Which reminds me: what would you like feedback about, at the time of writing?
Thank you for that question. I won't claim I'm any closer to a real, simple answer than I was when you asked it, but it forced me to at least try to clarify my thinking on the subject.
"At the time of writing" or not doesn't make any difference to me. I mean yes, I'd rather have constructive criticism
before publication than after, but what gives the critique value is still the same, before
or after.
If I write something, or perform something, or draw something, it is a personal communication between me and the reader (audience, whatever). If a million people read it, it's still a personal and subjective communication, no two of them take away precisely the same thing for precisely the same reasons. It's easy enough for me to see what I was doing on my end of that communication, but I cannot ever have a sure way to see what came out the other end, because I can't see into people's heads. The critique of a reader,
any reader, is of value in that it gives me a (foggy) look into the relationship between what I said and what they heard. The critique of someone whose experience and knowledge is such that they've faced the same problem before that I am facing now is, of course, of higher value. They can more clearly articulate what they're getting from the work, thus "clearing the fog" somewhat. Nonetheless, even if I'm being critiqued by Shakespeare's ghost,
he's still only one reader, so what comes out of the other end of the communication stream is still going to be different for everyone else than it was for him.
So... for me the goal of a critique, whether I'm giving it or getting it, is what I (as audience) "heard" from the artist's work, what I suspect he was actually trying to "say," what made me think there was a difference between the two and how I would have "said it differently" had it been me (assuming I think I could have done better.) The more clearly I can articulate those things, the more value my critique has. Nonetheless, I also know that it's "just another one on the pile," and "the pile" is the size of the artist's entire audience.
I'm assuming that there is
always a difference between what the audience experienced and the experience the artist was trying to convey, and that the more astute members of the audience will be able to spot it, even if they can't positively identify it. Some artists and some works are so perfect that the above doesn't apply, but most don't live long enough to be able to
count on that degree of skill
every time. I don't expect to, but that won't stop me from trying.