AMV Critical Metatheory

[Kionon]

Is criticism of the creator always inappropriate?

I don't think so. It will be inappropriate if the creator doesn't mention any negative aspect about the video, focusing only in the awesomeness of the video, but if the creator is concient about what changes could be made, or if there were other ways to do the video, then I will not believe their thoughts will be inappropiate.

I was actually speaking to criticism directed at and editor rather than at a specific example of their work. As an example, saying that an editor makes the same technical mistake in every video despite how many times she is told how to correct it. One might come to the conclusion that the editor either doesn't care enough to correct the mistake or has some specific artistic purpose for never correcting it (and then, is it really a mistake?).

However, it is intriguing to consider what role an editor has in the critique and analysis of his or her own work.

[butterflo]

As an example, saying that an editor makes the same technical mistake in every video despite how many times she is told how to correct it. One might come to the conclusion that the editor either doesn't care enough to correct the mistake or has some specific artistic purpose for never correcting it (and then, is it really a mistake?).

To consider something a mistake requires correct answer, therefore I consider all opinions and critiques as completely subjective.
I could talk about efficiency though, rather than the technique itself.

[TritioAFB]

Is criticism of the creator always inappropriate?

I don't think so. It will be inappropriate if the creator doesn't mention any negative aspect about the video, focusing only in the awesomeness of the video, but if the creator is concient about what changes could be made, or if there were other ways to do the video, then I will not believe their thoughts will be inappropiate.

I was actually speaking to criticism directed at and editor rather than at a specific example of their work. As an example, saying that an editor makes the same technical mistake in every video despite how many times she is told how to correct it. One might come to the conclusion that the editor either doesn't care enough to correct the mistake or has some specific artistic purpose for never correcting it (and then, is it really a mistake?).

However, it is intriguing to consider what role an editor has in the critique and analysis of his or her own work.

Of course my friend, I was already concious about that. But I felt in the mood to mention also the perspective of the editors themselves.

While the value of the criticism sometimes depends also of the intention: Constructive vs Destructive

[Kionon]

While the value of the criticism sometimes depends also of the intention: Constructive vs Destructive

I think that intentionally destructive criticism, while protected by a full understanding of freedom of expression, is not appropriate in an academic setting. I believe that most critical theories, including AMV critical theory, would preclude destructive criticism from being considered valid discourse.

The issue is often: what constitutes destructive criticism, and is destructive criticism only contingent on the intention to inflict pain on the creator of the work being reviewed? One of the reasons that the administrators of #AMV-Review ceased posting logs without permission of the creators was the charge that certain critical comments made by -Review participants were inappropriate forms of criticism, and ultimately destructive rather than constructive. Drama ensued when those participants defended their views as constructive rather than destructive, as their intent was to provide commentary which the creator could use to improve, regardless of perhaps some... colorful language choices.

Does intent matter? Does perception matter? If a perception seems to be in contradiction to an intent, which should come out on top?

[butterflo]

Does intent matter? Does perception matter? If a perception seems to be in contradiction to an intent, which should come out on top?

!
I've actually put a lot of thought on this issue. My conclusion was 'they both matter, but perception has priority.' The reasons are thus.

A communication is constituted of: intention, conversion, language, perception, and understanding. Only conversion and perception can affect intention and understanding to contradict with each other. If a person perceives something as destructive and also the speaker had no intention to be destructive(rather than claiming so), perceived destructiveness is prioritized over constructive intent because perception requires object. Object, in here 'language', is a result of conversion on speaker's side, therefore less-considerate word choice causes contradiction.

Even if the person has 'tendency' to perceive something as destructive it would still put priority on perception, because tendency is a matter of average-extreme; accusing for having non-average tendency is not valid.

[BasharOfTheAges]

Clearly we must all hold review sessions strapped up to a poly. It is the only way to be sure.

[Kionon]

Even if the person has 'tendency' to perceive something as destructive it would still put priority on perception, because tendency is a matter of average-extreme; accusing for having non-average tendency is not valid.

Not sure I concur with this view of perception vs. intent. If you have a community standard which agrees with that the phrasing of the criticism is not destructive, does the perception really still get priority? Under that theoretical paradigm, any creator who dislikes any kind of criticism could merely say, "This negative criticism is destructive. It's bad because it makes me feel bad. So you should only say positive things." However, I do not believe this is the role of artistic criticism. The old adage, "If you have nothing nice to say, don't say anything at all" is not applicable in critical theory.

In fact, I believe much of the culture clash between the Org establishment and new members (especially new members from YouTube and the like) is due to this different view of whether or not feedback should be supportive or critical. If it is only supportive and is never critical, it is, by definition, not criticism and not covered by critical theory. It is a different type of feedback altogether.

[ChaosGod]

I would in fact want people positively or not to criticise my works I do however believe if it is not positive criticism it should come with explanation because I would want to learn from my mistakes or other things if I can improve in anyway and can learn from that criticism then it can be viewed as positive either way. Just my 2cents

[butterflo]

Under that theoretical paradigm, any creator who dislikes any kind of criticism could merely say, "This negative criticism is destructive. It's bad because it makes me feel bad. So you should only say positive things." However, I do not believe this is the role of artistic criticism. The old adage, "If you have nothing nice to say, don't say anything at all" is not applicable in critical theory.

Neither do I. Criticism =/= good comments only. True, any creator can claim a negative criticism as destructive, but this paradigm also invalidates 'I feel bad about it so it itself is bad' because such statements are only true when perception is given as 100% accurate. I prioritized perception because I see criticism as a 'trigger' for that emotion.

I wouldn't give any positive or negative comments on such person though.. especially if he insists on having perfect perception of my intentions

[butterflo]

Not sure I concur with this view of perception vs. intent. If you have a community standard which agrees with that the phrasing of the criticism is not destructive, does the perception really still get priority?

(can't edit my post! argh!)
Yes, regardless of the intention being constructive or destructive. Maybe I need to clarify more
What I meant by prioritizing perception is not that intention itself is destructive, but to perceive something as negative and feel bad about it needs a trigger(not 'fault').