If it's a critique? Then my personal feeling is "yes." Because critiquing is about refinement of a standard base, something that's got potential and has the capacity to be much better. It's balancing what an author's doing right and then pointing out what's wrong or could be improved. You can be blunt, but you should be fair on giving balanced cues.
Criticism, on the other hand, is just whatever you want it to be: blunt, forward, impolite, etc. You're there to point out flaws and expect the artist to do their job and figure the details out. I will say that my feeling on blunt criticism, however, is that while anyone has the right to do it, it's completely hypocritical to whine if the artist in question gets defensive or even hurt. People have to accept that publishing can be the equivalent of placing one's bare neck on the guillotine, but reviewers have to be responsible for how they come across as well.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2008-08-30 11:11 pm (UTC)Criticism, on the other hand, is just whatever you want it to be: blunt, forward, impolite, etc. You're there to point out flaws and expect the artist to do their job and figure the details out. I will say that my feeling on blunt criticism, however, is that while anyone has the right to do it, it's completely hypocritical to whine if the artist in question gets defensive or even hurt. People have to accept that publishing can be the equivalent of placing one's bare neck on the guillotine, but reviewers have to be responsible for how they come across as well.