VVC 2013: critique panel
I was super-excited to go to this panel and take lots of notes! And then as it turned out I didn't get to take any notes at all, because 
melina found me that morning and asked if I would co-mod with her because
killabeez was unavailable. I was pretty sure she didn't need me, but I was going anyway, so hey, why not.
The panel description:It's fairly easy to critique a vid on its technical merits. But how do we talk about the harder stuff -- issues of aesthetics and taste? How do we address these issues at all, and how do we maintain the focus on critiquing the vid and not the vidder? Is there anything that can or should be said about a vid by newbie vidder, when she seems to have a good eye and technical promise, but, well, bad taste? Are we doing the vidder any favors by avoiding such issues, or should we just decide that taste is inherently subjective and shut up?
melina opened by writing on the pad at the front of the room: "Tact is just not saying true stuff" -- a Cordelia line I have always loved because, well, yeah.
We started by generating a list of things that might be difficult to criticize constructively but that a vidder might really need to hear (as opposed to matters that are mere differences of opinion without any particular implications in terms of quality). On the list: song choice; problems with the comprehension (or, more diplomatically, interpretation) of lyrics; choice of venue in which to premiere; visuals that don't seem to correspond to the lyrics, mood, or tone of the song; use of clips that, to make sense, require context that many viewers (depending on venue!) may not have; vids that are pretentious; vids that are just... boring; vids that require a master's degree in the show to make sense (again, whether this is a problem depends on intent and venue); comedy vids that go on too long; vids where you can't tell whether it's supposed to be comic or not.... and the list went on a bit, I think, but the conversation began to turn to other things.
Such as: factors that affect whether and how to offer critique. How well do you know the vidder? How much do you trust the vidder? How much does the vidder trust you? Will the critique be public or private? Comment-on-LJ public or VVC-vid-review public? Is this beta commentary or post-vid feedback? Is the thing you want to criticize an ongoing issue or an isolated problem? (For example: is this one anomalous ineffective song choice, or does this vidder struggle with song choice in general?)
I am not going to try to reproduce the whole conversation; I don't remember enough of it, and it was quick-moving and wide-ranging. But I do think it was a good discussion.
One story that I told during the panel, because I thought we were in danger of assuming that giving or receiving criticism is inherently a bad experience: Many years ago now, I struggled with whether to give a relatively new vidder constructive criticism on a promising but flawed early vid. I waffled about it for days, finally sent it, immediately regretted it... and then ended up having a wonderfully thoughtful email exchange with the vidder about it. Years later, she gave me astonishingly insightful (and usefully critical) beta on a vid I was really struggling with. The experience of exchanging and discussing critique actually strengthened our mutual respect and trust rather than destroying it.
On the other hand, I've had some really unpleasant experiences with vidders who claimed to want constructive criticism on vids, either in beta or after release, but who then either ignored the beta comments or got angry about the critique. Which, I admit, has pretty permanently soured me on the idea of offering criticism, even when solicited, to people I don't know well -- and has also made me much more insistent, when I do ask for or offer beta, on establishing clear ground rules and clarifying where the critique fits into the vidding process. A couple of people countered that some vidders, especially new vidders, may *have* to ask for beta from people they don't know well and that it's not fair to assume that everyone who asks for constructive criticism will react badly -- which is absolutely true! Not sure it's going to help me get over being gun-shy, though.
Several participants felt that the vidding community has lost the will or the ability to offer serious critique, that we're too nice. I can see why people believe that we need more critique-friendly spaces, but my interpretation of the situation is a little different: I think that, especially at VividCon, the overall quality of vids is so high, and the range of aesthetics and approaches is so exciting, that it is neither surprising nor inappropriate to want to focus on what's interesting and appealing about the vids we see.
The panel ended with a comment from
the_shoshanna that I deeply appreciated; she pointed out that much of the discussion had been framed as a contest between uncritical squee and straightforward critique, when in fact that's a false binary and there are other options -- such as analysis, which can be both squeeful and thoughtful: "I think this vid is fantastic because..." Analysis is what we do when we talk about how vids work and why they work (or don't work); it's what VividCon was founded for.
This observation was, for me, the most important comment and insight of the entire panel, and the best possible ending to the discussion. I hope future panels pick up on it and explore it in more depth.
