ArtSpots Forum Topic - Review Process and Transparency

oCe

Tue, 27 Feb 2007 21:24:50 -0000

I've got a question to ask, and it's related to the topic of reviews, so I'll just stick it in this thread instead of starting a new one. :) How important is good gesture/movement/flow in the acceptance of applications? It's a quality that's related to, but not the same as, good anatomy, and from looking at the art that gets accepted vs. art that doesn't, it seems to me like tension, posture, weight and movement are definately things that are considered beyond the basics of bones and muscles in more or less the right places. So my question is... if it's something AS is looking for, should it be explained somewhere? Perhaps "gesture" a 5th quality on the portfolio submission guidelines? I ask this because I've been poking around on the critique and review forums. I've noticed that a good number of people post work with fairly good anatomy, but with weaknesses like very stiff, bland poses. Characters with relatively accurate anatomy, but the pose is too stiff, or off-balance, or not anchored to the ground, etc. etc. And they get confused that they've been declined when their anatomy is, from a textbook standpoint, fairly decent. The obvious answer, to me, would be that they need to work on their gesture, and on putting more dynamism and life into their characters. Yet none of this is mentioned on the official "What We Look For" pages. If it's important for admission (and I get the feeling it is), shouldn't it be mentioned somewhere? Just my two cents.

Seurat the Cheetah Artiste

Wed, 14 Feb 2007 03:08:11 -0000

I do not envision anything beyond a third level/individual pieces.

Scott Ruggels said:On the other hand Actually having some sortof challenge to the work may put some "energy" back into the genre.

Exactly, that is my thinking. There are a good handful of places that allow general subject matter (ranging from DeviantArt to ConceptArt.org). It is not my intention to compete directly with any of them.

(I could go at length about how the fandom's hostility to criticism is a detriment, but that's a whole different topic).

I will admit, if you had said this six months ago, I would have not believed you. But, as you can imagine, I have seen some pretty harsh words directed at this site. It does cause me a bit of consternation at times, but I am learning to not take it personally. I recently had a discussion with a Disney artist on that very topic (of fandom's hostility to criticism). But, what I will say, is that I have heard several people say we are try to make everyone "draw the same style" or such things, which is totally untrue. The fundamentals we look for (anatomy, perspective and lighting, mainly) can be applied to any style, so I do not know what is the basis of their rationale. I have bitten my tongue several times rather than ask, because it will inevitably lead into a heated discussion. I will just keep trying to focus on the site it self and do what I can here.

Amarok said:Keeping upper-level/professional artists on board is great, but Artspots originally claimed (although their ideals may have changed.) that they wanted community to be an important aspect. Continuing to make higher and higher groups will only, I think, alienate lesser artists or ones who are only on the lower levels instead of the top level. To me it would seem *ridiculous* to say "We want everyone to get on here/join us, even if you don't the first time you apply," and then go and only cater to the top level artists and subliminally keep raising standards.

As I said at the very beginning of this reply, I do not intend to raise things or create additional tiers beyond the "third" or "individual piece" one. For one thing, it is hard enough keeping the current ones under control. :) I am finding out we are not the site for "everyone," but still I would like to think that "anyone" can get on here should they want. We have had a few people apply multiple times and get in on the third or fourth try. Recently, we have started to visit homepages or DA galleries in an attempt to explain exactly what we are looking for, because some people still seem confused. I would like to think that the community aspect is focused on artistic improvement, and as I mentioned in my open letter, anyone can approach us and we will consider them a friend. It is their choice whether to be adversarial or not.

Scott Ruggels said:Also improvements in the back end and the software spread to all the boards.

And this will continue to be the case. Any useful future functionality is going to exist on JaxPad as well. Speaking of such things, that reminds me, I do need to work on changing JaxPad's logo, make it something a little less generic and more suited to what the site is about.

