A lot of people, if not everyone, should know to never take the Internet seriously, right? But say, an aspiring artist, truly wants help, and he or she comes to you asking for advice, you are going to help him or her, right? For example, someone is interested in learning how to emcee. The artist loves the art form. He or she has listened to a lot of Artists. The artist still has an unclear sense of the mechanics of Rap. The artist doesn’t know how to start. In the spur of the moment, the artist posts a first song.
A few people who listen to it might say it’s garbage, but they don't explain why. They impetuously say to the artist that his or her song is garbage. The artist trying to delve into Hip-Hop presumes the commenters ridicule the artist as well as his or her skills. To those who might take the Internet seriously more than real life (which is unusual), would take commenters' comments immediately to heart. The artist would become discouraged to the point where he or she would say,
“Fuck Rap. Those guys are right. My work is shitty. I give up.”
At first, the artist gives up, but still gives him or herself some room to relax and think rationally about his being discouraged by his commenters. The artist reevaluates his accomplishments, appraises, discouragements, and doubts. The artist they just ridiculed shouldn’t hate him or herself for what they said. When people discourage one another, regardless of what form of art someone is pursuing, they are subliminally self-doubting themselves. For instance, if one raps, and someone else feels like the artist’s raps are seemingly forced slogans on a business card, or just elementary raps, which are composed of couplets, perfect rhymes, monotonous, amateurish flows, spiritless rhythms, and colorless vocal projections, the artist’s going to belittle the person by saying that his or her sound doesn’t move the crowd.
Again! People who doubt your exceptionally artistic aptitude, subliminally admit that they can't get involved with the art themselves.
The person should take these criticisms like grains of salt, and keep trying. Hypothetically speaking, you could be the considered the best rapper, and his or her style of Rap is on the spectrum of conscious rap, and to a people who tend to technical rap, could say conscious rap is not as appealing to listen to as technical rap. Why? In any art, most people are, in a way, super-opinionated about ways art should be created, according to who they've listened to, and the transcendental connection they've had with the artist. It's almost as if, in the 21st Century, people are unknowingly retelling the warring controversy bred by Marcel Duchamp, which occurred in the 20th Century.
Marcel Duchamp was a pioneer of Dada, a movement that questioned long-held assumptions about what art should be, and how it should be made.Namely, some people dispute what they think is dope and what they think is wack.
They stand by their opinions and suggest that they're facts, when they're really opinions. There is a difference between a subjective statement and an objective statement. The definitions are:
subjective (first definition):
taking place within the mind and modified by individual bias.and,
objective (third definition):
undistorted by emotion or personal bias; based on observable phenomena.Some people don't have individual stances of their own. Opinions most of them have, are likely to be collective opinions regarding the eminence of the artists. Individuals occasionally present distinctive stances on artists and their styles. Some commenters might claim that artist’s work is garbage because they don't know to constructively criticize an artist's work. A lot of commenters wind up trying to sever the artists' self-esteems. They do this by reiterating the artist's work is garbage. Next, they further their insults by detailing their derogating remarks. The commenters' critiques don't point out how the artist can better his or her emceeing skills. Sometimes, commenters just denounce the aspiring artists' confidence with unsettling threats. They never explain how the artists could improve their skills. The artist presumes that his or her commenters don't know the difference between destructive criticism and constructive criticism.
Constructive Criticism points out faults and includes practical advice on how they can be corrected. The person receiving the criticism is not attacked directly, and has the opportunity to improve.
Destructive Criticism points out faults and directly attacks their owner. The aim is to show that the person or object has no worth or validity. No practical advice or consideration is given.
Overall, direct and indirect, emotionally charged remarks made by anonymous commenters that aim to destroy the validity of one's worth has somehow become significantly more common than a hospitable community of aspiring artists who are susceptible to impartial critique of one another's artwork on the Internet, but why? Why dehumanize the artists and dismiss them with contempt? Why not just give a fair critique on an artist's work? People who to find it amusing to derogate others’ self-esteem by making out that the artist’s work has no aesthetic appeal lack equitable judgment. A lot of commenters don’t know or care about detrimental effects their words might have on the artists' minds.
This encouraging write-up will set an example for people who want to do something with their lives in the field of art — to dismiss the derisively ruthless remarks of commenters who denounce their work seeing that, with the Internet, there is always hope and much opportunity. The Internet, which is a chief source of social marketing, will help the artist aspire to making his or her art well known and revered. Artists, keep endeavoring in perfecting your artistry.
