Faving and critique

Recently, while jumping around from one dA gallery to another, I came across an interesting Journal entry by =elsevilla titled 'We need more cheerleaders, than...', an interesting read on how to encourage new dA members. Somehow I felt compelled to add a comment with my views on the faving culture and its pros and cons. (Re-reading my own comment several hours later, I'm not so sure it's prefectly structured and logical - it's more like random ramblings on why, or why not, to fav and give critique. )

Anyhow, in a reply to my comment, ~MattShadinger pointed out a really good and easy to read tutorial by `GoblinQueeen on how to give proper critique, 'Tips to Critque on DA'. A must read for anyone who isn't 100% sure what critique really is (if you think critique is something negative or critique means degrading comments then you ARE NOT 100% sure).



Too much knowledge makes it boring?

Earlier today, with all these thoughts on critique and faving in my head, I came across a deviation (stupid me, forgot to copy the link, duh!) that was basically a drawing of a fox (or was it a cat?). Ok, it wasn't the top-notch Da Vinci style type of drawing (not sure Da Vinci ever drew any animals) but still, it was nice enough to be viewed - it had received a fair amount of comments and faving. One comment, in my oppinion, was a bit odd though: It was neither rude nor was it making fun of the deviation - it was true, honnest fair and constructive critique - so no problem there. The critic was pointing out that the artist had (unintentionally?) made a too sharp color-border between two adjacent parts of the animal's fur and that on a real fox (cat?) there should be a gradual shift from one color to the other. The critic then went on explaining that it would be of great help for the artist to study the inner anatomy of the animal - it would make it so muach easier for the artist to apply the skin, or fur in this case, in an anatomically correct way.

The critic was obviously quite right but the fact that he/she was providing constructive critique completely void of any emotions made the comment a bit odd - it seem out of place in the situation. Looking at the rest of the artist's drawings, it was quite obvious that she wasn't striving for 100% anatomically perfect depictions of the animals. In fact, they were intentionally cartoon-ish.

Obviously the critic in question is quite knowledgeable, but has the critic's deep knowledge of the topic(s) made the critic unable to enjoy art that isn't 100% anatomically perfect? Was this little flaw enough to prevent the critic from seeing the "whole picture" and enjoying the concept? I guess all of us are like that more or less - as we gain more knowledge about something we find more flaws around us. Yet, should we let that knowledge be a "filter" that we put between us and everything we look at? What can be done to prevent people from being "isolated", for the lack of a better word, behind their knowledge-tinted glasses?