That's fine. You can continue being abrasive, and people can continue to not like your attitude.
If they take it as abrasive or an attitude problem, that's much more an indictment about their character as an artist than it is mine as a critic. I don't think people are going to stop discussing webcomics in the webcomics thread any time soon.
They are, as always, completely free not to read the webcomics thread at any time.
Not discussing webcomics in the webcomic thread was neither the point of, nor suggested by, my post.
Refusing to acknowledge the impact of your words as significant enough to merit consideration of the other party's feelings is kind of a bad attitude, yes, internet or not. Being a 'critic' doesn't preclude being empathetic.
I'm a little late to the critique discussion, but if I can just throw in my two cents, for me critiquing a comic is less about trying to amend certain elements of the comic, and more about opening a dialogue.
I mean, for example, I like Scott Kurtz. He is the coolest of dudes, and his art is sublime. That said, I will go on all day about the myriad issues in PvP, not only because, well, there are issues that are worth being discussed, but because I just like dissecting work. I dunno if it's just because I'm still trying to figure out my own thing as a fledgling writer, or because dispassionately evaluating a work and talking to others about it is fun for me, but honestly, I get more satisfaction out of just talking about elements of a story, as opposed to just saying "This worked, this didn't, cut the fat and make the characters more believable." More so if the person creating the work is involved in the discussion, because not only does that give both parties the chance to try and come to a mutually beneficial understanding about a story, but it adds some necessary context, which helps me understand exactly why they did what they did. I mean, don't get me wrong, conventional critiques are invaluable for improving one's work, and they're extremely valuable learning tools, but it just seems more fulfilling if both parties can talk about it.
That said, constant discussion and/or criticism of a work does wear thin after a while, and I do think that sometimes we go overboard a bit. But if you're going to put your work out for public consumption, then you have to be prepared for that risk, as well as others; you can't expect to be exempted from public input, especially if you want to improve at your craft, or be respected for what you contribute to media as a whole, online or offline.
Though I might have a different take on the whole thing, since I haven't had to try and bank on my own artistic talents yet.
TL;DR: I like talking about webcomics, and while I think people deserve a break from time to time, you can't put your stuff in the public eye, then complain when the public eye says your faces look like silly putty.
You're purposefully making discussion of a comic synonymous with directed dialogue at the creator of the comic. There's an important distinction there.
But the creator participates in the thread and responds to the crit?
Okay though I've kind of lost the plot in this one. I need to go back and re-read it. Is anyone else reading it too and would like to discuss it and make merry chatter
It seems like
the Valencian lawyer is getting them off with some Jack McCoy shit, so they can be mob-executed afterwards
I understand that the gun is going off with the use of its seefer, but I don't see it as a future tense of the story, I'm interpreting it (probably wrong) as happening at the same time as the trial or maybe before the trial.
That's fine. You can continue being abrasive, and people can continue to not like your attitude.
If they take it as abrasive or an attitude problem, that's much more an indictment about their character as an artist than it is mine as a critic. I don't think people are going to stop discussing webcomics in the webcomics thread any time soon.
They are, as always, completely free not to read the webcomics thread at any time.
Not discussing webcomics in the webcomic thread was neither the point of, nor suggested by, my post.
Refusing to acknowledge the impact of your words as significant enough to merit consideration of the other party's feelings is kind of a bad attitude, yes, internet or not. Being a 'critic' doesn't preclude being empathetic.
An open discussion of any medium will always include commentary on quality, it's a necessary implication of your post even if you didn't directly suggest it.
I really have no way of knowing what the impact of my words will be on the artist, because that's also up to the interpretation of the artist. Some artists are good at handling critique, others have incredibly thin skins and take even the mildest rebuke as a personal insult.
For my part, criticism of any artwork from an artist here is non-personal, and presented as frankly and plainly as possible. If I think something can be useful I'll make a suggestion. If something is technically wrong I'll comment on that too. Sometimes I'll be commenting beyond my depth or I'll simply say I like or don't like something. It's on the artist to accept that feedback as valid or not.
Suggesting that honest feedback, provided in good faith, become suppressed because it could be potentially "hurtful" seems far too much like coddling to me. I can't think of any artform that's immune to critique, I've yet to be given a good enough reason for the webcomics thread to be any different.
REMEMBER THE EIGHTIES
REMEMBER THE EIGHTIES
REMEMBER THE EIGHTIES
REMEMBER THE EIGHTIES
REMEMBER THE EIGHTIES
REMEMBER THE EIGHTIES
REMEMBER THE EIGHTIES
REMEMBER THE EIGHTIES
REMEMBER THE EIGHTIES
though to be fair, I couldn't even remember the name or the art style and even when I was watching it as a kid, I would always mix it up with Wayne's World
CorporateLogoThe toilet knowshow I feelRegistered Userregular
Bobby's World must have been some sort of court ordered community service for Howie Mandel
As was Shining Time Station
Do not have a cow, mortal.
