AMV Critical Metatheory

[Kionon]

What I meant by offensive is ideas like sexism, racism and such.

I think art often explores these themes. I think there are AMVs which have explored these themes. Certainly sexism. It'd be interesting to consider what a feminist AMV critical theory would look like...

Now, if you're talking about the promotion of an -ism, well, even propaganda is considered art, even if the purpose of that art is something we strongly disagree with.

[butterflo]

Argh, editing is disabled:/

offensive ideas make valid form of expression, but being valid doesn't make it wrong to criticise the idea.. imo.
I'm saying this because I've seen some movies with implied 'immature men' sexism.. and there was quite a stir in my country. Most of people here are male-dominant, btw.

[Emong]

Is there value in reviewing or analysing AMVs?

If there isn't then I've certainly been wasting many hours of my life

Lately I've been a little bit critical towards the idea of constructive criticism because it implies that the purpose of reviews is to help the editor improve him or her self. Another nasty connotation is that the reviewer is in an objective position to tell the editor how to do this. Of course I'm not against self-improvement as such but I tend to prioritize the social function of reviews: it's about putting your work out there and others sharing thoughts about it. A review can be an end in itself, not just a tool for the editor to improve him or her self.

To be a bit speculative here, maybe when we announce a new work of ours the most elementary need is just to be recognized? It's a social thing. Getting positive, negative, constructive etc. feedback is secondary. I don't write long opinions only in order to get into detail but also because the editor most likely appreciates it that someone has spent much thought and time on his or her work. If you put 80 hours into an AMV it's only fair if somebody is willing to give you the attention. Just remember to reciprocate: it's a community afterall

[BasharOfTheAges]

Is there value in reviewing or analysing AMVs?

Sure. Whether or not it's valuable to the reviewee, it's certainly benificial to the reviewer. Thinking critically is an important skill. Teaching others to think critically is even more important. It's an exercise in broadening the mind, and can really help you keep sharp mentally. It teaches you to not only question others, but to question your own notions of value.

Where does criticism of the work stop and criticism of what creator start?

Whenever you ascribe intent, motivation, or effort to a work you are actually talking about the creator, not their work.

Is criticism of the creator always inappropriate?

Not always, but most of the time it requires knowledge outside the finished product. In a group setting, the extra knowledge someone might have isn't always presented as such. Something like knowing that scene X in the anime looked nothing like what was in the video, so the creator obviouslly had to put in a tremendous amount of work to achieve the final product is a perfectly fine statement to make.

What is the best format for critical theory? + In what format should group criticism occur?

It depends greatly on your time constraints, the number of people involved, and the number of videos involved. I prefer something in real time if you have a small number of videos - there's something about the fluidity of open discussion that broadens the discussion far better than having everyone in their own little corners. I prefer gathering my thoughts and filling up some pages with notes if there are a bunch of videos to go over, though.

Must a creator give permission for any given and specific type of criticism to occur, especially if the work is posted publicly?

I think they gave that permission implicitly by making the work public. That said, if they specifically made their intention of not being interested in it known, then it's not only a waste of time, but a dick move to bother with their stuff.

Should criticism be anonymous?

That depends on if it fits in the format.

I got one that says
[hits: 77][star count: 9][star avg: 4.11]

so that's either .117 stars per hit, or 316 stars total, or 68 people who didn't leave stars?

Hits doesn't mean download of the actual video, it means page views for your video information page. So you get a hit if they even just load up the page. You can, however, see actual download/previews by selecting the "Edit Video Info" link on the sidebar, if you want to see how many have watched the video but just haven't left stars yet.

To add even more to that, the counter is log-in sensitive only. Meaning, if you're logged in, you visit the comments page for a video a hundred times, you only count as one hit, but if people who are logged out (or web crawling index bots) visit the page a hundred times, they count as a hundred hits.

[TritioAFB]

My kind of topic. We should be friends

Is there value in reviewing or analysing AMVs?

Of course. Normally when I'm not making an AMV, I always like to 'Study' about the hobby. While every editor has gotten his/her style, reviewing AMVs helps you to discover many other areas of the hobby. This is very important because if you don't take your time to think in a critical way, you'll be doing the same thing always and always. Besides, having a wide vision of the AMVs will help you in the moments you have to help as a judge in AMV Contests.

In the moment we stop analysing about the AMVs, in that moment the hobby doesn't make sense anymore

What is the definition of AMV critical theory?

It shows the relationship between the criticism and the analysis that involves the creators and the audience

Where does criticism of the work stop and criticism of what creator start?

In the moment the video stands alone itself as the main actor of the discussion

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.

What is the best format for critical theory?

There shouldn't be a format since the criticism may develop in many different ways, putting a format reminds like a kind of 'Only under these conditions criticism can be made'

Must a creator give permission for any given and specific type of criticism to occur, especially if the work is posted publicly?

Really? If a creator wants to have control about what kind of feedback he/she may receive about the clip, then the clip will not be public first. From the moment you make a video public, you're giving authorization to any kind of criticism, no matter if it's good or bad.

Should criticism be anonymous?

Yes and no. If you're not afraid about the reactions you might receive, there's no need to be anonymous, like if someone is going to merely bash by going anonymous. But sometimes, going anonymous might be a clever move

I'll continue later

[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.