Critcs and Critiques

BradS · Mar 17, 2005

The "learning to ride a bicycle" analogy is convenient but not useful. One learning to ride automatically gets continuous, instant feedback. In my admittedly limited, experience, no such instant feedback exists in photography....especially on the aesthetic aspect of it.

Andy K · Mar 17, 2005

GaussianNoise said:
The "learning to ride a bicycle" analogy is convenient but not useful. One learning to ride automatically gets continuous, instant feedback. In my admittedly limited, experience, no such instant feedback exists in photography....especially on the aesthetic aspect of it.

Surely if it is pleasing to you, then that is all that matters? There is your constant feedback.
I personally couldn't give a monkey's left nut what anyone else thinks of my photography. I photograph to please me, not to please others. I can see if I screw up the developing, if I over/under expose a shot. I learn from my mistakes. The same as if I fell off a bike I would learn from that.

Ed Sukach · Mar 17, 2005

rhphoto said:
Criticism is an essential tool in all the arts...
...But it's still needed.
If you don't accept that some work is better or stronger, then this entire conversation seems ridiculous. But if you do think there's at least SOME kind of reasonably objective standard to aim for, then you might agree that criticism is essential to the artist's growth, and to the betterment of the medium.

I understand you position, but I disagree ...not wholly, but to a degree.

I think a distinction must be made between "necessary" and "helpful". In the correct spirit, and with the proper application, it can be a useful tool. Absolutely necessary? No, I don't think it is. Art history is full of accounts where artists have been repeatedly nailed to the wall by critics, and eventually learned to ignore them. How many would you wish me to name?

Some kind of reasonably objective standard ...

There is? I've been searching for something like that for many moons now. I've read a few works about art and critiquing, and countless "Criteria for Judging" in juried shows ... And I haven't found anything remotely coherent/ objective yet.

Could you share it with us?

Ed Sukach · Mar 17, 2005

GaussianNoise said:
In my admittedly limited, experience, no such instant feedback exists in photography....especially on the aesthetic aspect of it.

It does for me. Just as soon as I pop the top off the JOBO tank in the darkroom and see the print.

BradS · Mar 17, 2005

Andy K said:
Surely if it is pleasing to you, then that is all that matters? There is your constant feedback. I personally couldn't give a monkey's left nut what anyone else thinks of my photography. I photograph to please me, not to please others. I can see if I screw up the developing, if I over/under expose a shot. I learn from my mistakes. The same as if I fell off a bike I would learn from that.

Ed Sukach said:
It does for me. Just as soon as I pop the top off the JOBO tank in the darkroom and see the print.

constant maybe...but not continuous and not instant and does that sort of feedback really concern the aesthetics? or just the technical?

I can see your point about "if it pleases me, then it's good". However, I think that pleasing yourself and producing art are not necessarily the same thing. I think that Art (with a capital 'A') necessarily involves interaction with humanity - even if accidentally or, posthumously. Art is in someway related to communication and like communication, instances of the class 'Art' can be judged on how effectively they communicate.

Now, I'm an mathematician and not an artist so this may all be a load of philosophical crap but, this is how I see and understand the matter.

jd callow · Mar 17, 2005

To test what Ed was saying or at least my understanding of it, I posted an image in the critique gallery. I didn't give any requirements. I thought that that might be too leading and I really didn't know what to say. I chose an image that has blownout highlights, blocked up shadows and surreal colours -- a technically flawed image.

The test was inconclusive or at least I don't think anyone gave a critique that spoke more about who they were than what was shown.

Ed Sukach · Mar 17, 2005

GaussianNoise said:
constant maybe...but not continuous and not instant and does that sort of feedback really concern the aesthetics? or just the technical?

Time really isn't the question ... although MY feedback will most certainly be quicker than anyone elses.

Why separate "technical" from "aesthetics"?

I think it is very possible that the aesthetics of a print can overpower the technical evaluation.... Arrest the attention of the viewer to the point where technical flaws go unnoticed... but, for all intents and purposes, I really want to consider the photograph as a whole.

Ed Sukach · Mar 17, 2005

The idea that "The critique speaks more about the critic than the work" seems to need clarification.

I've never meant that the critique was a deliberate attempt at communication, but it DOES provide insight into the being of the Critic.

There is a diagnostic tool used in psychology - the Thematic Apperception Test, where the subject writes a "story" and from the contents one can gain insight into the "insides" of the subject. Think of Rorschach Ink Blot Tests - much the same 'mechanism` - or what one `sees' in cloud formations. No one would choose to make a statement, consciously, about themselves - but the insight into their being WILL be there.

rhphoto · Mar 17, 2005

Ed Sukach said:
Some kind of reasonably objective standard ...

There is? I've been searching for something like that for many moons now. I've read a few works about art and critiquing, and countless "Criteria for Judging" in juried shows ... And I haven't found anything remotely coherent/ objective yet.

