Too Big to Criticize...?

[Freemints30]

There is nothing too big to criticize and I genuinely hate that mentality that some creators have when as soon as they have a following they believe their too big for a critique from so called "lesser authors". Those people eventually have a pretty nasty fall from grace once they become known for that shitty behavior cough cough Tom Preston*cough*. As for the manga you are taking about thou the the artist is well respected doesn't mean he couldn't have a dud here or there, and the manga may be one of those duds. Not every thing needs to have hidden meaning or genius. Some times the curtains are yellow in a book are simply due to the author liking yellow curtains.

As for that feeling, very often and its never "accidentally", I don't care how popular you are not if I think your work sucks, I think sucks I will say it.

[ble]

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

[punkarsenic]

lightyears ahead of your level??

i feel like this is a problem that crops up when youre working in the field youre criticising; if youre a writer, critiquing tolkein gets difficult because Youre Not Tolkien. how is a painter supposed to crit picasso? who do they think they are??

but critique is a really important skill, and everyone has flaws, plus theres all that subjective stuff. if youre able to look at a piece of work made by someone significantly more experienced than you and properly evaluate it - see the flaws, see the merits, see the stuff you wouldnt do, imo thats an important part of developing your taste, style, and eye as a creative.

that said, i really feel you. when i do reviews on letterboxd or goodreads i need to really push myself to not give into the peer pressure of the rating a film 'should' get based on the creator, the works reputation, or general consensus. but forcing myself to stick to my guns and give the cabinet of caligari a 3.5 makes me take my own experiences with media seriously. if you just assume that these more experienced artists just know something you dont, it makes it easier to not properly engage with the work, and rather youre left shrugging and saying 'well, its a classic. i must just be stupid.' you aint. some shits overrated, and everything has flaws. (caligari isnt overrated ftr. i just didnt enjoy it a tremendous deal)

that said, i kinda feel more secure criticizing bigger creators. like, if everyone loves shakespeare then im a bit cheeky and anti establishment when i say hamlet drags (though its more that kenneth branagh drags), and nobody gets hurt. criticising creators more 'on my level' is a lot more dangerous, emotionally. but neil gaiman, steven spielberg, jk rowling? they got money, they dont care.

[vothnthorvaldson]

I can see how 'too small to criticize' can be a problem, but the contrary?

If there are that big, they must have plenty of support. So no moral issue here.

If they are big.. it does not mean they are good for you. It does not even mean they are good AT ALL as an artist. They may be good at following trends, at marketing etc.. But let's take the case where the artist is not bad per se. If you are not sensitive to their specific works, you'll see more the flaws, that any artist, even the best, has (especially in comics where you have to have so many varied skills).
Actually I think your critique as someone who doesn't like the work is very valuable, if it's constructive. Maybe not for the artist of that comic, as it's unlikely they would read it, but for any other artist reading the critique.

[ble]

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

[vynru73]

I don't think you're ever not allowed to criticize and artist, even if your own skill is far below the artist's skill. Everyone is a reader, so I think you can always critique stuff as a reader/consumer. I actually think that could be more valuable in a way, because this artist makes their work for readers to read, not other artists. For example, if I want someone to critique my own comic, I'd much rather show it to a reader than to a fellow artist, because both of those will notice different things, and you want to optimize your comic for its message to carry over to readers specifically, and for it to be enjoyable for said readers. The best advice I get, almost always comes from non-artists, except for just one of my artist friends. So yeah, the best advice/critique, in my experience, tends to come from "the ignorant slobs", if I may use your words.

On a side note, if you haven't read a lot of manga, that also means you haven't read a lot of bad manga, and your standards haven't been lowered yet

[Reign]

I think it’s okay to criticize and review, no matter the skill level. I just think it becomes a problem if the criticizer tears down and hurts someone’s confidence. (Not saying you did that.) I know there are things we don’t like, and I find myself hating on a lot of stuff, like the Emoji Movie. Which I find hard to watch because I don’t enjoy if for many reasons. But I’m starting to ask the question: how do we critique and not do it negatively? Ultimately everyone can create something, but does that make it’s right to tear them down emotionally and verbally? (Again, this isn’t pointing fingers at you. I haven’t seen your review.) I guess the only time to shut something down is if it’s down right evil and malicious.

[StrangeVision]

Look at big time western comic artists. The legendary Rob Liefeld, always roasted for his goofy anatomy and design choices. Greg Land the porn tracer. Frank Miller who's drawings have gone downhill in his old age. No one's too big to criticize, in any genre or medium.