Scott Ruggels

Wed, 14 Feb 2007 01:02:36 -0000

I would have to disagree, as I think the gallery and the imagery is of primary importance and the community as secondary, especially if the "community" is holding back improvement of the artist. (I could go at length about how the fandom's hostility to criticism is a detriment, but that's a whole different topic). I would have to ask, are there those who are in Jaxpad feel that they have been treated shabbily or made to feel that they are second class citizens? As far as I can tell the administration here has been doing a superb job, listening to feedback, improving the experience on all the boards, and keeping things civil. Also improvements in the back end and the software spread to all the boards. After Yerf, I have a very jaundiced view of "The Community". I prefer just looking at good visuals. We have to also include the fact that not all who surf here are artists. Some are patrons of the arts, or simply viewers, and a salon of higher quality visuals will be quite attractive. This also does not force imrpovement on people. People can stay at what ever level they are comfortable. Some people like challenges though. Scott

Amarok

Tue, 13 Feb 2007 22:57:20 -0000

Scott Ruggels said: I'm hoping that the third tier is the end of it, though. If you start moving up past that, it leads me to wonder where exactly it's going to stop. Like a giant elitist pyramid that keeps growing pointier and pointier. :V Actually I think that's a good thing as it keeps the upper eschalon artists from becoming bored and leaving. Challenge is good. Scott

I do NOT think that's a good thing if it keeps adding more levels. Keeping upper-level/professional artists on board is great, but Artspots originally claimed (although their ideals may have changed.) that they wanted community to be an important aspect. Continuing to make higher and higher groups will only, I think, alienate lesser artists or ones who are only on the lower levels instead of the top level. To me it would seem *ridiculous* to say "We want everyone to get on here/join us, even if you don't the first time you apply," and then go and only cater to the top level artists and subliminally keep raising standards.

Scott Ruggels

Tue, 13 Feb 2007 22:30:26 -0000

I think the third tier idea is excellent. The one problem is that while the cdhallenge idea is sound and may retain some of the folks that "turn pro" and leave, it may be that the restriction on anthro work may also be the culprit? On the other hand Actually having some sortof challenge to the work may put some "energy" back into the genre. I'm hoping that the third tier is the end of it, though. If you start moving up past that, it leads me to wonder where exactly it's going to stop. Like a giant elitist pyramid that keeps growing pointier and pointier. :V Actually I think that's a good thing as it keeps the upper eschalon artists from becoming bored and leaving. Challenge is good. Scott

--

Sat, 10 Feb 2007 22:28:15 -0000

That the third tier will be piece-determined and not artist-determined puts many of my concerns at rest. Though honestly, I think an artist should be prepared to take nit-picky critiques at any level ;) I'm hoping that the third tier is the end of it, though. If you start moving up past that, it leads me to wonder where exactly it's going to stop. Like a giant elitist pyramid that keeps growing pointier and pointier. :V

Sue

Sat, 10 Feb 2007 20:36:58 -0000

That's a really neat idea, Seurat. I know I push myself more when I have a goal, so I'm looking forward to the salon/gallery.

Seurat the Cheetah Artiste

Sat, 10 Feb 2007 17:01:02 -0000

Xazy said:
Seurat the Cheetah Artiste said: We are planning on keeping the standards where they are, just adjusting things here and there as we grow. If any standards are raised, we will be sure to let people know, although I do not think it will be much of an issue since we are working on a "third tier" which is separate from ArtSpots general. More info as we work on it.
I'm sorry, but this kind of begs the question: Why? Is this something the admins have decided, or is this based on community feedback? I haven't seen anything to suggest it should be the latter. I have a lot of other questions about it, but I'll save them until more information is available, I suppose.

