a comma in While that can be a very nice comment. Alone, it does not ...
But then, it can make it something else entirely. is vague and clumsy.
Missing a comma in If one were to say "Ron is a pig." That would be a metaphor.
Are there any ideas in the image, not "Is the there any ideas in the image".
Many artists use symbols, not "Many artist use symbolism"
You're missing question marks in some hypothetical questions.

nterpretation is easily confused with the opinion portion of critique. Opinions will be the final judgment of the piece, while the interpretation is the translation of what is there. Outstanding point.
Generally you took into consideration the primary elements in interpreting a piece; just make clear and make accurate and meaningufl your description of each part.


Opinion (Again, this should be at least mentioned in the beginning of the essay)
This is where the comment becomes a critique. This is just not true. An opinion is not a critique, far from it! A (constructive) critique is the informed and justified pointing out of flaws and offering alternatives to correct them; it has little to do with opinion at all. This is a very big misconception, that I hope you'll correct!

Try staying away from I or You statements here. Using "You" will make it more personal and make the artist possibly more offended. This is a very sound point indeed; but on the other hand deviantART is a friendly community, so "I" and "you" will and should be used. Especially because this is the 'Opinion' portion, "I" has to be used!

That is the final critique. It is not the final critique, it is the final comment. You seem to use the words "comment" and "critique" interchangably, even though they are very different things. A critique of devART is always a comment, but a comment is very seldom a critique.

Capitalisation!
Overall, is it likable?, not "Overall do is it likeable?"

Entire Justification portion was perfect! And generally a good, though brief, inclusion of the relevance of one's opinion.


Conclusion
This was a real treat to read, it must have taken a lot of time and energy too. The layout is what I'm most impressed with, it looks so professional and minimalistically stylish. The only thing that bugged me about it was the fact that "Back to navigation" pops up everywhere, it gets a little annoying after a while. Maybe it could be with a very small font, or otherwise more inconspicuous? On one hand they break up the 'essay' very naturally, creating a stylish pause between the discussed subjects and making the layout look generally balanced. But maybe you could change the words into just a symbol, like the "^" pointing upwards, and that could be placed in the centre of the page?
I also think that the title of this is too ambitious; even though you do talk about commenting in general (very well I might add), the emphasis is clearly on the assessment of visual deviations. I think maybe the title itself should indicate that the essay is really just about photography (and other visual art, sure, but photography is what is given centre stage in the examples), and that the sub-heading could be something more general, indicating that there isa great amount of genreal reflection and discussion about cmomenting as a principle. The word "Complete" is what bugs me the most; this isn't 'complete' in the normal sense of the word, despite the fact that the guide is very thorough and very helpful.
My main qualm with the guide is that the comment you compose at the end is extremely robotic, very lacking in personality and flow. I'll get to that in due course. I've seen your comments, and you don't comment robotically at all; why have you done so here?

I'll go through this bit by bit, to give you a holistic idea; the red bullet () indicates typos or a grammatical glitch, the green bullet () indicates excellent things, and the blue bullet () indicates flaws. I hope you will appreciate my frankness, I don't mean to be rude at all.

Introduction
The mention and discussion of "seemingly insignificant motivations" is too abstract, you don't make any clear point with it. You say that deviantART's commenting system provides an "edge"; to what? To submitting deviations? To commenting on them? It isn't clear; I do actually see what your point is, but I think it's not a very strong way to start the essay. The discussion of motive is fine, a great idea in fact, but make the centered subject within the topic of 'motivation' more clear and more addressing.

Dirty facts in the second paragraph is needless, and a rather unsuccessful stab at humour (no offense).

In every community the best way to influence others is by example. This is a little too bold; state it more carefully, e.g. "one of the best ways".

... beneficial comments that everyone will admire. I know your intention here wasn't to give the impression that admiration is one of the motives in commenting, but that is what it certainly looks like. I suggest replacing "that everyone will admire" with something a little more solidary like "that will undoubtedly aid the author", or something. I think everybody involved in the Revolution should be clear about the fact that commenting is an end in itself, it should not be done specifically for glory or for gain; and perhaps our essays should voice that as well (mine does, as I recall).

deviantARt, not "Deviant art".
downfall, not "down fall"
Missing a comma in the first line of the second paragraph: "... images, tips, tricks and..."