Could you share it with us?

I would never assert that there is some arbitrary, perfect standard out there. I think all I'm trying to say is that you can work as though nobody else's opinion matters, as a previous post suggests, or you can move in the direction of a consensus about quality.

It's the spirit of the Age to say "whatever works for you". That's fine. But that's not the only way to look at art. For those who want to do art just for themselves, go for it. But I want to make art that connects me to a larger community, and the quality of my work will have some effect on whether or not it connects.

For anyone here in APUG wanting to eventually show in galleries, or to be considered for the private collections of patrons, it helps to understand what some of the criteria are for acceptance. And OF COURSE there are exceptions to the rules! It's a choice. That's all I'm saying. And for those who choose to put their work in the critique gallery, they deserve effective, helpful critique. I certainly don't mean negative criticism - I mean constructive criticism, perhaps from photographers who have been around awhile.

Joe Symchyshyn · Mar 17, 2005

Ed Sukach said:
Is the learning process enhanced by calling to attention *every* single flaw in the process?

Personally... If I was getting a critique on my work, I would prefer to hear it all at one time than to get one little tidbit and think everything else is alright... Then fail again and get one more tidbit... Bit by bit slugging it out till EVENTUALLY I start to put it all together.

I'd rather get as much information and reaction as possible and use what I can right away.

How many images do we see that have 1 line comments like "beautiful" or "keep up the good work!"?? Those are compliments not critiques.

IMHO calling attention to *every* single flaw and/or success in the process is someone who is TAKING THEIR TIME to seriously look at the picture and consider it. Something that despite our best efforts, does not happen all that often.

joe

Flotsam · Mar 17, 2005

Ed Sukach said:
I've never meant that the critique was a deliberate attempt at communication, but it DOES provide insight into the being of the Critic.

It sounds to me as if you are stating the obvious. Of course a person's individual reaction to an image reflects their individual tastes, personalities and experiences. So does their choice of clothing and preferences in music. Isn't that the value of asking others to give you their impressions of your work? To be able to get reactions to the same image through other eyes and from different points of view than your own?

bjorke · Mar 17, 2005

Joe Symchyshyn said:
IMHO calling attention to *every* single flaw and/or success in the process is someone who is TAKING THEIR TIME to seriously look at the picture and consider it. Something that despite our best efforts, does not happen all that often.

Absolutely agreed, though of course it's worthwhile to consider the source of those comments before just slavishly accepting any of them. I'd much rather have someone say "there's a black triangle in the corner that interferes and the skin tones are weak and need contrast and the eyes are out of focus and there's a chemical stain across the brow and i really have to wonder why you even bothered making this crappy picture when I already have plenty of nice ones of Michael Jackson made with a Real Leica not your stupid Canonet" or whatever, rather than (the usual case) silence.

It's an ongoing paradox (life is full of them -- deal with it!) that as often as not critiques are blind to the point of the work they're critiquing, but every one of them still has value as an experience that grows my own perspective and perception - about both pictures and people.

Ed Sukach · Mar 17, 2005

Flotsam said:
It sounds to me as if you are stating the obvious.

I am stating the obvious. It is less obvious to some than others.

Tom Stanworth · Mar 17, 2005

I prefer warts and all. The photographer can decide what to do with the comments offered. If nothing sound is offered for fear of offence, nothing at all is achieved. Whenever someone rudely or unjustifiably hammers someones work, others are quick to defend it and dismiss the comments. I have never seen a deluge of destructive comment in isolation. Hearing the whole gammut is better than as someone said, the compliments and no comment. People also seem to make friends and do the circular Oscars style 'congrats darling, I love it'. This is worse than saying nothing and appears to be entirely self-serving. We should not be afraid to be objective even when we like the photographer, not should they be upset when a friend states his honest views.

Of course a person's comments says things about themselves, but personally I put the work in the gallery to find out what people think of the work and am not overly concerned about the politics/psychology.

Tom

Tom

Flotsam · Mar 17, 2005

bjorke said:
It's an ongoing paradox (life is full of them -- deal with it!) that as often as not critiques are blind to the point of the work they're critiquing, but every one of them still has value as an experience that grows my own perspective and perception - about both pictures and people.

Although I think that it is also an interesting measure of how successful you were at conveying the point of the work.

Your' perspective as the creator of the work from concept, through the process to the presentation gives you a perspective on it it that is absolutely unique. The only way to know what effect it has on others is to ask them, and if you are lucky they will offer honest, thoughtful reactions.

Ed Sukach · Mar 18, 2005

Just came across this, in my "other office".

