Critcs and Critiques

[Jim Chinn]

People invariably bring all their own ideas, education and background into any critique or input they provide. When you post images to a forum gallery you are going to get a wide variety of responses, some that have absolutely no application to your work.

You need to be able to sort the wheat from the chaff so to speak. A photographer may look at my work and complain about printing or contrast etc, but a non-photographer may find it quite appealing. I remember in one of Brooks Jensen's essays in Lenswork he discussed how much difference there was between feedback from photographers and non-photographers viewing his work.

Somewhere in the middle is the gallery owner and the collector. If I want a serious critique of my work that is who I would go to. They are familiar with the market and a vast array of photographic styles and genres.

But you need to have the ability to evaluate what others say, consider it, maybe experiment with it, but ultimately have the courage to stay the course.

You also need to be able to separate out the two forms of criticism. The first being the technical suggestions dealing with composition, lighting, printing etc. This type of criticism is the trickiest to accept because it may sound as if the critic is insulting your ability as a photographer. However I have learned that the little things such as print this a little lighter or maybe you should have moved the camera to the right a little is really pretty valuable. These should be looked at as suggestions to help you better communicate your vision.

The other type of critism is the hardest to deal with because it usually has to do with your vision, style, message and content of the image. At the worst it can bring into question your entire rationale for being a photographer. This begins to enter the realm of your personal philosophy of image making. The best thing to do is to honestly consider the criticism and take a good hard look at your work. Sometimes taking just a little of the criticism to heart can improve your work without compromising your vision.

I do not critique a lot of work in the galleries. I don't think it is possible to give any real suggestions based on a small image on my monitor. An image that looks terrible small on my monitor may be quite striking as an 11x14 printed and matted. If I do offer suggestions it is usually about compositional elements or to comment on a unique image.

 

[Ed Sukach]

An interesting post. My reply will have to be in two parts... I've already suffered the fate of being shunted into bit heaven twice, either from the length of the reply, or the time required for typing.

Reply Part !:

Ed, all your color pictures have been deleted,...

My work is there to do with as I will. I chose, at that point, not to share.

... are you really that upset over the color balance? It is a good thing that I save what I write in case something like that happens. I asked in one of my comments if your work was merely about color balance—it is now hard for me to think otherwise.

No, not color balance. The attitude in the reply was very irritating. I didn't NEED that abuse.

In your opening post you said you “have never been able to connect learning with masochism”. There is no connection because masochism is a sexual perversion involving being dominated and humiliated; learning is about growing. I don’t think people get off by being humiliated in the Apug Critique Gallery—most people want to learn.

I did not choose APUG as a forum for discussing Psychology. Masochism has many forms, and many intensities. Generally, it is "Obtaining gratification as a result of receiving pain". I have found that teaching is FAR more effective from a base of "Joy of Discovery" than it is from receiving or avoiding pain.

A critique is involved with thinking critically (deeply, objectively) about the work. Then, one forms an opinion, or connects an already held opinion to what was discovered when the work was carefully considered . I actually don’t see much of that in the critique gallery. For a very good example, see this picture: (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

I've reviewed that image, and after considerable, deep thought, I agree with what the majority has written. WHY is is reasonable to equate agreement in this case with "lack of attention"?

Who said that a critique speaks more about the critic? If you are going to quote someone, please reference who originally said it.

I had integrated that into my belief system for so long, it took some thought. It was Alfred Stieglitz.

Here is a part of what I wrote about one of your nudies you deleted (by the way, I didn’t mention anything about the disgusting green cast): ”Abstractly speaking, there seems to be nothing on the right side of the picture to support her visual weight....”

I didn't remember that. There wasn't anything worth remembering.

(Continued in Reply Part II)

 

[Ed Sukach]

The picture I was talking about was bad and I really did not like it. That did not stop me from REALLY thinking about it. I did not let my basic opinion of the picture stop me from seriously considering why I disliked it, and I tried to form a suggestion as how to improve the original seeing. I think that is a fine example of what being critical and constructive is all about.

So you thought that image was "bad". Somehow that doesn't surprise me. I have to reply, with all honesty, that the fact of your dislike/ disapproval will not cause me to lose much sleep. I think I can survive this crushing (?) rejection.
You call this "constructive"? I'd like to see an example of your "destructive" criticism.

Ed, you could possibly be the most defensive person I have ever seen on Apug.

You do? And you want me to be -- what? Defenseless? Another crushing blow.

It is hard to believe that you are getting so bent out of shape over something as silly as color balance. I would worry more about making better pictures. That would involve learning something from the critiques—they actually are helpful.Considering someone else’s vision can only help you see better (even if all it does is make you think opposite to that they say---it still makes you think)—isn’t that why most photographers look at the work of other photographers?

Ah, the pronouncement from the Guru on the hill, complete with the assumption that, I do not "worry" (bad term - "am not concerned" is better) about my work. Incorrect assumption. And insulting.

