HOME | DD

Description
Update After Two Favorites: Just to be safe, when I say idealistic, I don't mean it's the literally force, I'm talking about the idea of how to improve which is usually around in a lot of YouTube videos. Update Done
Of course, it's not like many of those "critics" literally force a creator to change a creative idea. I'm talking about this in an idealistic way.

Anyway, face it, it's really hard to find a fair critic that actually knows how to send criticism. It's usually bashing on a creative idea that makes the work a work. Which stifles creativity.
If you tell someone to stop making their safe and legal creative work, then that is NEVER a critique. You're supposed to HELP the person improve the work on itself. Destroying it is obviously a form of abuse and should never be a called a "critique". And when you say something like "Dogs in space is dumb!" over a work where the creator wanted to do that for example, then it's the same exact thing as saying "Don't make your work." considering "Dogs in space." is a huge part of what makes the work exist in the first place.

Stifle Creativity Meaning
It's when you restrict the freedom of creativity in a safe and legal work.
That includes telling a creator to add something the creator DOESN'T want or saying that in order to make something else "OK". Adding doesn't automatically mean it's supporting freedom, as leaving something out itself can lead to open imagination. Also a creative work exist by empty space AND non-empty space. If you add anything in one empty space, then what we see is likely different now. Less can sometimes be part of a thing, and less can sometimes be more.

Examples:
"Humphrey cannot dance, because *personal reason here* in a movie where it's possible." = STIFLE
"Humphrey can only do that if he often does this other thing or some things." = STIFLE
"Dogs in space is a stupid idea!" = STIFLE
"Your explanation isn't good for these dogs to talk because I think they should of used that on humans first." = STIFLE
"The art style is ugly, it needs to have this or that, or aiming at something specific." = STIFLE
"Why are the people non-human animals? They need to have non-human references in order to make it OK!" = STIFLE
"The minion movies suck because I hate minions." = STIFLE
"The wolf designs are simple, they need more detail." = STIFLE

Note: The last example is adding more, but it's removing the simple design which on itself is a style.

Not Stifling And Stifling
The only time that some kind of "dictation" is NOT stifling creativity on a safe and legal work is when it actually aids the artist into what the artist is trying to do.
Example: You make a cat movie where cats are anthropomorphic, but in the movie it's clear the cats cannot breath in space, then later in the movie with no explanation, the cats breath in space anyway.
Calling that creative move out may prevent the creative result from happening, but the creative result was already breaking apart the work in the first place because the main idea behind the work did not allow that kind of sudden thing.
If they were to EXPLAIN something that made sense causing the cats to have that ability, then they did it, then it would be fine. Another thing that would be fine is if the main purpose of the film was changed to a more less realistic style.

However, if you were to see an explanation in a movie like that that made sense in their own world, but then say "But they should of done that to apes first!", then you're just stifling again as your telling the creator that they must do something that has nothing to do with their own main safe and legal intentions.

I wouldn't be surprised if some critics called out the Stuart Little movie because the movie has a tiny walking two legged mouse talking to humans. It's a fantasy, it's not supposed to be realistic that way. GET OVER IT.
If any critic does that, then they don't deserve to be called a critic for movies like that honestly.

______________________
Check out this stamp!
wwwarea.deviantart.com/art/The…

Description
Update After Two Favorites: Just to be safe, when I say idealistic, I don't mean it's the literally force, I'm talking about the idea of how to improve which is usually around in a lot of YouTube videos. Update Done
Of course, it's not like many of those "critics" literally force a creator to change a creative idea. I'm talking about this in an idealistic way.

Anyway, face it, it's really hard to find a fair critic that actually knows how to send criticism. It's usually bashing on a creative idea that makes the work a work. Which stifles creativity.
If you tell someone to stop making their safe and legal creative work, then that is NEVER a critique. You're supposed to HELP the person improve the work on itself. Destroying it is obviously a form of abuse and should never be a called a "critique". And when you say something like "Dogs in space is dumb!" over a work where the creator wanted to do that for example, then it's the same exact thing as saying "Don't make your work." considering "Dogs in space." is a huge part of what makes the work exist in the first place.

Stifle Creativity Meaning
It's when you restrict the freedom of creativity in a safe and legal work.
That includes telling a creator to add something the creator DOESN'T want or saying that in order to make something else "OK". Adding doesn't automatically mean it's supporting freedom, as leaving something out itself can lead to open imagination. Also a creative work exist by empty space AND non-empty space. If you add anything in one empty space, then what we see is likely different now. Less can sometimes be part of a thing, and less can sometimes be more.

Examples:
"Humphrey cannot dance, because *personal reason here* in a movie where it's possible." = STIFLE
"Humphrey can only do that if he often does this other thing or some things." = STIFLE
"Dogs in space is a stupid idea!" = STIFLE
"Your explanation isn't good for these dogs to talk because I think they should of used that on humans first." = STIFLE
"The art style is ugly, it needs to have this or that, or aiming at something specific." = STIFLE
"Why are the people non-human animals? They need to have non-human references in order to make it OK!" = STIFLE
"The minion movies suck because I hate minions." = STIFLE
"The wolf designs are simple, they need more detail." = STIFLE

Note: The last example is adding more, but it's removing the simple design which on itself is a style.

Not Stifling And Stifling
The only time that some kind of "dictation" is NOT stifling creativity on a safe and legal work is when it actually aids the artist into what the artist is trying to do.
Example: You make a cat movie where cats are anthropomorphic, but in the movie it's clear the cats cannot breath in space, then later in the movie with no explanation, the cats breath in space anyway.
Calling that creative move out may prevent the creative result from happening, but the creative result was already breaking apart the work in the first place because the main idea behind the work did not allow that kind of sudden thing.
If they were to EXPLAIN something that made sense causing the cats to have that ability, then they did it, then it would be fine. Another thing that would be fine is if the main purpose of the film was changed to a more less realistic style.

However, if you were to see an explanation in a movie like that that made sense in their own world, but then say "But they should of done that to apes first!", then you're just stifling again as your telling the creator that they must do something that has nothing to do with their own main safe and legal intentions.

I wouldn't be surprised if some critics called out the Stuart Little movie because the movie has a tiny walking two legged mouse talking to humans. It's a fantasy, it's not supposed to be realistic that way. GET OVER IT.
If any critic does that, then they don't deserve to be called a critic for movies like that honestly.

______________________
Check out this stamp!
wwwarea.deviantart.com/art/The…