Yes, it was something the admins decided to be part of the long-term goals of ArtSpots. The main reason is retention. Inevitably, people "outgrow" doing anthro artwork as they move into more professional fields. This is not because they get tired of doing anthro artwork, no, but rather because there is no peer challenge. Of course this is somewhat of a self-reinforcing mechanism, because as artists get better and "go pro" and leave, there is nobody left to challenge the up-and-comers. Basically, it is no longer fun to an artist who wants to keep pushing themselves, and becomes more tedious to maintain ties. Enter in another level with two parts. One is where pieces are admitted and displayed on an individual level versus a carte blanche whole-artist approach, similar to, say, a 19th century salon. Kind of like a semi-annual or quarterly gallery showing. The whole site ArtSpots will remain the same, and you can still view galleries like before. We have not worked out the details yet, but chances are one would have to go to gallery.artspots.com, or salon.artspots.com, or whatever term we decide best fits it to see the higher level. The second is another critique group, or set of groups, that are akin to sites such as ConceptArt.org. Anyone can post to them and ask for advice, but the approach will be a lot more direct. So everyone will still be able to apply and get into ArtSpots like before, nothing will change there. We will still help people get in as best we can. The only reason we moved to a deeper review for 2-out-of-3 applications was to help create more consistent reviews. Some have complained that reviewing is inconsistent on who gets in and who does not, and most of that is because of the borderline applications. So now they are gone over to try to maintain some semblance of consistency with reviews, so we get less of "This artist put X on the site and it doesn't fit your standards!" Even though their portfolio did. Artists can still have fun and doodle sketches and put up pieces that are more immediate than finished, and I personally would like to see it stay that way. The other option is to get strict and apply standards to every individual piece and remove ones that do not fit with the site's application criteria. While that was pondered very briefly, it would not create a very friendly site and who would want to post work unsure if it will get deleted or "demoted" or somesuch? No. So, the other option is, for those who want, to have another level they can submit individual pieces to. Another layer. Combine that with more detailed critiques (one might say as nit-picky as can be) and now there is the atmosphere to retain anthro artists as they get more skilled, and perhaps even get back some of the ones who have "disappeared." All-in-all, it will create a stronger community. Once we have all the details, we will definitely make a post about it. Think of it generally this way: JaxPad = Everyone Admitted ArtSpots = Individuals Admitted Salon/Gallery = Pieces Admitted Anyone can move up if they want, and we want to offer a path and inspiration for those who want to improve. But they do not have to, there is no rule saying they must. :)

--

Wed, 31 Jan 2007 00:12:32 -0000

Seurat the Cheetah Artiste said: We are planning on keeping the standards where they are, just adjusting things here and there as we grow. If any standards are raised, we will be sure to let people know, although I do not think it will be much of an issue since we are working on a "third tier" which is separate from ArtSpots general. More info as we work on it.

I'm sorry, but this kind of begs the question: Why? Is this something the admins have decided, or is this based on community feedback? I haven't seen anything to suggest it should be the latter. I have a lot of other questions about it, but I'll save them until more information is available, I suppose.

Seurat the Cheetah Artiste

Tue, 30 Jan 2007 22:21:50 -0000

Amarok said:
Seurat the Cheetah Artiste said: It is simply a vote of accept/decline. Three reviewers can review an application, and it used to be a 2 out of 3 system. We have recently changed it to a 3 out of 3 setup, opening up the possibility of discussing applications that get 2 out of 3.
So you've just raised the standards for getting into the site? Is this something you would've announced so people would actually know that the bar had been raised, or would you just be quiet about it until someone asked, like Xazy did? I think it'd be good to let people know where the standard is and that it's now higher. Are you planning on keeping the standards here, or is this something you're going to continue to raise?

We have not raised the overall technical standard to get into the site, just made clear-cut acceptance into 3 out of 3 instead of 2 out of 3. If someone gets 2 out of 3, it is considered "borderline" and we will discuss it further before making a decision. We are planning on keeping the standards where they are, just adjusting things here and there as we grow. If any standards are raised, we will be sure to let people know, although I do not think it will be much of an issue since we are working on a "third tier" which is separate from ArtSpots general. More info as we work on it.

Also, when people are reviewed, and they get the final response, do they get to know how many reviewers said "yes" or "no"? That still maintains anonymity of the reviewers, but I think it'd be nice for people who don't get in to know how far off or close they were in terms of how many reviewers said yea or nay.

We generally don't mention it, although sometimes a reviewer will mention how close it was to encourage someone. But, if they reply back via email asking for it, we will also tell them.

Amarok

Fri, 26 Jan 2007 17:58:07 -0000

Seurat the Cheetah Artiste said: It is simply a vote of accept/decline. Three reviewers can review an application, and it used to be a 2 out of 3 system. We have recently changed it to a 3 out of 3 setup, opening up the possibility of discussing applications that get 2 out of 3.

So you've just raised the standards for getting into the site? Is this something you would've announced so people would actually know that the bar had been raised, or would you just be quiet about it until someone asked, like Xazy did? I think it'd be good to let people know where the standard is and that it's now higher. Are you planning on keeping the standards here, or is this something you're going to continue to raise? Also, when people are reviewed, and they get the final response, do they get to know how many reviewers said "yes" or "no"? That still maintains anonymity of the reviewers, but I think it'd be nice for people who don't get in to know how far off or close they were in terms of how many reviewers said yea or nay.