Preface: One aspect to be considered is that photography is a form of expression - there is an ultimate effect of communicating with another ...
This is a observation about communication. Schmoozing ... or critique ... could very well be included:

"Writing in Cosmopolitan magazine, Veronica Geng offers this:

... Now, one last word applicable to every conversation, whether you're chatting with Mr. Big, or a high school chum - for heaven's sake - stay loose! Keep reminding yourself that a conversation is not a information-retrieval test or a tournament of witty sallies; talking is just a way of making comforting noises while we try finding out, in ways often mysterious, what we really want to know about each other."

With some of us, those "ways often mysterious" can be, and often are, through photography.

André E.C. · Mar 18, 2005

Ed,

Stay with the Nun, she`s in the right path.

Cheers

André

bjorke · Mar 18, 2005

Flotsam said:
Although I think that it is also an interesting measure of how successful you were at conveying the point of the work.

Yes, quite true (though sensitive to context: truer for, say, commercial and editorial work, where lack of ambiguity is important. For art purposes, often uncertainty is a desired quality).

By coincidence, I found the following quote last night, and scribbled it down in my daily notebook, on the subject of making statements in photos:

Philippe Halsman said:
...You must be sure not to leave it diluted or vaguely expressed in your picture. You have to show it with utmost clarity and force, and each technical step must contribute to that end. An uncut diamond has only a potential value. Only after it is cut and polished does it shine in the dark.

rhphoto · Mar 18, 2005

Ed Sukach said:
... Now, one last word applicable to every conversation, whether you're chatting with Mr. Big, or a high school chum - for heaven's sake - stay loose! Keep reminding yourself that a conversation is not a information-retrieval test or a tournament of witty sallies; talking is just a way of making comforting noises while we try finding out, in ways often mysterious, what we really want to know about each other."

With some of us, those "ways often mysterious" can be, and often are, through photography.

This thread was beginning (for me, anyway) to get too serious. I have a tendency to get all dour and long-faced about philosophical stuff, and Ed, you hit the spot with - of all things - a quote from Cosmofreakin'politan magazine! And I agree - our photos are a way of presenting the world the way we see it, and maybe let's let the pictures speak for themselves.

Joe Symchyshyn · Mar 18, 2005

I'm starting to think Ed posts these things to boost traffic to his images... Anyone else think so?

joe

roteague · Mar 18, 2005

Joe Symchyshyn said:
I'm starting to think Ed posts these things to boost traffic to his images... Anyone else think so?

joe

Yeah, it sure couldn't be the pretty girls.

Jorge · Mar 19, 2005

One thing I dont like about this post is the put down used. Invariably when someone writes "It says more about the person doing the......" it is done as a put down and I think it really is a clever meaningless sentence. For the life of me I dont see why someone places a print in the critique section and then gets upset when the critique does not go the way they want.

I thought Joe S' critiques were too specific but right on the button.In general I have never critiqued these prints because I find them dated and lacking imagination. I feel like I am looking at a Bob Shell nude made back in the 70s.

Aside from Thomas, there is this guy who I have always found makes outstanding nudes, you should check him out if you like nudes.

http://www.michaelezra.com/

arigram · Mar 19, 2005

Anyone can say whatever (s)he pleases about anything.
If you listen to him(her) and what you get out of it is a different matter.
When it comes to artwork, if you like it, you like it. If you don't, you don't.
You can say any number of words to justify your choice but in the end it is
a matter of personal taste.
Cab drivers have as much right of opinion as distinguished art historians.
Both can say something clever or both can utter crap.

BradS · Mar 19, 2005

arigram said:
<snip>...Both can say something clever or both can utter crap.

but, crap echoes.

joeyk49 · Mar 19, 2005

Ed:

You're right. The comments of the critic many times speak more of the critic than the photograph. I learned this myself on a photo that I commented on and was promptly corrected by several other viewers. Not that I was wrong in my impression of the photo (I wasn't commenting on its techincal merits, that I recall), but that my view or impression of the photo was definitely out of synch with the rest of the community, here. I caused me, the critic, to re-evaluate my own perspective and to keep it in mind when wiewing others' works. On that occasion, at least from my perspective, the Critique forum was more valuable to me, the critic, than to the one posting the image.

With THAT said, I still believe that my comments were helpful to the photographer, in that he/she learned of the impact of the photo on me; as the comments of others did for them.

I really don't believe that most people make photographs for themselves. Most of us enjoy the process of photogrpahy, but the final image is made for the enjoyment of others. (Again, MY perspective..and I await the response of the rest of the community to affirm or contradict this...)

I think that a dialog takes place between the photographer and the viewer. The photographer creates an image that will provoke a desired (usually emotional) response from the viewer, and the viewer lets him/her know whether or not he achieved his goal. In the end, the viewer walks away saying, "I like it", "I love it" or "It sucks" and the photographer has something tucked away in his brain for the next frame...as does the viewer.

Critcs and Critiques

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency