How do you critique art for those learning art, or those looking for direction?

Here are my thoughts. A critique is the discussion. More precisely a critique is shaped by the discussion. If there isn't any back and forth how different would that be from a disposable opinion? I know a lot of artists who have acquired a "take it or leave" attitude when critiquing online, mainly because they've been dismissed so many times. I implore them to treat the critique as a discussion because that can more productive. It takes some work, yes. And if all parties in the critique are truly passionate about their craft it will be worth it. Part of a critique's job is to generate discussion, it becomes the springboard for the artist and the critic. In a report of art critics by Columbia University nearly all the critics agreed that their primary function was to generate discussion. So I'm not alone in considering critique as a discussion.

"As it should be" isn't a critique by way of commands. I said in the beginning that it has a problem of quickly becoming that. But that's not what it is. "As it should be" is about the general shape or idea a work is generally suppose to have, its expectations. Sometimes they're explicit. In a show, criteria is laid out for artist to adhere to so there work may be judged accordingly. (I would argue that your judging is actually an "as it is" approach set up by an "as it should be" situation.) Sometimes the expectations can be implicit where the expectations are shaped by the intended audience. Fan art is an example of this. The "As it should be" approach is about honing onto those expectations.

Now, about critiquing unfinished work. There is a time and place for it. And it does take more effort than usually but it's still possible. Not every body has the patience for it and not every WIP deserves one. It goes back to how passionate the parties are. If they can both agree on that and are willing to make the effort...

Not sure if I understand your motivation shtick. Yes motivation is innate with artist. How else could the work have been created? But the artist is no less human then the hobbyist or the student. Art is made for humans eyes and it can be encouraging and helpful for the artist to hear humans critique it. What good is a critique if it doesn't inform the artist on whether or not the work is hitting its mark? What good is a critique if it doesn't tell how others experienced the work, if it made an impression? Why have a critique at all if it doesn't tell those things? There may be prior motivation but that doesn't mean a critique can't automatically add to it. Or perhaps the critique is merely focusing the motivation? I've seen many critiques fire up an artist. Ideas begin to stir and they're off! They were already motivated to make the work. And they were already motivated to put it out there to be critiqued. The feedback from the critique did something to make them keep going.

/r/learnart Thread Parent