Quote - post, the comments may have been harsh, but they're not exactly trolling.  The commenter, while being harsh, was giving a critique.

I've been thinking about this, and since I can't comment in the other thread, I'll do it here.

I don't think the comments were trolling, and so far as copy/pasting the same thing from image to image, I have no proof of that because we are unable to search a users comments in the gallery to see if they are in fact copy/pasting.

That being said, the comments weren't "critique", they were more in tune with an editorial review (an evaluation of the item) where the reviewer states their point of view for better or worse, and that's it. Not unlike you read in the paper after a new movie, play, art show or restaurant premiers.  Were they blunt? Yes. But that is typical of most editorial reviews. A review is just an honest opinion of what the person has viewed and it's not meant to be more than that.

Such comments are not meant to  help the person along in their learning by offering ways to improve their work etc.
The fact that he doesn't have a gallery doesn't mean anything. Most of us who go to a movie and review it after the fact for others, have never been in or made a movie ourselves.  You don't have to be an artist in order to enjoy looking at and reviewing art. We each know what we like and what we don't like.

Personally I think they should get rid of the "critical/non-critical" statement in the gallery and just make it "comments."  Not all comments should have to provide ways to improve something if you have an opinion about the image, be it good or bad.

 

"It is good to see ourselves as others see us. Try as we may, we are never
able to know ourselves fully as we are, especially the evil side of us.
This we can do only if we are not angry with our critics but will take in good
heart whatever they might have to say." - Ghandi