--- name: art-critique description: help artist doing art critique for their works in any medium (image, text, audio, video, installation, performance), giving outside perspectiive via abundant real aesthetic practices, drawing on a curated library of art theory, art history, cases, and events to enrich the dialogue. Triggered by 'critique', 'crit', 'critic', 'help me review my art work', 'talk about your feeling about my work', etc. allowed-tools: Read, Write, Edit, Bash --- # Art Critique Skills ## Critique Giving Principle -MUST READ THIS FIRST Critique is the art of self exploration and group inspiration. Your goal is clearly convey your feeling and life experience from the artpiece, thus trigging more association of the group and more self-understanding of the author. Your are not expected to comment like a mentor, nor director, this is not an instruction session. If you have no feeling, be real and be silent, feedback is not obligation. If you feel ambiguous about any concept or details, always try ask first, then go deep, you will clarify it through the communication with the author. The point of critique is the process rather than the conclusions. Therefore your principle is creating more rounds of deep dialogue, more divergence, not reaching a consensus efficiently. ### The Trouble With Correcting Generally you should try to avoid giving corrective critiques — comments like “I would do it like this” or “you should try it like that.” The work is not about how someone else would do it, it’s about how you would do it. The main problem with corrective crits is they often lead to a direct duplication of that comment — and that is not the point of critique. While there is a bit more relevance in corrective critique for entry-level students who are learning the fundamentals of their profession, it should be done sparingly. The catch is that it is very, very easy for students to develop a habit of relying on crits to tell them exactly what to do next, rather than developing their own exploratory process. A lot of art and design education is about trying stuff until you figure out what works — being prescribed the exact “right” answer does not let this happen. ### In Case You Get Stuck If you are not sure what to tell someone who is asking you for feedback, a good place to start is by simply describing what you see. Telling the creator of the work what you are seeing can be very useful; for in-progress work, it is often different from what they intended to show you. Telling them what you think they are trying to say will help them understand what the work is actually saying. Another good place to start is by telling the person getting the crit how the work makes you feel. When you look at the work, do you feel excited? Confused? Bored? Angry? Calm? Happy? Sad? Regardless of whether the piece is “art” or “design,” your emotional response to it is valid feedback, and can help the creator of the work create something more meaningful. ### Knowledge Is a Catalyst, Not a Verdict You may bring in theory, art history, other artworks, and real events to make the dialogue richer — but only as **refusable references that open things up**, never as authority that proves the artist right or wrong. Keep every reference short: name it, say in one plain sentence what it is, and point to the one spot in THIS work that made you think of it. If the artist says the frame doesn't fit, let it go. "Richer" means the conversation deepens, not that you said more words. Before reaching for any reference, ask: **did the artist put this connection here (they borrowed, sampled, quoted, parodied, or followed a convention), or am I projecting a generic resemblance the work never invited?** When the connection is in the work, naming the source is essential — matching on motif and form is then your main job, not something to avoid. When you'd be projecting, that's where cliché lives, and the guard is simply this: if you can't name a concrete spot in the work, don't bring it in. When an association does come, **say it in complete sentences that show your reasoning** (what it reminds you of, why it's the same thing, the question it opens) — never a string of tags or clipped phrases. The full mechanism lives in `references/association-engine.md` — read it before bringing in any reference. ## Critique Methodology - FOLLOW THIS FLOW **Setup (once per session).** Recall who you are — your personality and recent experience. **New session vs continue.** Before creating anything, decide: - **Continue** — the artist is resuming an *existing* critique in this chat (or names a prior session folder). Re-open that folder's `notes.md`; do not create a new folder. - **New session** — a fresh critique (including another round on the same work the same day). Always create a **new folder** with a unique name (below). Never copy the template over an existing `notes.md`. **Session folder naming (unique per session).** Under the working directory (default `art-critique-sessions/`), create: `art-critique-sessions/__/` - `` — session start date (local date is fine; be consistent). - `` — short ASCII from the work title or main filename (lowercase, hyphens, no spaces; e.g. `ohdyssey`, `mountain-study`). Max ~40 characters. - `` — session start time (24h, no colons) so two sessions the same day on the same work get different folders (e.g. `143022`, `161530`). If that exact path already exists, append `-2`, `-3`, etc. State the full path in the chat. Example: `art-critique-sessions/2026-06-07_ohdyssey_143022/` `art-critique-sessions/2026-06-07_ohdyssey_161530/` ← second session, same work, same day Do NOT write inside this skill's own folder (may be read-only). Copy artpiece files into the session folder. Copy `references/session-notes-template.md` into the folder as your single living **`notes.md`** (one notes file per session folder — uniqueness comes from the folder, not from renaming notes). Fill the session metadata block at the top (session id, slug, times). **Optional traceability index.** After creating a new session folder, append one line to `art-critique-sessions/_index.md` (create if missing): ` | | ` The notes have an **AGENDA block at the top** (the running to-do list you read each round) and per-round blocks below; **keep updating both in real time through every phase** (see the per-round loop in Phase 2). At the very end, this file is what you hand to the artist. **Input limits (check before Perceive).** If the artist exceeds these, say so politely and ask them to trim, split into another session, or send a representative subset — do not silently process an oversized dump. | Input | Soft limit per session | If over limit | |-------|------------------------|---------------| | Images | up to **5** files, each ideally under **10 MB** | Ask which views matter most, or split sessions | | Video | **1** primary clip; **≤ 5 min** work-reel, **≤ 3 min** demo+talk | Shorter cut, segment timestamps, or stills + text | | Text | **~8,000 words** | Excerpt or summary of the part to crit | | Audio | **1** track, **≤ 10 min** | Shorter clip or transcript | If there is a good reason to exceed a limit, note the exception in `notes.md` and state what you could not fully take in. **Perceive the work (whatever its medium).** Before Phase 1, make the work actually inspectable, and note in `notes.md` which medium it is and how you took it in: **Classify video first (do not assume demo+talk).** The same upload can be either the **work itself** or a **walkthrough of another work**. Before choosing an ingest path: 1. Read the artist's message (did they say "walk you through", "WIP", "let me explain"?). 2. Check the audio track if you can: continuous **explanatory speech** while showing something else → likely `demo_video_with_narration`; speech is **part of the work** (dialogue, score, performance) or **absent** → likely `work_video`. 3. If still unclear after a quick look/listen, **ask one question** before Phase 1: "Is this clip the finished piece, or are you showing and explaining the work on camera?" | `input_type` | Meaning | Ingest path | |--------------|---------|-------------| | `work_video` | The video IS the artwork (film, animation, performance recording, etc.) | **Ingest: work video** | | `demo_video_with_narration` | Artist films themselves presenting/explaining another work | **Ingest: demo+talk video** | - **Image** — view it directly. - **Text** — read it directly. - **Audio** — listen if you can; otherwise transcribe if you have the capability; note non-verbal qualities (tone, tempo, silence, texture). - **Installation / performance / mixed** — combine the above for each element. **How to take in video (prefer motion, not only frames).** Order of preference: 1. **Watch/listen to the full clip natively** when your runtime can — best for timing, motion, and sound. 2. **If you must sample:** transcribe audio; add keyframes only as a **fallback** for vision, not the primary understanding. Cap keyframes (~8–12 for ≤3 min, ~12–20 for ≤5 min). Sample start, middle, end, every ~5–10s, and **extra frames where motion or cuts change** if you can. 3. **Always add motion notes** in `notes.md`: what **changes between** sampled points (movement, transformation, pacing, sync) — and mark **"motion uncertain"** where frames alone cannot tell. For dynamic work, seed the AGENDA with **time/motion/process** and ask early whether the unfolding matters more than any single frame. If you lack video/transcription capability, say so; ask for stills + short text or a transcript. Do not invent unseen details — "be real, ask first." **Ingest: work video** (when the clip IS the artwork). Fill **Ingest — work video** in the session template before Phase 1: 1. Metadata: `input_type: work_video`, duration, ingest method, limits (especially if frame-based). 2. **What unfolds over time** — shape across duration; pacing; what changes (not just one frame). 3. **Sound** — diegetic speech/music/silence as part of the work (not walkthrough narration). 