@Swiftcoder

When it comes to art it's not about how much you know about art at all, its about the inspirations (and hiding them), the feelings the artist is attempting to express and explore with their design and in a lot of cases its about something no programmer can appreciate which are happy accidents (turning a mistake into a style). You are dealing with a subject that isn't as concrete as programming and so often your idea of respectful and productive discourse (that you'd use with other programmers) wont be as appreciated as you would assume.

If the art doesn't match the requirements of the project, a programmer should be as direct and impersonal as possible about what needs to be done and not linger on the topic of what hasn't been achieved. Artists are performers and they like to feel like people want to see their art, asking for different art is about being more specific about the needs of the project while asking for more of what the artist has done right.

I didn't mean to pigeonhole anyone. Everyone is different. What am trying to describe is the process, which is different and which does lead to a different mode of thought. The biggest differences is that clearly seeing and understanding the sources/inspirations for engineering (of any kind) is paramount to it's success, where as the sources/inspirations for art needs to be shrouded to sustain a sense of novelty. I've found in my experience that this creates an extra sensitivity to any criticism. With this in mind its important to keep critiques brief and impersonal.

I don't think this is exclusive to art and artists. This is the way I was shown to deal with any problem when I was testing, because egos are on the line. I just find programmers aren't always given the same direction (because they are often much more ground down in the process of game production) they are given more slack in the way they deal with the team. I'd even say that in the industry, programmers have it harder in terms of criticism having to work with bug testers. You don't need to agree, this is just my experience.

I don't doubt programming is far removed from an art but it is undeniably a type engineering. Which means a programers confidence grows when practical sources are identified because these sources are an important cog in the making of a machine that works, where identifying the sources of most art generally means the artist hasn't explored a wide enough variety of aesthetically pleasing elements, be it trends or more classical appealing elements.

No one likes to hear that their work isn't up to par, I just think art being more subjective becomes a far more sensitive subject without many considering that (not just programmers, often other artists and other members of a team lack the niceties everyone appreciates). Is there anyone who disagrees with this sentiment? Because it could be I just hang out with some sappy artists (and maybe I'm a bit sappy) too ;D Love you guys!

@SillyCow

You make a good point, the only reason I used that analogy is because many programmers in the industry are stuck with outdated often buggy back-end from last gen with the task of updating the old beaters. Like a pit crew watching a race car burn itself out on the track and being expected to polish poo. But in the indie world it is more like Lockheed Martin. Its experimental and creative and I apologize if I upset anyone.

I'm not asking a programmer to know nothing about art. I'm asking them to assume they know nothing about the art that is presented to them. Because no matter how much they know about the design mechanics involved in creating it and even the inspirations behind it, art has a persons feelings, emotional expression and often a large part of themselves in it (a common aspect of all art is for an artist to depict aspects of themselves in their creations). Even if you've know the artist since you were two, you were never in their head. Art is personal, and I don't mean artists take their art personally (everyone takes their own creations personally), like parents pass down their genes to their kids, artists infuse aspects of themselves in their creations (too often unconsciously) and that is something that can come off as lacking tact, to criticize.

As I said to Swiftcoder, criticism toward anyone on a team should be brief, about the project and impersonal. If you assume you know nothing about the art you play it safe and if you simply tell the artist what doesn't fit the design or limitations required to implement the module then it isn't a big deal. That doesn't mean you should know nothing about the art, obviously cross training in the world of game development is huge to properly gel as a team. But if a programmer plays at being an artist and telling them how they can fix it, you could very well be treading on thin ice and I would warn against it. I would warn against this approach being used towards anyone that anyone is collaborating with because frankly egos are on the line.

Everyone on the team, on some level, believes that their part of the project is pivotal to the success of the project (its good when a team has this kind of confidence) the difference between everyone else and programmers is that when it comes to video games, its true for programmers. Video games are made by programmers. But so many programmers overlook the fact that pretty video games, emotional video games, impressive video games, cute video games, etc happen when artists or artistic skill is brought in. If a programmer can't show a certain level of nicety towards those charged with the task of achieving these components of a game, the game can also end up shabby.