[charliesackett]

I have a book blog where I read critically acclaimed classic literature and (usually) tear it a new asshole. I strongly believe that just because a lot of people say it's good doesn't mean it's actually good. It's important to have the other argument made. If people are only ever told they're great and they can do no wrong then their work suffers. If we all pretend stuff is good because it's made by someone famous then we're perpetuating a culture of elitism and bullshit. It's best if we all just stay honest.

[nixxusnibelheim]

Ooof, I've had a recent debate with few friends about a similar subject.

Basically I was saying that us as a consumer when we critic something (sometime harshly), we ONLY blame the creators behind the said work without looking at ourselve.

Every flaws must be because the authors are incompetent...even though they have way more experience than the regular joe. (Not to say that they are perfect but they do understand the in and out of the creative process, the challenges, the expectations etc, factors that not a lot of people are aware of.)

We never take a look at ourselve and think maybe we are in the wrong. The story may have done everything right but we still misread the whole thing.

We act entitled to like everything and we, for some reason put our opinion as only truth while we don't take into account that the casual consumers are inexperience. It's like a kid saying candy is more healthy than fruits because it tastes better.

I guess to go back to your situation.
Not every flavors should be in your taste and it's okay, we are not supposed to like everything.
That doesn't mean the said manga/anime suck. It just mean it wasn't for you or you didn't have enough experience to really understand it.
If you didn't like the manga in the first place, it's perfectly fine. You don't have to force yourself, to read it back just because it's from a big name.
But if you do feel like you misjudge the manga because of x y and z, definitely give it another run.

[borzoiteeth]

Anything and everything should be allowed to be critiqued. However one needs to be careful of works that are in "Sacred Cow" status. Works or people that for whatever reason are supported by a group that worship said thing. To point out any negative factor must mean you are a troll or "don't get it".

I've had some very interesting clashes with these kinds of people, "Why do you hate series/character??" for them to be shocked that no, I love said character/series. Goodness, no series is perfect. I love critiquing, especially series I love.

Not knowing how you wrote your critique, I can't help judge if there is any "cognitive dissonance" in play. But I will bring up something I notice a lot of critics forget to do when designing their critique- is knowing the difference between legit bad craft vs actually not being the target audience. People have brought up Twilight a few times here- lets use that as an example.

Most critiques for Twilight have valid issues brought up- but are actually poor in design because Twilight was firstly made to be a simple (regardless of how tasteless we think it is) love story. Yes, the author's wrote a gross, abusive relationship but it was also clearly written to not care about that. A real critique would bring up the plot holes of what the author wrote in world to say what mattered and then changed their mind about (ex: established that vampires and humans can't have children but throw that out the window for more easy drama). Its unfair to critique Twilight for not being a proper "role model" story when that was never its goal. Its clearly a guilty-pleasure work and that's how it should be judged.

If that sounded too weird here's another example- you would not critique an abstract painting saying its flaws are because its not realistic enough. What you want vs the goals of the piece are clearly very different.

Since you mentioned dissonance there is also to account for time/culture. There are a lot of works I love that have aged POORLY. This is neither the fault of the audience nor the creator. No one can be responsible for being aware of what life was before or what it is going to be.

[unknown_user]

In my opinion, there are a lot of great, talented and extremely skilled artist and writers, who are doing extremely stupid, cliched, pitiful content. I suppose, that they could do really wonderful things, but they are doing stupid mainstream shit instead, just because it's paid much more.
This is how I see it.
Who am I to condemn such an authors? Everyone sometimes do things they don't like for money. But it doesn't prevent me from condemning the product itself, even if I think that the author isn't bad.

[unknown_user]

A little off topic:

Anything and everything should be allowed to be critiqued.

Besides religion. If you will criticise religion, you will be labeled as "intolerant asshole", and in some countries even will be punished by the law.

[Pomms]

I don't think you are wrong in making your own critique of things. Whenever you put something out there, it is no longer belongs to you, but to the people - and therefore it is subject to critique.

Also, just because something is iconic, doesn't mean you have to like it. I've read some of those so called "timeless classics" and I didn't like many of them.

[borzoiteeth]

Besides religion. If you will criticise religion, you will be labeled as "intolerant asshole", and in some countries even will be punished by the law.

Your critique is going after a different goal than my post (which was likely my fault with my poorly written English) which was, "One should not feel bad for having a negative opinion towards a beloved thing. Here are some tools to double check yourself in case you are not sure of your personal standing".

Discussing if one has permission or how to talk around being in a censored culture is a different discussion. Because its more than religion. Where I studied you couldn't critique a teacher to their face about their profession -no matter how departed from religion it was- if want to make sure you could get a job let alone not get ostracized from the community.

[Wumbl]

Following =/= skill.
What others think shouldn't influence your opinion.

As long as you're not making others feel bad for liking something, negatively reviewing something popular is completely normal and fine. Nobody should ever feel guilty for not liking something popular.

