« Braid Conversation–The Nosy Guy at the Next Table | Home | My Final Word(s) on Braid, Maybe »
You Suck: The (Not So) Gentle Art of Critique
By Corvus | August 19, 2008
I recently sat in on the inaugural meetings of a writer’s group for aspiring video game writers. The club organizer asked me to say some inspiring words about how great my job is (I told them all about the unicorns, rainbows, poppies, you know, the happy lot of the self employed), and then asked me to say a few words on the topic of critique. I thought I’d share some of my thoughts here.
Critiques are something young art students are typically very uncomfortable with. They will often invent all sorts of justifications for minimizing the importance of critiques, frequently characterizing themselves as unconventional and misunderstood. Students who simply cannot adjust to the idea that art is an extremely subjective effort that requires quite objective mastery of a skill set ultimately drop out of school to fill some critical role in society. Something like… handing out credit card applications at a the local big box retail outlet. In their new role as a productive member of their community they learn, “Surprise!” that being critiqued is a part of life. Only once you’re out in the real world, people aren’t so nice about things and their critiques often sounds a lot like judgment, condemnation and excellent reasons to withhold your annual performance-based raise in salary. If only these students had learned about critiques from me early on, they could have saved themselves from a lot of nasty surprises. *kniw*
Critiques are a semi-formal process that require, at minimum, two fully involved people. There is the Transmitter, the person giving the critique, and the Receiver, the person who is having their work critiqued.The Transmitter’s job is by far the easier of the two and can be performed by following a few simple rules.
Avoid “You” Statements. Critiques are not a judgment on the person–they are an assessment of output. It doesn’t matter if the output is work performance or a painting. “You” statements put the Receiver on the defensive and seriously skews their reaction to what you’re saying. If that’s your intent, then you really shouldn’t be part of the critique in the first place. Seriously. Keep your focus on the work you’re critiquing and you’ll be heard a lot more easily.
Bad: “You used too many colors.”
Good: “I feel that the number of colors in the piece might be a bit excessive.”
Ask Questions If you find it difficult to avoid a “you” statement, turn it into a question and get the Receiver talking. Invariably, they will shed light on what they were attempting to do and you’ll have more information to work with. Be sure to ask real questions, not rhetorical ones.
Bad: “What are you, stupid?”
Good: “What sort of book are you intending to write?”
Don’t Tell Them How To Do It This is one of the most commonly broken rules in the critiques I’ve sat through. The intention is usually to help, but it rarely does. The Transmitter must understand that the Receiver has their own style, their own technique, their own specific skill sets and that if they did thing just like you, well… they aren’t going to so it’s no use speculating about it.
Bad: “If you want the guy to look really cool, you should give him giant metal bat wings. That’d be awesome!”
Good: “I’m not getting a strong impression of the character from this sketch.”
Be Intentionally Helpful A genuinely helpful spirit goes a long way. The benefit to this rule is that the more helpful a Transmitter you are, the better Transmitter your Receiver is going to be when it’s your turn in the hot seat. Or, if you’re a manager critiquing performance, the more helpful you are with your criticism, the more likely you are to see the sort of improvement you’re expecting from the Receiver.
Bad: “I don’t care for you and you’re not getting a raise. Ever.”
Good: “I can’t justify giving you a raise until we deal with some of these issues. Let’s put together a plan of action.”
A Receiver, on the other hand, has a Herculean task and the rules are much more difficult to master, although there are really only two of them.
Don’t Take it Personally This is the buzz phrase of every insensitive jerk out there, isn’t it? They land into you with both fists swinging and laugh when they blacken your eye, expecting you to shrug it off and not take it personally. But it really is an important rule. You should assume, no matter the intention of the Transmitter, that the critique is there to help you clarify your message, improve the effectiveness of your output. Also recognize that the Transmitter is basing everything they say on their own experiences in life, and that their own preferences and beliefs often get in the way of their communication. If you don’t like the feedback you’re getting, recognize that the Transmitter’s own personal bias is coloring their reaction and work with them to better understand their criticism. It’s possible they’re having the reaction you’re looking to inspire, but they aren’t comfortable with it.
Bad: “Why do you hate my work so much?!”
Good: “What sort of emotional reaction are you having to the use of color?”
Be Willing to Grow No one is perfect. Even if you have perfected your craft to a near inhuman level, not every Transmitter is going to respond to it in the same way. Be willing, particularly if the Transmitter is part of your target audience, to make changes to your output. If your boss thinks you’re being lazy, figure out what you’re doing to give them that impression, or what you can do to alleviate it. If your character design class thinks your anti-hero looks like a wimp, figure out how to redesign the character to make her more appealing. If your writing group feels your use of IM chatter reduces the emotional impact of your historic novel, learn to write in the style of the period you’re focusing on.
Bad: “Well, if you don’t think he’s a cool looking character, you’re just not getting my vision.”
Good: “What about him strikes you as particularly ineffective?”
There are, of course, all sorts of subsets of these skills. For example–A Receiver ought to ask questions of the Transmitter–in essence becoming the Transmitter in a critique of the original Transmitter’s critiquing ability. It should also be noted that the adjective “cool” is overused. Find better, more descriptive, words to use. But examining all of the myriad communication skills in detail is far beyond the scope of this post. If you’re really interested in being better at critiques, you should read books on communication and language. The detail you should focus on is that the critique exists to benefit the Receiver, to help them refine their output so that it more successfully communicates what they’re trying to get across.
This approach to the critique is very dependent upon the idea that the artist (the critique’s receiver) may control the plot and narrative of their output, but the audience (the critique’s transmitter) is fully in charge of the story–that is, the experience of the output. The critique reverses the creative process, allowing the audience to explain their story in direct contrast to the inspiring work so that the artist can witness, first hand, their (in)ability to achieve their goals. In other words, the critique is a formal dialog specifically designed to help you master your output so that you stand a much better chance of communicating the type of story you’re aiming for.
What are your experiences (good or bad) with critiques? Any helpful tips you care to share? Do you see a correlation between formal critiques and the feedback you receive from managers and/or clients? Please share your thoughts in the comments!
Tagged:critique. | 11 Comments »
August 19th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
As a young fledgeling game designer, I’m usually flattered by the very little critique I get for my work, because it actually shows a willingness to consider its content in a more meaningful way than “I liked it” or “I didn’t like it”. In fact, if I wind up getting more criticism in the future, I’ll take it as a positive sign, because it would mean that my work is getting enough notoriety to be played by a more diverse range of people, rather than just friends and folks whose personalities are predisposed to liking my stuff. (Not that the latter group of people isn’t important, of course.)
And of course, since I’m relatively inexperienced, I want to improve at my craft, so that I can better communicate what it is I have to say through stories and gameplay. Having my stuff formally critiqued is a convenient method of helping me figure out how to do so.
But then again, I went to a university, not an art school, so that may have something to do with my lack of a fragile ego.
August 19th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
Very well Corvus, I will bring the french social philosophy to YOU
Bourdieu talks about “symbolic violence,” which he means literally more than figuratively (i.e. symbols-being-violent as opposed to protests or bombings) and i can’t help think about how that applies here.
now of course this has to be treated carefully, ’cause someone could use it as a blanket rejection of all criticism, but i think it’s important to point out how meaning is hijacked/dictated in our everday lives in ways that we don’t realize (i immediately admit guilt) by ourselves. in a way, telling someone a painting needs more red in it, can be someone imposing communist ideology on another without either person knowing it. i particularly like how you focus on the audience-artist dialectic, because in the end we’re not trying to make something “better,” but “______ for a certain audience”
August 19th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
@Deirdra It sounds to me like you’ve got the skills of a Receiver down pat!
@Alex If your intention is to only produce work that means something to yourself, then there is no need for the critique process. A critique implies you’re interested in a conversation, in communicating something. I’d say that a critique can help you become more clear, rather than “better.” A critique is a mirror that reflects how your work appears–in that particular person’s eyes.
August 19th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
its funny you say that because i was actually going to put succinct instead of “_____” but i figured i’d leave it open-ended as some artists go for ambiguity. i was trying to say why your advice makes sense on a variety of levels rather than just practically, because although that interest in communicating may come from a symbolically violent place, being aware of this removes the violence and nothing is taken personally. in my example if they realize he only like red cause he’s communist both people can move forward constructively – if the painter wants to appeal to communists he’ll use more red. i agree with your advice, i just wanted to go meta with it, hehe
August 19th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
Meta. And French. *kniw*
August 19th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
MetaFrench is actually the secret last boss of Metal Gear Solid 6.
August 20th, 2008 at 5:18 am
Nice article! I think especially in computer games, the art of critique is yet dangerously undeveloped.
I would like to comment on two points you’ve mentioned:
“Don’t Tell Them How To Do It” – I really think this depends on who is doing the critique and to what purpose. For example, Edward Tufte quite quite often criticizes different pieces of information design by re-designing them according to certain rules. Comparing the original and re-design not only helps to prove his point, it also helps his audience to gain an understanding for the principles of information design.
