Ps.
 

My own preference in doing crits is to work with those who are doing the hard work, learning how to draw properly first, working from life, etc.

I will not help those who work from photo reference anymore.

I don't believe anyone here has forgotten what it was like to be starting out. Many many accounts have been posted by young or new artists who got their start relying primarily on this Forum and who have been counseled and instructed through to very accomplished and successful stature in the profession.

And actually, artists of even high skill levels sometimes get a delayed or minor response. It depends on who is available and able to respond and whether they feel they have something to contribute.

The question as to why more participation is solicited seems to incorrectly assume that more participation by underqualified artists is being sought, and so the question as to why the administrators would want to do that misses the point.

More participation by qualified artists would be the ideal. And ideally, almost every member, by virtue of having submitted work for peer review and having been given posting privileges, is qualified as well to actively participate, including the offering of critiques, whether extensive or more tightly focused.

But most of them do not actively participate and, so, for example, requests for critiques may go wanting. The administrators of the site, several of whom might be unavailable at any given time due to work commitments, or vacations or holidays, can't carry the whole load. Therefore it would be desirable if more qualified readers could be encouraged and persuaded to become participating members. Then there would be fewer and fewer orphaned paintings or drawings, simply because there would be more people willing to have a go at commenting on another member's work, or offering other technical suggestions.

During a period of time when I was able to be much more active on the Forum, I used to go to the critiques area and deliberately scan new threads to which no replies had yet been made. I can't speak for whether anyone else -- administrators or members -- does that these days, but it did help keep "goose eggs" to a minimum. Anyone could adopt that practice, still -- it doesn't have to be moderators.

A lack of responses can't be taken as a judgment that the work of a juried member is "unacceptable." If I'm available, I'm much more likely to critique something that needs work (that is, that's not yet "acceptable") than something that is highly polished, but there are exceptions. As Sharon mentioned, there are some members from pre-review days who have been given very extensive critiques and incisive recommendations for improvement over a long period of time, but who continue to post work with the same problems, over and over again. When I see a somewhat dated thread with "0" replies, I often check it out but with the presumption now that it may be one of those cases, because a post that doesn't elicit at least some minimal response is rare. If it is one of those cases, then as I suspect is the practice with other prospective critiquers with limited time, I accept that I've already said everything I can in the case in question and I move on. That is very much different from ignoring him or her.

Again, the ideal would be for a larger body of qualified members to accept a kind of apprenticeship relationship with the lesser accomplished -- something that is actually highly instructional for both parties. That might be accomplished through greater membership numbers, but the question, really, is how to successful rally the current membership to contribute more. If every member committed to one critique per month, the site activity would skyrocket.

I understand that you would not want to reply to someone whom you feel would not benefit from your help, Sharon.

However, I'm sure that you can understand how it would be intimidating for someone who, even though having passed the jurying process, would be subjected to the embarassment of receiving few replies to their work; in effect, being told quite loudly by the silence that their work is not up to snuff.

Yes, they were accepted into the forum. But very publicly, they are rejected. I have seen this time and again here.

Few people want to subject themselves to that kind of humiliation, as is evidenced by the above quote.

Not everyone who doesn't participate is declining to do so out of a fear of humiliation.

But if that IS why they are declining to participate, then this Forum is the LEAST of their problems. I just returned from a huge, high-quality outdoor art show. Thousands of people walk past the booths each day and do not buy or even stop, for each few dozen who do. If each of those instances were perceived to be a rejection or a cause of humiliation, this would quickly turn into the most unhappy of vocations for the artist in question.

Much more important that a particular palette, substrate, or "School" is the heart and perseverance to be in charge of one's own progress and to just keep putting work out there until it clicks with the right people at the right time.

Ah, but it is. Think about it from the point of view of a new member who has not shown their work here and is unsure of what response they may receive.

I understand exactly what you are saying, Steven, and am not blaming anyone for the situation.

I am simply pointing out why I believe there is such a high number of people who have been juried in and who have never posted.