[vfinnigan]

In my writing circles, we call it "superstar syndrome," when a writer becomes so famous, editors and critics fear doing their jobs and will just rubber stamp anything the "superstar writer" puts out.

If you've read Stephen King's It, you know what I'm talking about. There were editors who were too intimidated to tell Stephen King, "That scene is disgusting! Why do you have eleven year olds doing that?"

The publishers, however don't really care. They count on their superstars to sell books based on name recognition alone. This is bad for publishing as a whole. It's especially discouraging for new creators when they see big names getting bad stuff published while they're slaving away to create something good.

[AVXP]

This makes me feel...embarrassed. And I know it shouldn't...the fact that someone is famous doesn't mean that I can't dislike what they do. But the feeling won't go away...part of me actually wants to go back to that manga and look it over again, to try to find the genius that I, ignorant slob that I am, must have overlooked...

I think the true problem is you didn't know what hat to wear. And you switched from FAN to PEER and realized, you're more of a FAN and thus- what you thought was critical analysis from an insider, now reads weird.
"A fan who's taking themselves too seriously' Especially when that person has done more than you.

As a FAN, you'd be right in all you opinions. All fans are. But you, you consider yourself an insider because you do the arts.
And PEERS don't trash other peers. That's a business no no and it ALWAYS makes the person talking trash look bad to anyone with an inside lane. Even a "Peer Critique" is only offered if requested. And it doesn't seem like that was one of those "Hey guys, check out my stuff and let me know what you think!" type situations.

My final thing is, an advanced artist is making CHOICES and everything is deliberate (and honestly, under their control) and a beginner is doing things...because it's at their technical limit or it's random/arbitrary. No need to question another artists' STYLE or bend. Let them do what they do as they see fit.

FANS believe EVERYTHING should be made for them and when they don't like something- it's almost offensive.
Somewhere in the middle is probably the heavy hobbyist. Knows enough to believe they know a lot.

That's most of us.

[skicoak]

My final thing is, an advanced artist is making CHOICES and everything is deliberate (and honestly, under their control) and a beginner is doing things...because it's at their technical limit or it's random/arbitrary.

I think you're at the root of the issue here... in that most consumers of a product are at least similarly to a beginner in their understanding of artistic choices.

They're critiques begin, and end, with their dislike of a project/creator instead of a understanding of methodology and how it created the choices they didn't "like". It's the age old example of the person who quantifies art by if it would look good in their living room hanging above their couch.

Nobody should have to like something wholesale but simply disliking something doesn't form a proper basis for critique.

[DokiDokiTsuna]

I mean...you have a good point in there...somewhere; I think you've gotten to the root of the issue. And yet, at the same time, I kinda have to say "eeeeh...not really...?"

And PEERS don't trash other peers. That's a business no no and it ALWAYS makes the person talking trash look bad to anyone with an inside lane.

I wasn't exactly 'trashing' them per se...I was pretty rough on them, but my goal was to deliver an honest critique of how their work complements the story, not to insult them. I believe I have the right to do that to anyone, peer or not...the majority of the shame doesn't come from any socialized stigma on my right to give critique, but on the uncomfortable realization that my words might have been softer if I had known who they were...which means I'm not quite as impartial as I like to think.

My final thing is, an advanced artist is making CHOICES and everything is deliberate (and honestly, under their control) and a beginner is doing things...because it's at their technical limit or it's random/arbitrary. No need to question another artists' STYLE or bend. Let them do what they do as they see fit.

...I actually don't believe that to be true. It is true in some cases, and in some elements of some cases, but on the whole it's a bad generalization at best.

Beginners make lots of deliberate, and might I add, good choices (I should know, I am/was one); not everything they do is because they 'just can't do any better'. And pros have limits too: deadlines, stamina, motivation, or just being in the wrong frame of mind one day. Not everything they produce is exactly what they intended; that's a rather unrealistic expectation to have.

In any case, I do think there's a need to question another artist's style, especially when it comes to hiring them to draw for a story that's already written. Do you want someone who only does 'dark and gritty' to draw for your super kawaii children's magical girl manga? Conversely, do you want someone who only does 'super kawaii' to draw for your historical fiction WWII drama?

Style matters. And when there's a large gap between the story tone and the art style, people aren't wrong to question it. Sometimes it's intentional. And sometimes it's not...which is usually a problem.

FANS believe EVERYTHING should be made for them and when they don't like something- it's almost offensive.

Uh, actually, BAD fans do that. The idea that anything you consume is trash unless it appeals perfectly to you is childish and ignorant.
I'm a fan of many artists who work in fields that I've never even touched before, and I'm happy to report that I don't believe anything of the sort. =/