If you’re ever in a workshop, there’s a good chance there’ll be a critique. A critique is where the teacher and often other students analyze and offer suggestions about each others’ work. Some love ’em, some hate ’em.
At any rate, as someone making art and putting it out there in the world (as I hope you are!), you’ll eventually be getting and giving critiques in some form. But, if we want criticism we can actually use to improve our work, it helps to ask for it. For that, of course, you need to what to ask for.

Mike Hernandez, Red Barn Door, 6×8 inches, gouache
Criticism itself can be good or bad – it can be more or less spot on, or it can totally miss the mark. Yet it’s how it’s delivered is that really divides helpful and constructive from harmful (or at least irritating!) and unhelpful criticism.
Non-constructive criticism is rarely mean-spirited; valid or not, if it’s thoughtlessly and carelessly delivered, it comes off as flippant, unhelpful, or a downright personal attack. So step back from criticism for a second or two and see if it falls into one of these categories:
- vague
- un-actionable
- hypercritical
- needlessly nit-picky
– all of which have less to do with whether it’s valid than how it’s delivered:
Unhelpful criticism sounds like this:
- “The whole thing, or maybe it’s the color, seems a little off to me” (vague, potentially flippant)
- “You should have (or the faux polite “I would have”) had a center of interest (un-actionable)
- “I would never have used alizarin crimson for that garden gnome’s hat; definitely cadmium red.” (hypercritical)
- “Some of the really distant flowers seem like they wouldn’t be that color in real life.” (nit-picky)
- “You did x wrong” (vague, un-actionable, hypercritical AND nit-picky. Instead of thinking in terms of right and wrong, think in terms of weak and strong – “this area is a little weaker than the rest” offers more room for improvement than “You painted the garden gnome wrong.”

Mike Hernandez, Alpine Blue, gouache, 16×20 inches
The Four Types of Art Criticism
There’s said to be four categories of art criticism (i.e., things you can say beyond trying to wiggle out of having to say anything at all). Breaking a critique into these four concrete categories (and one can take away a lot of the awkward reaching.
You can:
- Describe – Like being a good listener who mirrors back what the other person says. You can say. “I see a high horizon line and quite a bit of empty space in the foreground, except for the garden gnome, of course…” or describe possible effects: “Someone might find this part confusing… or someone could potentially get lost in this section… What if you adjusted the value or simplified this particular shape right here….?
- Analyze – Like describing, but also discussing the interaction of different parts, e.g. “I think the small sliver of sky on top of all that foreground creates tension, even without the orange dragon in the middle ground…”
- Interpret e.g., This is about what the work is doing – e.g. “For me, that stormy sky gives the whole painting a mysterious, ominous mood.” It can help to phrase it as a question: “Given the dark mood, what was your thinking behind adding the pink bunny?”
- Evaluate – Here’s where you give value judgments and/or brainstorm a fix for any perceived weaknesses, e.g. “I love the deep green you used here,” or “I don’t think the garden gnome standing in the middle of that secluded wildflower field is doing much for the painting … maybe we can do something to make it less distracting … what if you moved it to the side … or what if you just took it out?”
- and you can always:
- Phrase it as a Question – You can change the whole dynamic of giving or getting criticism by turning it into a question. e.g.
- Describe – What would happen, do you think, if you were to simplify these shapes?
- Analyze – Why do you think the thin strip of sky at tope creates so much tension?
- Interpret – Does the darker sky give it an ominous mood?
- Evaluate – How do you see the interaction between the sky and the pink bunny?
Here are some guidelines for giving (and getting) constructive criticism:
- Make it a conversation Good criticism is a two-way street. Asking questions helps approach it collaboratively.
- Aim to provide (and ask for!) actionable feedback
- Identify and brainstorm solutions rather than problems
- Use “I”
- Be specific, not vague
- Ask questions instead of making imperious pronouncements
Taming the Critic
These are all things you can ask your “critic” to give you too. You can say, “Be specific.” You can ask for actionable criticism, as innate just “what would you fix” but “How would you fix it?” You can learn a lot about your work and how others see it by asking someone to describe it to you! You can say, “Describe for me what you see – tell me what catches your attention. For example, where does your eye go first, then second?..” “What do you like – if anything! – about this painting?”
Or, to be even more specific, you can say, “So, how do you like the garden gnome I put in there?”

Credit: Martin1009 on Wikimedia Commons
In the “know the rules before you critique them” category, you’ll find a solid introduction to the surprisingly small number of very important of things that make conventional paintings work (or not, if mishandled). Artist Mike Hernandes, whose work adorns this issue of Inside Art, teaches what makes a strong painting in his video: MIKE HERNANDEZ: DESIGN POWERFUL PAINTINGS: COMPOSITION, COLOR, AND PERSPECTIVE.
Mike is also going to be giving a demo at the Plein Air Convention & Expo in Denver, CO (May 21-25, 2023). PACE draws hundreds of painters who want rio learn painting techniques from the world’s top artists. They come to see what’s new, what’s hot, and what’s working RIGHT NOW in art marketing. It is the largest gathering of plein air painters on the planet and there is no other event like it. The “Woodstock of plein air” is different every year, yet every year there are artists at PACE who are, or will become, some of the greatest artists of our time… and you get to meet and mingle with them. Learn more about PACE.