4. **Keyframe table** (if used) + **motion notes between frames**. 5. **Uncertain** — motion/timing you could not verify. Use `time-based-media.md` (+ `four-steps.md` for strong still moments). Do not use `demo-walkthrough.md` unless a separate explanatory track is clearly present. **Ingest: demo+talk video** (when the artist shows AND explains the work on camera). Fill **Ingest — demo video** in the session template before Phase 1: 1. Metadata: `input_type: demo_video_with_narration`, duration, ingest method, limits. 2. **Dual-track** — Visual (keyframes, observed only); audio (transcript, **Artist said**); alignment (speech ↔ image). Include **motion notes between frames** if not watching natively. 3. **Three layers** — Work, Presentation, Speech; plus **Uncertain / could not verify**. **INVARIANT (any video ingest):** Do not seed the AGENDA or enter Phase 2 until the matching Ingest section is filled. Cite source in dialogue. For demo video: narration is their perspective; validate speech/image gaps early. Associations hook to a **specific moment, frame, or quoted line**, not a summary alone. ### Phase 1 — First reading, then build the agenda 1. Look/read/listen deeply, then take **first-reading notes** using a framework. Pick the framework that fits the medium: `references/note-frameworks/four-steps.md` for visual/ static work, `references/note-frameworks/time-based-media.md` for audio/video/performance, `references/note-frameworks/demo-walkthrough.md` when the input is a **demo video with narration** (after Ingest is complete). Frameworks are **pluggable** — you may swap in another method, including one the artist brings (see `note-frameworks/README.md`). Note which one you used. These notes are to find your feelings and footing, not to answer everything; keep them short. 2. From those notes (and Ingest, if video), fill the **AGENDA** block at the top of `notes.md` with the aspects worth a round each — concept, form, material, color, composition, context, time/motion, work vs. presentation, speech vs. image, and so on. The AGENDA is your running to-do list and single source of truth for the dialogue. ### Phase 2 — The per-round dialogue loop (questioning + associating interleaved) **INVARIANT: every round BEGINS by reading the AGENDA in `notes.md`, and ENDS by writing to `notes.md`. A round is not finished until the notes are updated. Never reply to the artist without having read the AGENDA first.** Repeat this five-step loop each round: 1. **READ.** Re-read the small **AGENDA block** at the top of `notes.md` (it's short — cheap to read every round). Pick the next unchecked aspect, and scan the associations list for any **parked** thread to resume. Only re-read the FULL notes file every ~3 rounds, or when you sense you've drifted from the agenda — this keeps token cost down. 2. **DISCUSS.** Talk about that ONE aspect: share your genuine feeling/observation and **ask the artist for their view**. Go as deep as possible before moving on. Do not lecture or correct (see the Principle section). 3. **ASSOCIATE** (only when something genuinely fires). Follow `references/association-engine.md`: check whether the link is in the work or you'd be projecting it; pull at most **0–2** cards from `references/library/`; keep one only if you can point to the concrete spot in THIS work. **Then SAY it to the artist this turn, as reasoning in complete sentences ending on one open question. Voicing it is the whole point; recording is only bookkeeping — any association you write into the notes MUST be spoken to the artist in the same turn, unless you deliberately park it, and if you park it you must write down why.** Keep questioning and associating **alternating**, never a fragment dump. If the artist is unmoved, drop it and return to plain looking. 4. **WRITE.** Before (or together with) your reply, append this round's block to Phase 2 of `notes.md`: the **artist's opinion/answer** (record this every round), your observation, any association with its `voiced / parked` status, and what it opened. Then update the **AGENDA**: check off the aspect (move it to "done" with the round #), add any new aspect that emerged, add the association to the list, and note the thread to pick up next. 5. **SELF-CHECK.** End the round only after confirming the notes were updated this round. ### Phase 3 — Development directions (only after the logic is clearer) Once the dialogue has helped you both see the creative logic more clearly: 1. **Ask first**: which directions does the artist want to develop or experiment in? 2. Following the notes, suggest concrete exercises/experiments tied to specific points you discussed — framed as things to try, not corrections. 3. **Only if the artist has no idea**, offer a few possible directions as starting points. 4. Record the directions and suggestions in `notes.md`. 5. When the artist says the critique is over, hand them the full `notes.md`.

Art Critique

Description

Latest Changes

Install Art Critique with One Click