I'm wondering how many people know how to critique, how to really critique.  But wondering isn't as much fun and teaching people how to do it, so...

Critiquing people's work well is very important to the artist, and it reflects well on the person doing the critiquing.  Critiquing is a combination of praising, criticizing, and analyzing the work of an artist.  It requires all three elements and without all three elements, it is not good critiquing.

That said...
1)  It is okay to praise, as long as you are balancing your praise with your criticism while showing people that you have analyzed the work.
2)  It is okay to criticize, as long as you are balancing your criticism with your praise while showing people that you have analyzed the work.
3)  It is not enough to analyze the work, but to put it into context of praise and criticism, being both subjective and objective about the artist's efforts.

I have given writing to friends, family, and co-workers and asked for their reactions.  When they say, "I like it," and that's about it, that is praise.  Empty, meaningless praise.  It does me no good.

I have given writing to the same and asked for the same.  A senseless bashing of, "well, this is crap," reflects only on the person saying that.  Why is it crap?  What is your basis for comparison?

While I do not claim to be the best critiquer in the world, while I will admit that there are things I will say or do or think that inappropriately color my view and taint my review, I know I can critique.  If you want testimony, ask Spookshow.  He sent me one of his stories and I told him how I felt, why I felt that, and where I thought his story needed work and where it seized me by the heart and carried me with it wherever it went, over mountains, through rivers, and off yawning cliffs of oblivion.

Unfortunately, saying I can critique is cheap.  Critiquing well is something that has to be shown.

But those of you who know how to critique, maybe you can critique my post on critiquing.

Any takers?

You're dead to me.