I welcome criticism on my work even where not explicitly stated. But I wouldn't post it to a place like FurRag, where criticism is the whole purpose of the website. I like the idea of people just enjoying what I create without feeling obligated to criticize (though a "hello!" is always good).
That said, putting your work up on, say, FurAffinity is like hanging it in a public art gallery. To say people shouldn't criticize unless invited is incredibly arrogant. Do you really think anyone is above criticism?
Conversely, though, saying there should be a website only for high-quality art is also arrogant (no offense, GreenReaper). Who decides what is high-quality? Even FA's policy ("We do not permit images which are out of focus, blurry, overly grainy, washed out, poorly lit or incorrectly rotated.") ignores the fact that photos with just such defects have earned awards and sold for ridiculous amounts of money. Technique and artistic merit are different things.
What we need isn't gatekeeping, but ranking/filtering (and curation), and indeed star rating systems work poorly for that purpose. A simple favorite system works better, but it can also encourage people to game the system, er, I mean beg for faves. No wonder Flickr keeps their "interestingness" algorithm a secret...
I don't think there is a magical solution for this problem. All we can do is keep trying.
I welcome criticism on my work even where not explicitly stated. But I wouldn't post it to a place like FurRag, where criticism is the whole purpose of the website. I like the idea of people just enjoying what I create without feeling obligated to criticize (though a "hello!" is always good).
That said, putting your work up on, say, FurAffinity is like hanging it in a public art gallery. To say people shouldn't criticize unless invited is incredibly arrogant. Do you really think anyone is above criticism?
Conversely, though, saying there should be a website only for high-quality art is also arrogant (no offense, GreenReaper). Who decides what is high-quality? Even FA's policy ("We do not permit images which are out of focus, blurry, overly grainy, washed out, poorly lit or incorrectly rotated.") ignores the fact that photos with just such defects have earned awards and sold for ridiculous amounts of money. Technique and artistic merit are different things.
What we need isn't gatekeeping, but ranking/filtering (and curation), and indeed star rating systems work poorly for that purpose. A simple favorite system works better, but it can also encourage people to game the system, er, I mean beg for faves. No wonder Flickr keeps their "interestingness" algorithm a secret...
I don't think there is a magical solution for this problem. All we can do is keep trying.