I think I'm just going to answer the questions given:
Is there value in reviewing or analysing AMVs?
Absolutely. From both ends of the table. First off, as a person/editor on the recieving end, I look at it as a way to gauge my ideas and where I might need to improve. After 12+ years, while I feel like I can improve on a lot of things still, I very rarely take any comments that reflect that. Mostly because I already know what I need to improve on. That said, I mostly want to know what people think, good and bad. You'll notice that I ask people to elaborate on their comments if I don't understand their point of view. Ultimately, the process is a way for me to understand how other people think. It may or may not influence what I make in the future though.
Secondly, as a person reviewing another video, I want other people to improve on themselves. Especially newer editors who may not have the basics down or are lacking skills that would make their work much better. I also see it as a way to see what other people are doing and how they justify their work. Just like myself, when I make a video, it's how I want it to be. If there's a flaw, it's there on purpose or I admit my laziness. Either way, I already know about it and it's in the final video for a reason. There are other seasoned editors that feel the same way. The process of review allows me to understand their views on their video better.
What is the definition of AMV critical theory?
The study of reviewing and critiquing amvs.
Where does criticism of the work stop and criticism of what creator start?
To me, it's always the work unless you are looking at the creator as a whole. When I review a video (or judge one for that matter) I look at the video I am currently watching. I do not compare it to another video. I do not let what I think of the editor influence what I think of the video.
Is criticism of the creator always inappropriate?
I don't think so, as long as it's within context of the video you are reviewing. There's actually a good documentary (I believe it's called Critic) about this very thing where film critics are down right ripping into actors while reviewing a bad film. I think this is wrong. There's no reason to rip into an editor if they made a bad video (aka a video you didn't like). If they make a series of bad videos then I think it would be appropriate to perhaps critique their editing as a whole but never just outright rip into them and flame for just the one video.
What is the best format for critical theory?
I don't think there's a best format. I think comments systems, forums, group chats all have different focus and methods that provide different results. It really depends on the type of critique you want.
Must a creator give permission for any given and specific type of criticism to occur, especially if the work is posted publicly?
No. By posting it in public you are subject to any criticism that might come your way. If you don't want criticism, don't post it publicly. That said, I believe if someone were to show you a video, that they have not yet posted publicly, then you shouldn't post it for them, nor share it without their consent. This happened to me personally a few years back with a beta I sent to a small handful of people. Some how it made its way around to a fair number of people, whom then started messaging me to finish it. These were people I didn't know at the time and didn't explicitly want their opinions on a work in progress.
Should criticism be anonymous?
Yes and no. I think people are much more open about what they believe when they know their comments will be anonymous. However, this leaves accountability on the side of the road. As a reviewer, I can rip into a video and they'll never know it was me. However, they will also never know it was me if I gave them good advice. I look at advice differently based on the person giving it. If Vlad walks up to me and says that he thinks I could really improve my videos if I did blah blah blah. I will listen to him over some new editor I've never heard of saying the same thing. That doesn't mean I wont take the advice, but Vlad's opinion, in my mind, carries much more weight then the other person. Anonymity doesn't allow for this type of thing and I believe a lot of editors generally just blow off advice from people when it's anonymous.
In what format should group criticism occur?
I like a round robin type approach. Everyone watches the video and they each comment on it. However I can see and open forum working as well where anyone can comment at any time, perhaps with a moderator in case things get out of hand.
trythil wrote:
I suppose one major factor there is the extent to which people think AMVs and their authors can exhibit artistic development; there is no point in criticizing or reviewing a form that is static.
I believe AMVs as a whole can be considered a form of art, wither or not an editor believe that themselves or intends a work of theirs to be such. I believe it's all in the perspective of the viewer. A fresh piece of shit in my cat's litter box is just a piece of shit to me but to someone else it could be an amazing piece of natural art. My cat is not an artist, nor did she intend for her piece of shit to be art, yet, someone out there might think it is and therefore might find something in there to comment on. It's a loose example, I know.
Which is why I don't really believe in the idea of there being no point to criticism or review of AMVs as whole. If I personally believed that AMVs weren't art, I wouldn't critique them for that reason. Being who I am though, I wouldn't prevent other people from doing so to my own videos. If you see art in my crap, then have fun with that, I just wouldn't care. The moment I start caring about what other people think of what I made, then I've assigned some representing value of development to my work, in which case, I should mind as well think of it as art.