Now, obviously information design is not quite art but games aren’t quite art either. (oops, I hope that won’t spawn another discussion)
“Avoid “You” Statements” – This one is quite often difficult. In many cases, the artist choses to stage a kind of act around his work and his persona becomes part of this work. Kinda like in the move “The Prestige”. I speaking of guys like Tomonobu_Itagaki or Mike Wilson.
Or to give a less extreme example: In your recent comment on Braid you did mention some of the things Jonathan Blow said OUTSIDE of his game. The relationship between Braid and Jonathan’s other works – or generally his identity – has significance for evaluating Braid.
The reputation of an author is also important even in the scientific community, where an objective review seems more possible.
August 20th, 2008 at 5:41 am
@Krystian Thanks for the feedback!
I do think good video game design is more subjective than good information design. As I mentioned to someone recently, set two designers down with the same set of game mechanics and you’re likely to get two, if not three, very different, and quite likely good, games.
As far as “you” statements go, I think it’s quite possible to incorporate the Receiver’s statements (another form of output, no?) that were made outside a work that’s being critiqued, and to do so without breaking this rule. Which of these sounds like a stronger critique statement for Mike Miller’s output?
“You market your studios in a really juvenile way. You’re hurting the industry with your blatant sexism.”
“Your marketing traditionally is filled with juvenile humor and thinly veiled innuendo. I worry that this is not the most constructive approach to take in an industry that’s attempting to mature and reach new audiences.”
August 20th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
I once wrote a short story for a creative writing class that was basically about two college guys going on a short road trip; I had a lot of fun describing the characters and their quirks: one had a habit of skipping classes for three days to do nothing but play a JRPG and eat Chinese takeout, for example. The other was a physics major, so it ended up including a lot of nerdy references to games, LOTR, The Matrix, and Heart of Darkness (randomly…). One of the comments I got on the story was that I tried too hard to write from a male perspective–dudes don’t think about The Matrix ALL the time. Which cracked me up because I wrote them as characters, not as MALE characters, and I’d given them many of the same interests as me!
But overall that was a pretty good class, and the professor went over some of the stuff you’ve written here at the start. I specifically remember the “avoid you statements” thing, and everyone in the class really made it a point to say things like “I think this could be developed more” or whatever. Though generally everyone was too nice to say anything negative, haha.
August 20th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
I have been in those professional groups and guild where, as a young writer, I have heard such a critique as, “If you were a better writer, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.” Bearing that thought in mind, what could I possibly carry away from such a critique.
Realistically, the value of a critique is in the recievers perception of the words used; howvever, language is a vital area of concern when defining the difference of constructive, and critical critique.
Corvus, your comment are dead on target. (pardon the cliche’) Too often we have people attempting to critique the skills of the artist and try doing so with a lack of ethics, language skills, and professionalism.
Might I offer some advice to those who wish to be involved in critiquing the works of any writer. If your goal is to constructively build on the writers talents, then consider using language skills, and maintain a sense of professionalism about it– remember, this is writing (you know–LANGUAGE). Artists aren’t the sensitive creatures everyone thinks they are, but we do understand the difference between those that are trying to be nice, and those that are talking from some other usefull part of their anatomy.
Professionalism goes a long way– on both sides of this issue.
August 25th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
I think the “misunderstood” mantra is a byproduct of the artist rejecting the concept of art being subjective experiences.
I’ve noticed many tend to banter on about “their vision” as a means to regain ownership over the piece they feel critiquing has denied them. If you do not see the point they were making from their perspective (an impossible feat given these are internal)then you clearly got it wrong or must be informed how you are to view the piece. People wonder why arrogance is bred in these situations?
On the flip side critiquing is a truly lost art often misunderstood to mean criticism. I’ve rarely had an evaluation that didn’t involve the logic that, since your decision wasn’t in line with the management, then you made a mistake that must be corrected. Then they must be reassured you won’t do it again.
This often happens even when the results are favorable, it is the method, not the outcome. This breeds frustration. Most evaluations from experienced are designed to meet the expectations of person doing the review to see if you were successful. This is where you are pleasing the subjective views of the person doing the analysis and a “right versus wrong” situation is created. Expression gives way to placation and the status quo never produces great things.
I think most people need to be mature enough to accept the critique and to learn when something personal is at stake. Lets face it, creating something is a personal experience and while humans can strive to be objective we must rely on professional attitudes to carry us above that personal involvement.
Many performing this task need to be aware that it is the subtle that helps keep the lines of communication open. Artist are artist, peers among peers. There is a point where a reviewer needs to engage them one-on-one as a creative mind and then “share” ways based on their collective experience to improve. Those being critiqued should feel mentored rather than judged and that relationship with direct suggestion can make the difference between “fixing” your art to match and striving to improve it.