I once knew an older artist in Virginia to whom I would go whenever I felt particularly pleased with some piece. Invariably he chortled as he peered down through half lidded eyes and said something derisive and belittling. At first I thought he must be trying to toughen me up and help me by thickening my skin. It only took a few visits to realize that what he was offering was not, in fact, useful critique. Instead he simply enjoyed the feeling of poisoning the well and trimming someone else down to size. It made him feel better to harrumph and push his little fears about his own work onto mine.
I found better. I met a noted artist, a strong woman whose words were sometimes harsh and even heated, but stated in such a way that I left sometimes feeling humbled, but always feeling respected and that flaws observed were noted by a leader. She left me eager and excited, sure that I was capable of better than the effort I had made. When her critiques were complimentary and affirming I felt I had been met by a peer who freely and coherently described how she found my judgements and choices engaging and stimulating. Both kinds of feedback left me feeling worthy and anxious to move forward.
Hard criticism is necessary. The market of art ideas is a harsh and cannibalistic place. It's good to be prepared to defend your work. It's also good to be capable of acknowledging legitimate flaws when recognized and described by another. The healthy development of a sturdy and flexible ego is critical to successful self assessment as well as simple basic survival in what is all too often an intellectual eugenics laboratory/abattoir liberally staffed by the eagerly sarcastic.
So, never allow yourself to mistake snarky, small cruelty for useful feedback. At best it is an unnecessary exercise in developing numb scar tissue and at worst can turn your work down blind paths of pointless experimentation the outcome of which simply leads to confusion and additional sessions of abuse masquerading as critique. Trust your instincts. If you feel wounded, but invigorated by a difficult critique it is probably a trustworthy and useful assessment. If, however, you are left with the feeling that you have been made the brunt of a private joke, or that your critic has been talking more about their own insecurities and weaknesses than your work then run! find a new, sound source of feedback.
Look, anyone who claims to be "brutal and honest" is always the prior and never the later. There is a balance to critique. There may well be harsh points raised about a work, after all sometimes a work just is not good and is too flawed by, perhaps, bad technique or over self-indulgence. But even then there should still be a sense of respect, sound reason and insightful direction for you to use in refining your voice.
Conversely, the well meaning "supporter," always eager to blow pink, flowery smoke up your bumm is just as useless, though less painful, as the one who slices you up and smiles as he fingers the wound. Compliments hard won and presented as meaningful and fully formed arguments in favor of your work are deeply pleasing and are as useful in developing your sense of whether you are communicating what you wish in the manner you wish as is well stated negative commentary. Excessive compliments are satisfying fluff. One should accept them graciously...and with a bit of salt. Sycophants haunt artists like sweet sirens who draw the hapless to be crushed by Scylla or drowned by Charybdis. Its a sweet song, but you're still dead in the water.
Art is best not created in a vacuum. Work without any critique, without allowing any debate is merely soothing therapy or closeted self-adoration. On the other hand, art wholly dependent on the input of others is a wan cry for approval at any price. Seek a balance between trusting your own judgement and methods and inviting others to force you to defend and consider other approaches.
