Review = Trolling and Flaming?

A response to our previous art review in the brief.

I’m proud of myself. I’ve now been flamed.

[link]

And this is why I should know better than to connect my youtube account to my deviantART if I’m going to comment on videos that should never have been made. Not that it matters. It was for a good cause.

She and her audience appear to be confused: Does reviewing a piece of work constitute a personal attack on the artist? It should be sought as a catalyst for growth and reflection. This should be embraced, rather than something to hide from, like a scared child.

Re*view”, n. [F. revue, fr. revu, p. p. of revoir to see again, L. revidere; pref. re- re- + videre to see. See View, and cf. Revise.]

1. A second or repeated view; a re["e]xamination; a retrospective survey; a looking over again; as, a review of one’s studies; a review of life. 2. An examination with a view to amendment or improvement; revision; as, an author’s review of his works. 3. A critical examination of a publication, with remarks; a criticism; a critique.

The piece for review was suggested at the behest of valued site fans and friends and not as part of a personal attack. We do not apologize for reviewing the work, as it is the primary purpose of DCQC — to suggest to other artists via example on what not to do.

We do, however, extend our condolences to you, ~alchemical-disaster, and your cosplayer friends, over those nasty YouTube trolls and their scathing playground criticisms and name-callings. We can only hope that you all gain the maturity to work through it together and ignore them instead of falling into their trap and giving them many laughs now, and for many times to come, in the forseeable future.