Once again you make some good points but you are incredibly rude while doing so. Understanding the history of art is not neccessary to criticize it. It depends on who you are trying to appeal with your art. Your costumers a.k.a the ones you are painting for thinks the painting is bad then you should probably take those words to heart and maybe change your tactics a bit. If they think it's good then keep going.
I don't want to eat brain because... Well, it's brain and that seems a little odd, but if I did, I would know if it tasted good or bad. And if it was good, I would want it again. I used to hate salsa, but then I tried some my mom made, and it was the best I ever had.
Would you eat penis? Or dog? Would you eat eye balls? What about balnut? It's not the taste that puts people off, but where the food comes from or the part that is eaten.
So, I've left a few things out. I agree with the critic's requirement to have knowledge- but do you know what a critic is for?
Before I answer that, let me give you an idea as to what art is- it's a dialogue. It's the act of transferring your thoughts, feelings, emotions, ideas, concepts, and even opinions in a creative fashion. Usually as it is in visual arts, story telling, and hell- you can even communicate to the audience with a sculpture or painting or even a building. You can even do it with a dialogue. In technicality even TROLLING is an art, because it's a form of creative dialogue.
A critique is simply the feedback to the artist from the audience on what they think of it. Whether if it's cultured/serious or by some pleb, any critique is always to be welcomed. Is it good, or is it shit? Was it "Meh, could've done better?" or was it "Meh, decent remake of a remake?"- and so on. Criticism is basically what the artist thrives on to become better.
If your artwork is bland, look for ways to push it further. If your anatomy is bad, then look for the errors and correct them. If your writing is bad, then look for the errors and poorly written parts and correct them on top of looking for ways to make them better. Criticism is always required for the dialogue in art to be complete. Even if it's negative.
Now, I've had some negative critiques so what did I do? I looked for what was wrong and I spent time and effort to correct those mistakes. I've even had to redo entire pieces of work just to get it right. It'll take you a long while to make a product worthy of high praise, and even then- you'll always get that one critique that didn't like it... and so what? It's an opinion. By getting butthurt from an opinion or critique on your artwork despite of if it's good or complete garbage is pretty much the largest sources of drama out from here on DA. Your butthurt and arrogance despite your moderately okay artistic ability labels you to be as bad as a common weeaboo with a badly-scrawled Mary-Sue fan character. Because neither of you can accept negative/constructive criticism. Take a hint and look for the errors in your work.
To be a critic, you gotta understand art. You gotta understand and comprehend what was put into it, the talent involved, the creativity, and the tools and techniques and what it's purpose is to be. Entertainment, fine arts, artifacts of manufacture or hand-made, all of it can be judged based on the content and context and it's make and purpose. So yeah, a cultured taste and knowledge is required. Meanwhile, an artist also requires those exact same means.
His complaint would be fine if he truly understood what he was even talking about. He knows critique about as much as a toad knows about a spacecraft. To top it off he's incredibly arrogant and will not accept anything that isn't praise.
That I completely agree with as well. Though then again, I haven't been keeping up with the drama with this DAtard here.
All I know is that, sure, he has a 'cultured' taste for some things, but his creativity is as stale as a weeaboo scribbling their favorite fandom. I dislike it at best, and I hate his forum posts on what art should be- right when he doesn't seem to have the slightest clue despite of all of this.
I think I should finish out my response to this with a part deux. Lol.
"You Don't Have to Know How to Cook to Tell Food is Bad". That is correct! People's choice in taste is largely if not completely based on their cultural upbringing as well as their surroundings. In short, I may not ever like sushi because not only do I not like it. But based on my "cultural upbringing" it isn't good and it should be cooked completely. Although people are capable of learning to like things. So it is not impossible for someone to like something that they didn't before. But the same thing does not apply to art. If someone is bad at art. You're not going to come back in a year or two and think it's much better than you first thought. Not sure if this conveys what I meant, but Odomi2 sums it up pretty nicely in their previous comment!
Regardless, no one needs to be an Art history professor to know if and when someone is lacking in their art. No one can really critique on the subject of an artwork or piece. Because art is supposed to be subjective. But they can critique the technical aspects of it. And it is obvious to tell if someone is doing bad in that aspect.
If you're trying to draw a person and you give them one eye. Then 1. You drew that person's face wrong or 2. You're drawing an alien. :/
"Regardless, no one needs to be an Art history professor to know if and when someone is lacking in their art. No one can really critique on the subject of an artwork or piece. Because art is supposed to be subjective. But they can critique the technical aspects of it. And it is obvious to tell if someone is doing bad in that aspect."
Your comment has nothing to do with the statement: "You Don't Have to Know How to Cook to Tell Food is Bad" I explain: this applies to a known dish as for example fried eggs. You donīt know how to cook them but yet as a refined person you are, know how they taste, how much salt they have to have, and the addecuate texture who makes them pleasant to eat. You donīt need to cook them to identify some salty burnt dry crap, do you?. This isnt related to foreign food habits as you mention, like eating dog (not being used to a taste) that might be related to the topic as for the critic credibility, but thatīs another thing.
I say again: a lot of critics who really know about art and history, canīt actually draw or paint. All are different things and are not necessarily bound.
Unfortunately. I'm really hoping that his sole purpose in life is to troll everyone and everything, because the alternative (a total singularity of douchy pretentiousness) os just too horrifying for me to fathom.