Okay let's see:
Lize - Zappyspiker: Even though I personally don't like these two I'll have to go with Zappy's. Lize CSSs is pretty, but although CSS is meant to be pretty and not much else, it needs to follow a structure, in most cases, this structure is HTML. This template structure wouldn't make a great structured CSS, the fixed background is pretty and all, but it would complicate colors in the long run. The reason I pick Zappy's signature is because it serves its purpose, even if it could've been a lot better. The tag is overall blurry, no depth, no flow and no clear lightning source, it has one on the left side but there's a light reflecting the render at the right side.
I'm not gonna beat around the bush. Your review in both cases is absolute rubbish lmao.
Art, when created, doesn't exist to serve a purpose. That's what electronics, engineering and technical applications are for. Cause and effect. Art lies outside of this line of thinking, so applying that mindset to judging a piece of art is really, really wrong. Even if a design tool has guidelines to what looks good and bad in application, such as CSS, when it comes to producing a piece for appearance alone and quality of creation, these guidelines and standards for what makes a good/bad use of the tool become irrelevant. What Lize has done is create a piece of art via CSS, that could be used to make an outstanding looking title thread, or who knows what. It has so many possible applications but that's not what should be judged here. What should should be judging is how all the pieces within the main CSS body work together, how they compliment each other, how they reflect the artists interpretation of the theme, and how the relevance of the theme has been kept to, among other things. Now on to the nitty gritty which really wound me up.
"although CSS is meant to pretty and not much else, it needs to follow a structure"
Okay. And where doesn't it? I take one glance at this layout, and I see:
TITLE - Bold, text contrasts to the background even as you scroll, drop shadow to push the text forward, really setting it apart from the background.
Topic Summary - Tells what the piece/post is presenting you, very quickly. As a presentation type submission should.
Header #1 + main body text - Here is where your topic will be outlined, summarised with more detail than the summary, and prepare you for more details later on.
Picture/Video relating to the topic - In any presentation, breaking up large sections of text with pictures/videos or anything to give the reader/viewer a break is a very good idea, as large bulks of text with no break will bore the reader viewer immensely.
Header #2 + main body text - Here you can see a topic would be specified and talked about in detail, as previously would be outlined in Header 1.
Break - After large bulks of text comes a break, here with a short fact about the previous topic and an image to distract the reader/viewer from the large amounts of text and to allow them to focus on one thing.
"the fixed background is pretty and all, but it would complicate colors in the long run"
The colours are extremely well blended together, because there are so few of them. Less is more, and this example really proves it. The colours almost ALL come from the background image, which has been blended through a white/black box, with reduced opacity as needed. These differences in opacity have all the contrast needed between one another for one to differentiate easily and quickly between boxes, and allow text to vary in colour to distinguish between different sections of the piece. For example, if one sees white text they can immediately notice that it is reserved for titles. If one sees black text, they know it's a header + main body text. This means that the viewer/reader must not actively try to determine what category of text they are currently reading, which is always a positive. If she sticks to the colour scheme when adding to the page this CSS might be used on (if used for that purpose), which a designer should ALWAYS try to do anyway, she would have no issues keeping the colours from providing contrast issues, and they would still look extremely pleasant to the eye, as they do now, since all colours stem, as previously said, from the background image. The other images used stay true to the scheme, differing not much from the background image, but enough to give the viewer/reader something new to look at. This use of opacity and one single image is an extremely simple yet very effective way to provide contrast, whilst keeping additional colours to a minimum to reduce conflicts.
"The reason I pick Zappy's signature is because it serves its purpose, even if it could've been a lot better"
Erm. This sentence doesn't belong in a critique. It really doesn't. It's incredibly rude, and also very disheartening to the persons you are critiquing. It also, might I add, is no reason for choosing one piece over another.
"The tag is overall blurry"
Granted, it could have used some sharpening, and is a low quality file. But it's not
blurry.Don't mistake the render style for a mistake by the artist. Not in tags. It's tough, but don't do it. I will eat you. With regards to blurring, this tag goes back to roots, with blurring at the tip of the left sleeve, along with the bottom of the jacket to the right of it. That, and near the right shoulder, on the hair. These really accentuate a feeling of depth in the piece, and really make the focus seem like she's moving towards the viewer.
"no depth"
Lol no. My last point countered this, but if you feel there is no depth there, I wonder if you're looking at the same piece I am. There is a more than adequate sense of depth emanating from this piece, via lighting and blurring and so on. I'm not even going into this.
"no flow"
Again, what? By saying "no" to mean none, that would mean the artist hasn't even attempted to put in any effects that even loosely follow one direction. Which she has. To great extent. The big block off effects to the left of the focal all go towards creating a sense of flow, as if the render is moving towards the top left corner of the piece (I keep mixing up left and right typing this because she is facing the other way >_<). Similarly, the red light effects to the right of the focus follow a similar direction, "pushing" the focus in the direction I mentioned before.
"no clear lightning source, it has one on the left side but there's a light reflecting the render at the right side."
Stop with all the "no" because that would mean that the piece is simply two images one on top of the other, and
even then a light source would still be present. And how you saw that light on the right side as a light source I'll never know, when it's so much dimmer, and is also a lens flare, which extends from the source. I'll admit that the lens flare doesn't really fit, but it's no way confusing the light source here.
To conclude;
"Your piece is shit mate"
Is basically what your review contained, in nicer words. The effect it gives across is the same though.
As a judge you should be really thinking about the
artistic themes and devices used to create the piece, from a design sense or whatever. You should spend waaaaaay more than 30 seconds analysing a piece to give your review on it. You need to pick out every different theme the artist has incorporated into their piece, and also the feelings and emotions put into it. Your reviews, for both this battle and the other you reviewed (which I wont go into cause I'd be repeating myself mostly), are very lacking, and aren't very accurate in terms of the points you picked out and commented on. To critique a piece, especially from someone with a higher skill than yourself, you need to make sure you can identify all techniques used, how they were used, where, why and so on. Especially with more technical pieces like tags and CSS. You should go into detail on everything you noticed. Not just point out the bad, but tell the artist what they did well, why you liked a certain part, what stood out and what makes the piece the best it could be. Then with the negatives you need to definitely NOT say that there is "none" of an effect because that is rarely the case, unless you are dealing with a monkey or a troll. Even a three year old has the ability to apply minimal design themes, drawn from images they have seen previously. So saying that a very experienced member put "no" effects in is nothing short of rude, and shows you didn't look at the piece in any sort of detail at all. Dare I say, you didn't even look at it. But what I can say is that you stepped up for being judge which really is no small feat. But if you want to judge someone else's art, make sure you judge it to 120%. 110% isn't enough, because that person is relying on you to tell them accurately what is good and bad, they will take your advice and use it to improve. Your word is law. So if you tell them everything is bad and give them no advice to use to improve, how will that feel for them? Don't do that, instead give them a reason to motivate themselves to make more art, and give them a reason to believe that they can achieve it. If you never felt like you could achieve something, why would you even bother? THAT is what you need to always do as a judge. It's the same for moderators of a creative section, as they have basically the same roll, just less as imposing as a "judge" seems. But the jobs they do are the same. And it's not easy I can tell you that.
[alink id="pisces"]
