July 3rd thursday Crit format
Hey guys, for those of you who were in the 3rd thursday session, we would love to hear what you thought about it! Let us know! : )
Russ Van Dine last edited by
I really love the format!
JajaJulie last edited by
I really enjoyed the format as well! It was nice to get acknowledgement and to receive feedback after working so hard on a piece. Even if it was in a smaller dose (which I personally do not mind); those keywords/small critique can definitely help steer someone in the right direction the next time around! :)
Valdas Japertas last edited by
I've got a mixed feeling about it.
I watched some of the old critiques on Youtube before and found them very interesting and useful, because not only you get to see what was wrong with the picture, but how to fix it.
This time I decided I want to enter 3rd Thursday myself. It's the first time I took part in any illustrator competition and it was awesome to get feedback from professional artists. Just a few comments like "you missed the concept" and "there are problems with anatomy" are so much more valuable than all the ego stroking normally received from friends and family. However this format is less watchable and instructive for someone who is not taking part in the competition.
The old format is better for spreading the word about SVS. The new format is a nice gesture to the people taking part in the competition. The new format is OK, but I prefer the idea of keeping the old format at the same time encouraging people to post their progress on this forum and give your comments here. This would keep the quality of critique videos on the same level, increase member involvement in forum activity and keep people pushing their limits to get noticed on 3rd Thursday.
Chip Valecek last edited by
I think it was great, I liked hearing what you had to say about each piece. I also like the idea you mentioned in the the beginning about maybe doing three draw overs and then say something quick about each piece. Its the best of both worlds.
QuietYell last edited by
Granted, this is only my second to experience, but I also have mixed feelings…
Version A (“Original”):
This is great to see the specific images as they would be approached from the SVSLearn team/instructors. It is highly informative for the specific piece as well as to the unspoken needs of others. There is something intriguing about seeing the paint-overs with commentary; much like putting on a new pair of glasses to see more clearly or like walking in someone else’s shoes.
Unfortunately, however, this significantly limits who gets to receive any pro/con comments about all their hard work. Plus, SVSLearn already offers a wide range (and increasing) of courses dedicated to some of these paint-over issues; though, I suppose those courses do not address an individual’s particular needs on their particular piece.
Version B (“New”):
This is great in that all participants get to have some sort of pro/con comment on their piece; however, it seems to take quite a long time, and while I may be mistaken or bias, it seemed that the first entries reviewed received more commentary than the last entries reviewed. This is understandable since critiquing can be tiring, especially as it gets later at night.
I think that due to SVSLearn having courses that address drawing, painting, layout, etc., I tend to lean more towards Version-B, since it gives an added value to entering the critique session. After hours of work, it is nice to hear at least one pro/con about the piece entered.
Perhaps a hybrid could be achieved by only doing 1 paint-over instead of 3 (like in Version-A), and only one person comment per piece of all pieces instead of everyone speaking on all pieces (like in Version-B) (or restrict your comments to some time constraint or something like that).
Also, this may not be desired by others and it may be too much work beyond what you do already (btw, thank you so much for all the time and effort you put into these critiques and courses), but, perhaps the paint-overs could be done in a separate, non-live recording. I see that there are paid live critiques in the course line-up, so maybe this suggestion conflicts with those, but it would make public those valuable paint-overs per my thoughts in the Version-A paragraphs.
Either way, thank you again for offering the opportunity to contribute into the critiques and receive any commentary, especially with the kindness & encouragement you all give! It is much appreciated!
Lynn Larson last edited by
I did like the new format. There have been so many times I've entered and wanted to scream in frustration for not knowing what i did wrong. It was nice to know what i did that missed the mark, and what i did that was alright.
That being said, i really like the draw overs too. Sometimes being able to see the little things that could help take an image to the next level is so very helpful, no matter who's images are being critiqued.
I can see how it could easily hit 3-4 hours with the new format though. I think a happy medium could be reached somehow, say 1 draw over each, and a verbal feedback on the honorable mentions. I know when my image just gets shown with no comments, i try harder the next month.