Originally posted at Dreamwidth || Read
comments on Dreamwidth
melina found me that morning and asked if I would co-mod with her because
killabeez was unavailable. I was pretty sure she didn't need me, but I was going anyway, so hey, why not.
The panel description:It's fairly easy to critique a vid on its technical merits. But how do we talk about the harder stuff -- issues of aesthetics and taste? How do we address these issues at all, and how do we maintain the focus on critiquing the vid and not the vidder? Is there anything that can or should be said about a vid by newbie vidder, when she seems to have a good eye and technical promise, but, well, bad taste? Are we doing the vidder any favors by avoiding such issues, or should we just decide that taste is inherently subjective and shut up?
melina opened by writing on the pad at the front of the room: "Tact is just not saying true stuff" -- a Cordelia line I have always loved because, well, yeah.
We started by generating a list of things that might be difficult to criticize constructively but that a vidder might really need to hear (as opposed to matters that are mere differences of opinion without any particular implications in terms of quality). On the list: song choice; problems with the comprehension (or, more diplomatically, interpretation) of lyrics; choice of venue in which to premiere; visuals that don't seem to correspond to the lyrics, mood, or tone of the song; use of clips that, to make sense, require context that many viewers (depending on venue!) may not have; vids that are pretentious; vids that are just... boring; vids that require a master's degree in the show to make sense (again, whether this is a problem depends on intent and venue); comedy vids that go on too long; vids where you can't tell whether it's supposed to be comic or not.... and the list went on a bit, I think, but the conversation began to turn to other things.
Such as: factors that affect whether and how to offer critique. How well do you know the vidder? How much do you trust the vidder? How much does the vidder trust you? Will the critique be public or private? Comment-on-LJ public or VVC-vid-review public? Is this beta commentary or post-vid feedback? Is the thing you want to criticize an ongoing issue or an isolated problem? (For example: is this one anomalous ineffective song choice, or does this vidder struggle with song choice in general?)
I am not going to try to reproduce the whole conversation; I don't remember enough of it, and it was quick-moving and wide-ranging. But I do think it was a good discussion.
One story that I told during the panel, because I thought we were in danger of assuming that giving or receiving criticism is inherently a bad experience: Many years ago now, I struggled with whether to give a relatively new vidder constructive criticism on a promising but flawed early vid. I waffled about it for days, finally sent it, immediately regretted it... and then ended up having a wonderfully thoughtful email exchange with the vidder about it. Years later, she gave me astonishingly insightful (and usefully critical) beta on a vid I was really struggling with. The experience of exchanging and discussing critique actually strengthened our mutual respect and trust rather than destroying it.
On the other hand, I've had some really unpleasant experiences with vidders who claimed to want constructive criticism on vids, either in beta or after release, but who then either ignored the beta comments or got angry about the critique. Which, I admit, has pretty permanently soured me on the idea of offering criticism, even when solicited, to people I don't know well -- and has also made me much more insistent, when I do ask for or offer beta, on establishing clear ground rules and clarifying where the critique fits into the vidding process. A couple of people countered that some vidders, especially new vidders, may *have* to ask for beta from people they don't know well and that it's not fair to assume that everyone who asks for constructive criticism will react badly -- which is absolutely true! Not sure it's going to help me get over being gun-shy, though.
Several participants felt that the vidding community has lost the will or the ability to offer serious critique, that we're too nice. I can see why people believe that we need more critique-friendly spaces, but my interpretation of the situation is a little different: I think that, especially at VividCon, the overall quality of vids is so high, and the range of aesthetics and approaches is so exciting, that it is neither surprising nor inappropriate to want to focus on what's interesting and appealing about the vids we see.
The panel ended with a comment from
the_shoshanna that I deeply appreciated; she pointed out that much of the discussion had been framed as a contest between uncritical squee and straightforward critique, when in fact that's a false binary and there are other options -- such as analysis, which can be both squeeful and thoughtful: "I think this vid is fantastic because..." Analysis is what we do when we talk about how vids work and why they work (or don't work); it's what VividCon was founded for.
This observation was, for me, the most important comment and insight of the entire panel, and the best possible ending to the discussion. I hope future panels pick up on it and explore it in more depth.
Originally posted at Dreamwidth || Read
comments on Dreamwidth