I think the search for original or novel artistic style, and the interpretation of works in the same direction, has pitted Camus against what he considers more 'mundane' critique of work. He tries to separate the artisan nature of pixel art in favor of a more puritannical bohemian method to appraising art.
While I agree with the point being made about giving appropriate critique, critique based on the intent of the artist cannot not be made obligatory without unpleasant consequences. Each observer of a work is confined by their own life experiences, and should not be forced to speak for what they do not hold to be true or rational. Good artwork is just like good critique: Not everyone's going to give a stellar performance the first time around, and it will take a period of time before one is able to discern what exactly constitutes an appropriate critique, or a critique based on the intent of the author for that matter.
If I went around expecting a very specific behavior from the membership all the time, I might be sorely disappointed. It's a matter of being forgiving of human nature; letting go of certain expectations and to be content with what the communal good has provided. At some level, I believe we are all in agreement on what has made this forum a success: The focus on Pixel Art.
Whether a viewer is giving their full effort and attention towards a critique is another matter. Even then, attempting to gauge their effort is not always accurate. This is usually the point at which people become irritated by the initiates of Pixel Art. Those who learn to critique gain an appreciation for the technical difficulty of the medium, and this may not be true for someone visiting the forum for the first time. So we should be appreciative of this fact, and not abrasive towards people who've yet to undergo the transformation towards appreciation. It can be harmful, from an early point, to dictate absolute terms on how somebody should critique your work, and flaber pointed out some very good principles on this subject.
Critique is a self discovering process, not just the building up or tearing down of the work of others. One can give appropriate critique; providing tips based on pixel level methodology, whilst not at all exploring the work on a symbolic/artistic/metaphoric level, and yet there would likely be a successful and APPROPRIATE exchange of information between the viewer and the artist. While insight into the intent of the artist can be refreshing, I tend to consider it icing on the cake. It's an extra measure put forth to flex the intellectual. But sometimes a sprite is just a sprite and it needs a little AA. This kind of efficiency can speed an artist along until they're ready to tackle the high brow artistic dialog.
During the Diced rant period back on Pixelation, the matter seemed to fall on deaf ears, but I will repeat the point: If it's your intent to persuade someone to a particular viewpoint, there are many ways to go about it, so consider actions and language that do not threaten or coerce. And most importantly, be productive through example. If it's your intent to explore the greater stratosphere of Pixel Art's artistic merits, Camus, feel free. Just don't disparage on the others for not being ready to meet you yet.