Seurat the Cheetah Artiste

Thu, 25 Jan 2007 13:18:29 -0000

Xazy said: This question just occurred to me: When the reviewers... well, review, what do they say? Obviously they critique the images, but I'm curious as to whether there is some kind of numerical scoring system that is added up and averaged or if there's simply a vote of pass/fail with the majority ruling.

It is simply a vote of accept/decline. Three reviewers can review an application, and it used to be a 2 out of 3 system. We have recently changed it to a 3 out of 3 setup, opening up the possibility of discussing applications that get 2 out of 3.

--

Tue, 23 Jan 2007 04:18:00 -0000

This question just occurred to me: When the reviewers... well, review, what do they say? Obviously they critique the images, but I'm curious as to whether there is some kind of numerical scoring system that is added up and averaged or if there's simply a vote of pass/fail with the majority ruling.

Dinogrrl

Sun, 19 Nov 2006 00:59:04 -0000

Thanks for the clarification! :} And yes, to someone who's dyslexic, 'reviewed currently' does look a lot like 'received' XD.

Seurat the Cheetah Artiste

Sat, 18 Nov 2006 22:51:31 -0000

Dinogrrl said: Okay, I have a question about the apps (yay!). I just submitted one yesterday or the day before, and after I sent it the screen had a 'an email will be sent to you when the app is received' thing on it. Well...I haven't gotten one yet. And I know of someone who's gone six days now without this mysterious email (or any emails period, afaik). How soon should this be expected, or did the intarwebz eat our apps? Or is some work being done behind-the-scenes that's slowing things down? I just thought this was odd after hearing numerous reports of fast turn-around time.

Ahh! Yes, yes, it says once it has been reviewed currently, although it does look suspiciously like "received". I think having it say "after it has been completed" would be better, so it will say that soon. Thanks for bringing this up! Your application is indeed in there, and looks like it was submitted on the 16th. When it is completed, yes, then you will receive an email. We try to keep reviews under a week, but lately one or two have been getting past us because we have been reworking our redline process. Still, nothing more than a day or two over. Sorry for the confusion!

Dinogrrl

Sat, 18 Nov 2006 21:49:06 -0000

Okay, I have a question about the apps (yay!). I just submitted one yesterday or the day before, and after I sent it the screen had a 'an email will be sent to you when the app is received' thing on it. Well...I haven't gotten one yet. And I know of someone who's gone six days now without this mysterious email (or any emails period, afaik). How soon should this be expected, or did the intarwebz eat our apps? Or is some work being done behind-the-scenes that's slowing things down? I just thought this was odd after hearing numerous reports of fast turn-around time.

Dinogrrl

Mon, 13 Nov 2006 16:26:13 -0000

One good thing about public apps is that you do get to see someone else's weak points, and hopefully be able to apply the critique to your own work. But I do have to agree with the others that public apps are often much more drama-bait-ish than the whole process needs to be. I never got any direct hatemail/pm's when I reviewed apps at Yerf but I did hear that people were saying nasty things about me in the IRC channel (although to this day I've never received evidence to back that up. Doesn't really matter though). And I know of several people who were quite crushed that they didn't get in, although I'm not sure if it was just the fact they were rejected or the whole public letdown aspect of it as well. I think hidden apps would, in the end, be much better in terms of less drama and keeping the process going quickly. As long as there are examples of passing and rejected apps for us to go by, which I know is being worked on currently.

Lmai

Mon, 13 Nov 2006 16:17:34 -0000

I have to give my vote to keeping the app's Private. I know ALOT of artists are very self concious of their artwork and would be kind of broken if their review was a public affair and they were declined. It's not always nice to have your faults displayed to the world..lol. I like the application process the way it is currently, it's private, and reviewers cannot see other reviewers commetns and suggestions so they remain unbiased towards the work and can make their own judgements competely.

Taboo

Mon, 13 Nov 2006 05:46:48 -0000

This is so exciting! :D I'm almost tempted to delete my account and re-apply once everything is set~ I wouldn't do that though. :3

Lilla Cheetah

Mon, 13 Nov 2006 00:38:37 -0000

Shayde said:Of course, examples of what is and what isn't a passing application would be helpful :3

We are working on it! :) We are finally getting through the rush of applications we got in the last week, around 90 or so. Now that we can breathe a bit, we can focus on examples. Hopefully we will have some up in the next few days. Thanks for everyones patience in this matter! :)