I suppose this is nothing new - I imagine people have been talking about this repeatedly on the Forums. But then again, the more people address critique, the better we'd be.
Someone said some important things about it, and I guess it'll be nice to see how many people have had critique in these many styles.
The kind of critique that brings both the positive and negative - some do it in a sandwich (positive-negative-positive), but some do it half-and-half (positive-negative). This is the kind of critique that most people want, although they don't always get it. Shall I say they don't often get it?
Objectively speaking, this is a form of criticism which dismisses a piece of artwork as junk and doesn't substantiate why.
Some people (and I'm afraid I have to say this) - of the thinner-skinned variety - would assume that destructive criticism is either one of these two things: 1) critique that focuses on the flaws, or 2) critique that doesn't offer advice. Even thinner-skinned varieties think that constructive criticism is destructive to them. One can only shake his head in sorrow, send him off with a polite message and bid him farewell, perhaps? : (
Sucking up to others
Spot something where someone is giving a piece of work seemingly endless praise without stating why or what in particular has moved him? Spot something that suggests that "one's work is the best thing since sliced bread"? I smell an oxymoronic critic. Or rather, a rat.
NB: Bear in mind that it is always best to see the spirit behind the person's criticism or response. Just going through a rigid formula of what makes criticism constructive might just not help the situation at all. It could be that someone you know has good intentions of making your piece better, but just doesn't have a way with words - he'd say, "This is utter crap". Whether critique be in text or in real life, it is hard to see the person's intentions unless you know from what point of view he's speaking. Trust all the seasoned users on Newgrounds. We've been there.
There are the reviews which will be deemed as 'useful', 'useless' or 'deleteworthy'. Axman13's celebrated review "Dot, Dot, Dot" was popularly deemed to be deleteworthy, though some people might call it a waste because people didn't see that little bit of constructive criticism.
And this is where question time comes in!
I'd like to know -
1) What constitutes constructive criticism in your opinion?
2) What would make you rate a review as 'useful', 'useless' or 'deleteworthy'?
3) How do you generally respond to reviews?
4) If there's a review you don't like, how do you tackle it?