Artist Brains vs Critic Brains?

[akitsukino]

This post is probably not what you think it is. This isn't a post detailing or questioning how artists and critics are always at each others throats, this is a post questioning how artists and critics differ in how they examine and create.

One popular method of critique is that of video essays. They range from things like ten minute videos on "The Genius of Robin Williams" to things like "50 Reasons 'Legend of Korra's' Politics are Crap". They'll go through things like cinematic choices to serious writing mistakes.

I liked watching these videos, because it seemed like a good way to learn what I was doing right/wrong in my own work. But, there would be times when I would watch an essay/rant that had such damning evidence on how badly something messed up, I would ask myself "Why didn't the people who made this think of that?" But then I'll also ask myself "Would I have thought of that if I wrote this?"

That brings me to the the big questions "How do artists and critics think differently?"

The big stereotype is that artists are more emotion driven about what and how they create, while critics are more analytical and fact based. I watched an insanely detailed video on how a show like Korra fails at the politics and philosophies it portrays and how the implications are even worse than what the show actually said.

There may be answers like "hindsight is always 20/20" or "this was made under a crazy tight budget and there was no time to think about that stuff" or " Someone working on this had kids to feed so they just wrote whatever". The actual process of making something like movies or comics is always so complex that the issue of how "X Director didn't catch problematic Story Problem B" is usually way less simple than some critics are willing to admit. But that doesn't negate the validity of the criticism.

I guess the reason I flock to these videos is because I don't consider myself a very critical thinker, so I feel like I can learn something from them. I'll usually be interested in watching stories/movies the critic has made if they are also a creator. If they're so good at critiquing, then they're probably good at making them, right? Maybe I'd learn something?

What makes artists and critics so fundamentally/ mentally different that there are things we miss/ notice in these works? How differently do our thought process work that causes this to happen?

Any thoughts on this?

[dawgofdawgness]

I guess it's the same reason we ask for reviews for our comics/novels. Because when you're working on something you tend to get so into your work that you don't realize that some of the stuff might not make sense for someone who's not you. Like a LOT of comic artists (including myself) sometimes forget to even mention a character's name when they're introduced. Because they're so familiar to you that you don't really realize that other people are seeing them for the first time.
Also I guess artists can look at a simple drawn background and go "ehh, pretty decent. i can tell the artist knows what perspective is and what they're going for." and a critic might look at it and go "LAAAZY!"

¯_(ツ)_/¯

[travelercomic]

I think in part it's a difference in cognitive thought. I'm not entirely sure how to explain what I mean, but we have different personalities that people "generally" fall into. Some are more judging and some are more perceiving. I know some fantastic artists/writers who can't even explain many, if any, of their methods that a critic could easily pick out. At the same time a critic may be able to notice these instantly, but have a hard time taking this knowledge and making something themselves.

I find that part particularly interesting. Now I'm not the type of person to suggest that critics can't properly criticize if they can't do what the artist does (because that's stupid), but it's a common thing you'll find, that a critic can't do it when they try. A lot of really bad film projects have been created by critics who don't actually know how to apply their knowledge into something creative.

[ScribbleJay]

Personally, I feel that someone who is good at critiquing may not necessarily be good at making art. Making art requires much, much more than just an avoidance of mistakes. Rober Ebert was a brilliant critic, but he actually tried making a movie once, and it was apparently horrendous.
However, art and criticism aren't mutually exclusive either; good artists often make good critics, because they need to have picked apart their own art to improve. And a good review can be entertaining or artistic in its own right.
The reason artists often don't catch mistakes? Like a previous poster said, people are biased towards their own work. A critic can provide a fresh perspective because they are looking at a work with fresh, objective eyes.

[Progg]

I would say that art and critiquing are two different skills, and that it's difficult to do them both at once. In order for a piece of art to feel genuine, the artist has to, at some point, be immersed in the work in an "uncritical" way, and that way mistakes are made. Which is why editors are needed I guess. (But for those of us who don't have access to editors, there's always this community!)

Vice versa, in order to analyze the structure of a piece of art, the critic has to be objective, or "detached" from the work. And I think that "detached" way of looking at it would prevent you from contributing something heartfelt to the work. But as ScribbleJay said, a good review can definitely be a piece of art in itself.

[SoFt]

As someone who is both artist and critic, I don't believe there's an inherent difference between the psychology of the two. Building a world is a challenging endeavor, and many don't respect that after the fact. How many hours, weeks, years, did Martin spend conceiving the White Walkers? How long does Stephen King spend forging the identity of each character he creates? It takes a lot of effort to make something new, and destroying is always easier than building.

That said, the critics I admire--Jim Sterling, MauLer, CinemaSins Jeremey--generally focus on one of two things: poking fun at established tropes and having a laugh, or pointing out the most egregious errors of the media they comment on. The latter is something I take inspiration from as a writer, hoping as I do that no one will ever feel the need to write/speak at length about how terribly I've fudged my tale. By offering critique on the things that make no sense, they offer a clearer path to those presently coming up: avoid this pitfall, and your art will be better for it.

We can decry critics as people who "just don't get it" if we wish, but I feel that it is our job as storytellers to make them get it. If they truly try and fail, maybe that's on them. But if they truly immerse themselves in the tale for a time and still find key points nonsensical or trite, maybe that's on us.

[SoFt]

It's also worth noting that a lot of critics get a lot of attention for their work. Anything lucrative will draw a lot of interest.

[IdiotWithPencil]

I don't think a critic and and artist think that differently,
since we all critic some art or another, mostly the differences would be and artist will try to see how he can make something work and what he can steal(from references to other art pieces) to make it better.

while the critic is more into the why it doesn't work and why does he himself not like the art piece.

plus we need critics since theirs a point where it's impossible to improve without someone telling you what you got wrong and what you got to make better.