The Introduction is very informative and covers everything in the essay that follows it. The mention of the Comment Revolution is great (I think at the end a list of other essays should be included), and the general tone set by the intro is excellent in general.


Description
Description, not "discription"
lying, not "laying"

This is a matter of style, but even so I do not agree with the idea of starting a comment off by describing the piece. It isn't necessary at all, the deviant knows what his own deviation looks like. Stating the obvious is annoying and lacks professionalism of any degree. And in any case, the first sentence of your comment is not a literal description, it is an expression of opinion: "Lovely picture ...", and I think that is what you should emphasise as the first step: "state your general opinion of the piece". And above all I think it should always be emphasised that stating why a deviant feels a certain way about a deviation. That is something you don't point out sufficiently in the essay, and it's something of a shortcoming. You do mention it, in "Justification", which is fantastic; but I feel it should be paramount instead of just a footnote.
Your 'first step' certainly is easy, but that's because it is of little consequence in the comment. And you put emphasis on "the first sentence"; your comment is too strictly structured, and lacks personality.

I think using an example from your own gallery may appear improper; after all, you say nothing but praise about it, so it can be seen as blowing your own horn. I think maybe choosing someone else's deviation would be better, 'politically'.

The images in this guide are really great, they remind and 'force' the reader of it to look at the same picture over and over again, raising the chance that they'll see something new in it on some occasion.


Analysis (I think maybe this should be called "Technical Analysis", so as not to confuse this step with the "Interpretation" portion)
This by far will make up the body of your critique. Shouldn't that be for the person commenting to decide?

Line Structure; this is too vague, and really only pertains to visual art excluding photography, where the artist actually draws/makes the lines himself. Not all visual deviations even have 'lines' per se. You should clarify this point.

Colour; this might be different: different from what? The opening line needs to be rephrased.

Symmetry / Balance; you claim that there is a huge difference, but there is none that I can see. 'Symmetry' is often used in artistic contexts to denote the entire work of art, not just the artwork's subject. Balance and symmetry are essentially the same thing, and I think the descriptions of each should be fused under one category, one of the two. The 'line of symmetry' has directly to do with 'balance', you can't separate the two.
Also, you speak of symmetry as though an artwork should have an equal or stable line of balance, but this is not the case at all. The idea of the 'rule of thirds' and such things is that they are rules that can and should be broken where necessary, and a work of art cannot be judged poor or good just by looking at the symmetry. The idea of 'drawing a line' is also a little unnecessary, again because it implies that a good artwork has such a line somewhere.

Contrast; contrast is a difference in something: far too simply put. It's rather a difference between two or more elements in a visual deviation.

Repetition; Look at repeating themes in the artwork: the word 'themes' is misused here, I think "elements" would be better, since it covers both vidual and conceptual aspects of a work.

Just two more steps and two more sentences. Again you show that one apect of a deviation can only be described in one sentence; my suggestion is to not look at the comment in terms of sentences, because that is just what contributes to the robotic air of the 'exemplary' comment as a whole (which I'll look at at the end).

You use upper-case letters too haphazardly, be careful and consistent of what words you capitalise.
you're, not "your" (in the last sentence).

Your descriptions of all of the sub-sections here, apart from the two I mentioned, are fantastic. Colour, Space, Shape.. All the definitions are spot-on. This section is really thorough, and whoever reads it will get a truly wide picture of the topic. But make sure that the picture you give is accurate.


Interpretation
.. my study of how people comment: this seems a little presumptuous, as though you had conducted some sort of psychological experiment.

Style; Its that extra something that make an image special. Your description of Style is far too brief; you say it is an important ingredient, but leave the reader stumpted as to just what it is, after giving several alternatives. Make this more clear and more precise; imagine that you are outlining these ideas to someoe who has no conception of them whatsoever!

Metaphor; your description here is even more vague and unintelligible. If I werne't familiar with the concept myself, I wouldn't know what you were talking about. The "Ron is a pig"-example is an instance of semantic/linguistic metaphor, which is completely irrelevant when talking about visual deviations. Make your descriptions clear, especially here in the 'Interpretation'-section since it's the hardest to grasp.