0
Options
miscellaneousinsanitygrass grows, birds fly, sun shines,and brother, i hurt peopleRegistered Userregular
ohhhh man
I didn't remember Life with Louie at all but it all looks so familiar
I wonder how many hours of my childhood I spent watching television that I would ultimately retain no memories of
0
Options
Viscount Islands[INSERT SoKo HERE]...it was the summer of my lifeRegistered Userregular
I view a lot of Kochi's comics as soft-core porn why is this a deal?
I want to do with you
What spring does with the cherry trees.
0
Options
AntimatterDevo Was RightGates of SteelRegistered Userregular
i am not okay with this tom scioli
0
Options
KwoaruConfident SmirkFlawless Golden PecsRegistered Userregular
Posts
Not discussing webcomics in the webcomic thread was neither the point of, nor suggested by, my post.
Refusing to acknowledge the impact of your words as significant enough to merit consideration of the other party's feelings is kind of a bad attitude, yes, internet or not. Being a 'critic' doesn't preclude being empathetic.
I mean, for example, I like Scott Kurtz. He is the coolest of dudes, and his art is sublime. That said, I will go on all day about the myriad issues in PvP, not only because, well, there are issues that are worth being discussed, but because I just like dissecting work. I dunno if it's just because I'm still trying to figure out my own thing as a fledgling writer, or because dispassionately evaluating a work and talking to others about it is fun for me, but honestly, I get more satisfaction out of just talking about elements of a story, as opposed to just saying "This worked, this didn't, cut the fat and make the characters more believable." More so if the person creating the work is involved in the discussion, because not only does that give both parties the chance to try and come to a mutually beneficial understanding about a story, but it adds some necessary context, which helps me understand exactly why they did what they did. I mean, don't get me wrong, conventional critiques are invaluable for improving one's work, and they're extremely valuable learning tools, but it just seems more fulfilling if both parties can talk about it.
That said, constant discussion and/or criticism of a work does wear thin after a while, and I do think that sometimes we go overboard a bit. But if you're going to put your work out for public consumption, then you have to be prepared for that risk, as well as others; you can't expect to be exempted from public input, especially if you want to improve at your craft, or be respected for what you contribute to media as a whole, online or offline.
Though I might have a different take on the whole thing, since I haven't had to try and bank on my own artistic talents yet.
But the creator participates in the thread and responds to the crit?
It seems like
but what's his thread count
http://www.eatsleepsniff.com/
this is why I think we ought to be more specific than "caucasian"
like, is he half nordic or half anglo-saxon or half slavic or what
German, I think.
http://www.fallout3nexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=16534
perhaps this is a ruse
An open discussion of any medium will always include commentary on quality, it's a necessary implication of your post even if you didn't directly suggest it.
I really have no way of knowing what the impact of my words will be on the artist, because that's also up to the interpretation of the artist. Some artists are good at handling critique, others have incredibly thin skins and take even the mildest rebuke as a personal insult.
For my part, criticism of any artwork from an artist here is non-personal, and presented as frankly and plainly as possible. If I think something can be useful I'll make a suggestion. If something is technically wrong I'll comment on that too. Sometimes I'll be commenting beyond my depth or I'll simply say I like or don't like something. It's on the artist to accept that feedback as valid or not.
Suggesting that honest feedback, provided in good faith, become suppressed because it could be potentially "hurtful" seems far too much like coddling to me. I can't think of any artform that's immune to critique, I've yet to be given a good enough reason for the webcomics thread to be any different.
REMEMBER THE EIGHTIES
REMEMBER THE EIGHTIES
REMEMBER THE EIGHTIES
REMEMBER THE EIGHTIES
REMEMBER THE EIGHTIES
REMEMBER THE EIGHTIES
REMEMBER THE EIGHTIES
REMEMBER THE EIGHTIES
Because you were a fetus.
Speaking of the 90s, I just remembered this show
http://www.bobbysworld.net/
it uh
it isn't anything like I remember
though to be fair, I couldn't even remember the name or the art style and even when I was watching it as a kid, I would always mix it up with Wayne's World
And Life with Louie.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
As was Shining Time Station
I didn't remember Life with Louie at all but it all looks so familiar
I wonder how many hours of my childhood I spent watching television that I would ultimately retain no memories of
What spring does with the cherry trees.
i am not okay with this tom scioli
Because, as I recall, spex and skull man kinda made it a deal a while back and then munkus sorta did just recently and so her grapes be soured
A decent chunk of them are totes soft core porn though, that they have good art or stories don't change that