Well, one approach is for the member in question not to assume the worst, but to assume at worst that nobody has seen the post yet or had time to respond to it. Use the "bump up" technique, which is to respond to one's own post by re-soliciting comments. There have been countless instances in which folks gladly offer comments and critiques and lament that they had somehow not been earlier aware of the thread. Folks need to be persistent.

As for humiliation, here's a little story on myself. I signed up for a multi-year course of study in classical realism, based on nothing more than that I'd painted a few rudimentary landscapes while living overseas and thought I'd like to pursue painting as at least a serious avocation. I lived about 25 miles from the studio (once I returned to the U.S.). Halfway there on the first day, I very nearly talked myself into turning around. I had going on in my head what writer Annie Lamott calls Radio KFKD (from the book, "Bird by Bird"), which sends out a message that you're not good enough for this, you never will be, you're out of your league, and you deserve to be humiliated. I didn't turn around, but I was trembling by the time I got to the studio. I was let in through the locked door but then pretty much ignored and I was in agony, ready to bolt the next time the door opened. The first morning began with a life drawing exercise, something I had NEVER done. Most of the other students were light years ahead of me, but it wasn't their job to mentor the new guy. I had to borrow an easel from a part-time student, because there weren't enough. I expected that to be taken care of, but was simply shunted off, told that I would "have to improvise." Hey, no pressure at all. (I in fact built an easel that night, finishing it at 3 a.m. -- years later, one of the instructors is still slightly astonished by that. I use it to this day.) It would still be 2 or 3 days before my first critique by an instructor, by which time I was, to use the word, completely humiliated.

It was good for me. It let me know exactly where I was, and what I needed to do to get better. And I came back the next day and the next and for the next three years, every day. My work embarrassed me for at least a year. Then it got better, and by the 50th or so drawing and 30th or so painting, the fear of humiliation was gone.

For some of us without a lot of natural confidence, that's the way it has to be done, or not at all. I wish I'd been such a natural and so self-assured that I hadn't had to put myself through all that, but I can now draw and paint well, and I'm very grateful that I didn't turn the truck around that first morning.

Same thing, with the reaction to an unsatisfying response to a Forum post. You have to want it and go after it.

I agree with you 100%. But as you know, artists can be very sensitive.

I am curious to know why you have never posted your own work here.

I have postings here as well that have not received comments or very few, although I know that plenty of people have looked at it. So naturally the 1st response is, "Wau, is it really that awful?!"

The biggest mistake I have made in my life as an artist is to be intimidated. After high school, I went to enroll at the University as an Art Major. I had some time to kill before registration, so I thought I go check out one of the art classes. I walked in, saw the work in the empty classroom, was totally shocked, turned on my heels and walked right back out again and enrolled in Engineering Drafting and Design! I had drawn all my life, yet that's how intimidated I was by what I had seen and it set me back many, many years.

Over the years, I have learned that the only person you have to please is yourself. Set goals and work towards them as hard as you can. The bar is set very high at this forum, but look at it as one of the best ways to learn to get better. I agree with Steven that you have to keep posting and be persistent in getting an answer to your questions. Eventually someone will always answer.

I have, actually. It would take me a while to ferret out the various threads in which it has appeared. I can say for certain that there' s work in a thread in the "Nudes, Critiques" section, under the title "Nudes with Values." There's a demo on sight-size techniques, in which one of my paintings appears. There are various drawings in a "Classical Drawing" thread of yore. A still-life in an old Cafe thread called something like "Landscape vs. Portraiture." A portrait-in-progress of my son (I'm not even sure how I'd find that, but I'll have a go.)

I now do more landscapes and still-lifes (and even dogs) than portraiture, which is part of the reason that I have largely removed myself from regular participation, save to the extent that the same "rules and procedures" apply across genres.

How did this come about? Well, it's that old self-assurance thing -- I gradually became less and less comfortable with doing commissioned portraits, for much the same reason I knew back in '83, after two years of private practice, that I didn't want to be a trial lawyer after all. I didn't have the fire. I use the degree to this day, but in a non-courtroom venue.

Just have to keep going with what we have.

Ha! I didn't intend to sneak in and post as an "Unregistered" contributor. This is the only thread on the Forum where you can type up a response and click "Submit" without actually being logged in.