Thanks again for doing the 3rd Thursdays, so much amazing information shared!!
smceccarelli last edited by smceccarelli
I really learn a lot from everybody´s and anybody´s work being critiqued, so I am ok with both formats. I think even hearing only the most prominent positive or negative aspect about each piece is a great learning experience, so I tend to prefer this new format, as it give more opportunities to review different types of work for their merits or learning opportunities. As others have said, maybe doing a couple of more extensive critiques of very few pieces, followed by a quick review of all works gives the best of both worlds.
My concern is that at the time this is usually done it is 5 am in my part of the world. Around 6:15 I have to wake up my kids and start the day, so it looks like I am going to consistently miss the second half....and of course it cuts into your sleeping hours!
Either way, I think it is an awesome format and you rock for investing so much of your time and effort in helping other artists to grow...so I am fine with however is done!
By the way - since I missed half of it this morning - when will the recording be available?
JajaJulie last edited by
The video has been posted on youtube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mG52L1bwU18 :)
Thanks for the feedback guys. It's nice to work this new format into the rotation. Of course, we aren't going to just do one or the other. Sometimes we will do drawovers and other times we will do the fast crit like last night, and even something in between. : )
Russ Van Dine last edited by
mybe every other can be an all critique, I learned alot from the draw-overs,
Chip Valecek last edited by
@Lee-White Maybe you guys should do draw overs on all of them :)
Jason Bowen last edited by
This was the best show for me, as I got to hear a response for each picture which is great for all the artists involved, but for me personally I learned more on a design and storytelling point of view.
Dulcie last edited by
I like both formats, and the idea of putting this version into the mix. It is undoubtedly really helpful even to have a couple of words on what you did right, and where you could get better...even if it's just one good thing, and one thing to improve....because then you have a direction on where to improve next month. But I wouldn't want to lose the old format completely, because the draw-overs and extensive critique is really interesting and informative no matter whose work it is.
I'd be good with having a mixture of formats depending on what suits the month. For example, if you don't have so many entries (eg, maybe lots of people going on holiday and less time to draw) then it's easier to talk about everyone. But other months with bumper entries, then you could stick with fewer but more extensive critiques.
As others have said already, I too really appreciate the time you all put into 3rd Thursdays and SVS in general. It is a fantastic resource!
Timbdsf last edited by
I second a mixture of both! Thanks so much for what you do. SVS has helped me improve dramatically!
Brad last edited by
This was my first entry into 3rd Thursday (after having watched many videos of previous crits) - I love the new format of everyone getting a brief critique, I greatly appreciated the feedback on my piece and was able to also learnt a lot from the higher number of other critiques. I think it works really well. Thanks!
graphitedad last edited by
I like that you touch on each illustration. It really validates an artist's work after taking a lot of time and effort to come up with an idea. Plus, your conversational approach makes it very easy to listen to. It's like we're a part of the conversation (which if we're watching in real time, I guess we are.)
I think the weak link to the critique is that it is pretty long-winded, especially when you start getting excited about different artists, art principles, art history, etc. Now, don't get me wrong, I love to geek out about art, and if I had all night to listen to the critique and all the information and knowledge that you guys have to offer, I gladly would. Alas, responsibilities!
So here's an idea for a smoother format for future critiques. First, talk about one strong point in the illustration. Keep it short and simple stating what it is and why it works. You can even point out aspects that remind you of a famous artist, but keep it simple.
Second, point out one weakness. Again, keep it short and simple.
Lastly, offer what would really help the work to be a stronger piece. Keep it short and sweet, but this could be an opportunity to share what SVS classes might be helpful with developing the skills an artist may need to be more successful.
If you do this, I can almost guarantee your critiques will be under an hour.
Thanks for the feedback guys! I agree with many of your points. Will, Jake, and I will be discussing all of it soon and will let you know what we come up with. : )