Meaning; This is an interpretation. It can not be wrong. yes, an interpretation can be wrong, but only if the image itself does not back up what the person claims to see in it. That is a valid and indeed crucial point, which should be included here (you did well to mention it some while before, to use "what is there" in the image: repeat that here).

Symbolism; symbolism is a movement of art, you should use a slightly different term here ("Use of Symbols" for example). You should make the conection between Metaphor and Symbol, they are two extremely similar concepts.

Emotion; this should be mentioned earlier, but you did very well to emphasise "why".

Again, do not concentrate on the "sentences" like this, it creates a dangerously mechanical set of rules.

The next step is the fun part.. So everything up to now has been boring or difficult or nasty?

Remember proper use of capitals.
Missing a comma in While that can be a very nice comment. Alone, it does not ...
But then, it can make it something else entirely. is vague and clumsy.
Missing a comma in If one were to say "Ron is a pig." That would be a metaphor.
Are there any ideas in the image, not "Is the there any ideas in the image".
Many artists use symbols, not "Many artist use symbolism"
You're missing question marks in some hypothetical questions.

nterpretation is easily confused with the opinion portion of critique. Opinions will be the final judgment of the piece, while the interpretation is the translation of what is there. Outstanding point.
Generally you took into consideration the primary elements in interpreting a piece; just make clear and make accurate and meaningufl your description of each part.


Opinion (Again, this should be at least mentioned in the beginning of the essay)
This is where the comment becomes a critique. This is just not true. An opinion is not a critique, far from it! A (constructive) critique is the informed and justified pointing out of flaws and offering alternatives to correct them; it has little to do with opinion at all. This is a very big misconception, that I hope you'll correct!

Try staying away from I or You statements here. Using "You" will make it more personal and make the artist possibly more offended. This is a very sound point indeed; but on the other hand deviantART is a friendly community, so "I" and "you" will and should be used. Especially because this is the 'Opinion' portion, "I" has to be used!

That is the final critique. It is not the final critique, it is the final comment. You seem to use the words "comment" and "critique" interchangably, even though they are very different things. A critique of devART is always a comment, but a comment is very seldom a critique.

Capitalisation!


Conclusion
Now that there is a very well formed and structured comment. Now I'm not just imagining it, this really becomes more of a self-praise than a general overview. Try using less 'extravagant' language when appraising a comment that you have written; humility is part of what the Revolution advocates.

Happy critiquing everyone! A good way to end; but a comment is not necessarily a critique; the comment you composed at the end is not a critique, because you didn't point out anything negative! You should have chosen a deviation which has excellent qualities as well as flaws, so that the comment provided would have been more than just a mechanical praise.


And here follows my major misgiving: the comment you compose at the end is simply not as good as you make it out to be. It is worth a "4", certainly, but it lacks the freedom and above all the personality of a truly good comment. I think what you should add to this guide is a way to polish up the comment you now exhibit as 'finished'; the next and final step should be molding the comment into something that looks and sounds natural, instead of this series of rather abrupt sentences, uncomfortably and clumsily formatted. Personality should be emphasised as one of the main features of a comment, because otherwise the danger is of all comments being like this one is; robotic. Again, I know this is not your usual way of commenting because I've seen your comments before. They are similar, but are not as strict as this, and are a lot more personable.
And point out flaws in the deviation you exhibit here, evne if it is your own (though it shouldn't be). Personally, flaws I see in it include the snapshot-esque angle it is taken from, the inobviousness of the irony of the piece (since it is not clearly visible that the signpost has been knocked over); and you don't even include the title of the deviation in the guide, even though it is one of the main things a commentor should analyse along with the body of the deviation itself.




Overall, this is an extremely professional and very thorough guide; but there are numerous rather glaring flaws and inconsistencies. I know you know that I am not criticising you with this, I am criticising this guide. And frankly, I would not want this to be something that hundreds, even thousands of deviants would take after and go by when commenting. It needs a lot of work, but there is an extremely solid groundwork and even the frames of a great guide. Good luck, and I hope I helped you out.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1