People tend to think that 'critique' is just a fancy word for 'rip someone's art and tell them it's rubbish'. But it isn't. It's just an analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the art piece.

But remember folks, critiquing is an ANALYSIS of seven stages. It stands for:
Appreciate
Note down
Analyse
Look closely
Your opinion
Strengths
Improvements
Summarise

Appreciate
---> This is just a different word for understnading the art piece. Try and get a feel for what the artist is trying to convey. What is he or she showing through this piece? Is it influenced by any particular artist or period in art history? Don't worry about detail at this stage.

Note down
---> As you look at the art piece, jot down key points on a scrappy sheet of paper. This'll help you when you get down to writing your critique. Or if you're really good at making mental notes, then make your plan in your head.

Analyse
---> Now THIS is the stage where you look in more detail. Think of the points you picked in your appreciation. For example, if the piece is influenced by something, how strong is this influence? Have several influences contributed to the piece? Has the artist put his or her own original twist on the influence(s)? Remember, just comment on it for now. We'll add in the good and the bad bits later. This is also the point where you'd start writing your critique.

Look closely
---> Now pick out individual parts of the art piece to critique. For instance, if the piece involves characters, are the characters drawn well, and with good proportion? Is the pose balanced and natural? Does their clothing/attire suit their look or their personality? Remember, just comment on it for now. We'll add in the good and the bad bits later.

Your opinion
---> It's always nice to let the artist know what YOU think of the art piece in question. The best place to give this is at the end, where you can back up what you think with the evidence you found (the points you picked out in your critique).

Strengths
---> The name speaks for itself, really. What is good about the piece? What makes it appealing and/or interesting? How original is it? You can put this in with your comments on the parts you picked out in your appreciation, analysis and close-look.

Improvements
---> Again, the name speaks for itself. What didn't turn out so good? Do the influences (if any) not work with the artist's style? Is one particular art technique not as big a success as another technique used? But whatever you do, don't make the artist feel bad about it. Say how they could sort the problem out.

Summarise
---> Critiques are awfully wordy. It's true with any sort of analysis. So, to make it easier for the artist to take your points into consideration, it's nice to summarise everything you've said. You could do a 'ros and cons' summary, where you quickly outline the strengths and improvements, or you could do a three-way summary (which is what I use), where you summarise the strengths, things to watch out for (if it's good, but might not be so good), and improvements. Oh, and summaries are NOT general comments.

Whoa whoa, hang in there! Before you send off that critique to the artist, you'd better make sure it's the best of the best. Here are five RULES to help you do just that. They are:
Readability
Usefulness
Logicality
Effectiveness
Spelling and grammar

Readability
Is it easy to read, or is it too wordy? Splitting your critique into paragraphs will make it readable.

Usefulness
Could the artist improve with what you've suggested, or will they say it was no use whatsoever? Using lots of fancy words will give you the advantage of looking smart, but will the artist understand what you mean? Better to use simpler words because this'll make your critique more useful.

Logicality
Strange word, but it means 'how logical is it?' Are the paragraphs arranged in a logical way (like with pros in one paragraph, cons in another; or are your points on the background in one paragraph and your points on the characters in another? Keeping the same types of points in one paragraph makes your critique more logical.

Effectiveness
There is a difference between useful and effective. Useful is “can I take this critique away and impriove or not?”, but effective is “how does this critique suggest improvements?” An effective critique will cover all seven points of the ANALYSIS, and cover them well. A waffly critique is not effective.

Spelling and grammar
Seems a bit weird to have this for a rule, but a critique with poor spelling may not be as effective as one with good spelling. And good grammar makes a good critique. As a rule of thumb, a critique that's got bad spelling and grouchy grammar won't be as effective as one with super spelling and great grammar.

OK, so that's The System of Good Critiquing. Basically, ANALYSIS RULES. Now go off and write some great critiques.

And as a side note, if you want someone to critique your work, they've got loads of good critiquers at *devCRIT and there are other critique clubs around.