From cute images of animals to stunning paintings, a community of artists generously create visuals for Internet users to enjoy, view, and comment on. I participate in this community as a creative artist. I’m an amateur, so I rarely receive feedback on my art when I post it online. A few years ago, however, I posted fanart for the popular kid’s cartoon “My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic” on DeviantArt; soon after, I received a feedback notification. I checked the website to view it. Greeting 13-year-old me was a message yelling “MLP IS ****. GO **** YOURSELF.” The feedback felt like a volleyball slamming into my temple. It stung, but I knew that this commenter was just an Internet troll, so I tried to forget about it. However, as time went on, I noticed how frequently similar comments appeared – especially those directed at my age group.  

Many young artists ranging from 10 to 18 years old share their art on the Internet. Their art reflects developing skills and a child’s imagination: “Star Wars” art with stick figures and flat backgrounds; drawings of fairy princesses with big heads, beady eyes, and neon colors; and fanart for a TV show that may seem childish in the eyes of an adult. The artwork varies, but it is all vulnerable once posted on the Internet. On sites like Tumblr, DeviantArt, and YouTube, some users mock the art of children and encourage other Internet users to do the same. They use words such as “cringe” and claim that Crayola-colored art gives them eye cancer. They say how they want to kill the art with fire because it is so horrid, and how its young creator should feel shame for bringing it into existence. This trend shames children for their lack of artistic ability, even though some children only create art for entertainment or a pastime, rather than artistic mastery.

I have come to learn the many names of this trend’s participants: commentators of cringe culture, try-not-to-cringe challengers, anti-cringe, and “bad art” bloggers. For simplicity, I will call them online critics because these participants equate poking fun at children’s art to giving them constructive criticism. True constructive criticism can appear harsh, but artists must embrace it as a necessary tool for improvement. However, this new trend of cyberbullying uses “constructive criticism” as a justification for discouraging creativity in artistic children.

Criticism becomes ineffective when it pressures young artists to meet an unnecessarily high standard. Online verbal abuse criticizes young artists for creating sloppy artwork instead of producing masterpieces like professional artists. Online critics illogically expect all artists to perform professionally in any situation. Why is this the expectation in the art world? Let’s take a look at swimming. Many people enjoy swimming and some train to be competitive. For swimmers in leagues and on teams, coaches expect them to constantly practice and improve their speed and form. If a swimmer on a team slacks off or performs beneath their ability, their coach has the right to criticize the swimmer’s performance. However, swimming is a leisure activity too. People attend pool parties, play in the pool, and swim for enjoyment. Children also participate in swimming for fun. People accept that children swim for the sake of pleasure, not for the sake of joining a swimming competition. Because the professional standard of swimmers becomes irrelevant in a backyard pool, people do not pressure kids to swim as well as professional athletes. This attitude should also apply to artists. In the case of artistic children, online critics unfairly condemn them for having fun with art, even though children do not create in the professional environment.

Children should not live under the obligation to perform a skill like professionals, as they naturally have little professional experience. In fact, criticizing children for naturally lacking experience can discourage them from continuing with and improving their artwork. While online critics demand better art, they are actually preventing talented artists from emerging in the future. It is more effective to be kind and supportive toward younger artists than to be critical and strict. This will mitigate negative impacts on children’s emotional well-being and prevent them from becoming discouraged.

Some may argue that online criticism is harmless to the well-being of kids and is a fair use of freedom of speech. They may argue that instead of online critics becoming kinder to younger artists, younger artists must learn to handle criticism and to use and navigate the Internet safely. They claim that mental strength will benefit their futures and art skills more than the shelter of kindness. It is certainly not illegal to criticize a child’s piece of art on the Internet. Additionally, encouraging kids to be mentally strong and to resist negative feedback is a valid argument. After all, online bullying exists because negativity is impossible to stop. It’s easier to encourage people to ignore criticism than to plead with every person on the Internet to be kinder.

Enduring the negativity seems to be a more realistic goal than reducing it. However, this places all the responsibility on the victims – not on the critics – to mitigate the negative impacts of harassment toward young artists. Social change is not the responsibility of a single party. In history, multiple parties and multiple factors contribute to positive changes such as political rebellions and civil rights movements. A response to a cyberbullying phenomenon should not be different; both the critic and the criticized need to play their part in making a fairer, safer place for creative people to share their artwork online. When artists post their work online, they have the responsibility to choose their battles – to decide if it is worth it or not to be vulnerable to harassment – and to build a stronger sense of confidence. Online critics also bear the responsibility of choosing their words carefully. Like creating art, writing constructive criticism takes effort. It must be done with care and with the intention of helping artists improve their skills and boost their confidence – characteristics that the cringe culture certainly lacks.