Letting go of you preconceived ideas is integral to learning and growing. At a certain point it is possible to learn from yourself—but so few have the capacity for it. There is the real benefit of the serious critique—it helps get past a certain block in the vision and helps you see better. But, you stated in your first post that you are not interested in that. It is hard to believe that you take yourself so seriously—It is hard for me to take you seriously at all.

You "don't take me seriously" - because I do??. If I cared, even a little bit, I might devote some time trying to figure that out.

I think you do some FINE work, for that particular genre... and that area is as valid, and valuable as any other. It is not what I want to do.

Last, and possibly sadly, I have NO desire to be a Richard Boutwell clone. I do not want to be ANYONE'S clone.

 

[blansky]

This whole thread seems like some sort of self centered exercise in martyrdom. In the first place Ed says that he doesn't really find critiques helpful and that it says more about the critic than the work itself.

Therefore, is the fact that the images he put into the critique gallery in the first place, just so he can judge the critiquers as being friend or foe. Or does he just to it to start a fight that he can spend hours emphatically stating his deluded points of view?

When all was said and done he pulled his pictures from the critique gallery and walks away in a huff, vowing to never do color again. It seems more like a cry for attention than anything else and his goal has been achieved.

Any fool knows that when you place your work for critique you will get various responses that you can listen to or not. The choice is yours. As the saying goes, " if you don't want to hear the answer, don't ask the question.

Can we move on.

Michael

 

[Dave Miller]

Can we move on.

Michael

Yes, please!

 

[Ed Sukach]

In the first place Ed says that he doesn't really find critiques helpful and that it says more about the critic than the work itself.
Therefore, is the fact that the images he put into the critique gallery in the first place, just so he can judge the critiquers as being friend or foe. Or does he just to it to start a fight that he can spend hours emphatically stating his deluded points of view?

Can we move on.

You can move on any time you choose. Is someone her FORCING you to participate?
Back button. Choose another thread - select.
Is there some compelling reason for declaring that I am only doing this to determine who is "friend or foe"? - Which is NOT true.

Nice ploy - and I've been there before. Post something inflammatory: "His DELUDED points of view" ... and run - under the cover of "Can we move on?"

How many times am I going to be misquoted? I have NEVER said that critiques are totally useless. I simply do not see them as the primary teaching tool.
They are indicative of the reactions people have to one's work... and that is of importance in itself. Are they the ALL important reason for being? .. and the standards we must judge our work by? No!

"Deluded", huh... Who the #$@$ made you the judge of MY "delusions"?

 

[Kirk Keyes]

Is there a possibility -- just a remote possibility - that my "setup is not the one not "properly" calibrated?

Let's see ... to "properly" calibrate the entire system ... we would have to establish a working standard of color fidelity. Each monitor in the system would have to be calibrated to reproduce that standard within certain arbitrarily chosen limits.

Someone upload a "properly color balanced" image containing "Fair Caucasian Skin".

All we would need would be a consensus of the "proper" color balance.

Ed, if you haven't used a hardware system to calibrate your monitors, the chances are pretty slim that your calibration will be good. While your eyes are very sensitive to certain aspects of color, they are not very precise as far as absolute amounts of color are concerned.

Instead of using a camera generated image to color balance, why don't you try this artifically created image. It includes a digitally made Macbeth Color Checker chart. And on the color checker chart are several skin tones for your to make your comparisons with.

http://www.brucelindbloom.com/index.html?ColorCheckerRGB.html

There's lots of other really neat tools on this site to learn more about color.

Kirk - www.keyesphoto.com

 

[Kirk Keyes]

Monitors Lie.

Ed. The problem with your system is you are essentially calibrating your scans to match your monitors output - not calibrating your monitor to see what your scans really look like.

This is an excellent assessment!

 

[Andy K]

Why all this fuss about how perfect a shot looks on a monitor? I'd rather see the real print and couldn't give a flying f*** about monitor colour accuracy. Computers, monitors etc are of little importance to my photography other than as a tool with which to interact with other photogs.
If this was Photo.net I'd understand the furore, but it isn't.

 

[Joe Symchyshyn]

"Give Them Enough Rope And They'll Hang Themselves"

So I'm thinking... "Just let it go..." , "This is not worth it..."

It doesn't matter... Ed will get the last word, he always does, with tons of text... He'll tear it all apart line by line followed up with paragraph after paragraph defending his position... (whatever that is anymore)

As for helping you with a colour sample, I don't have a scanner hooked up and I don't shoot colour... What do you want me to do? Why not try the eye dropper/info idea that was posted? Unfortunately, you'll get the hard numbers about the green cast, and you'll learn that maybe a few of us DO see the cast that (did) exist.

By removing the images and the critiques you take this debate to an area where we can no longer go back and see what people (read: me and the other non praise givers) said, so you can now imply that we was this or we was that...

I will no longer trouble you with critiques since I believe that you are not looking for honesty... you are looking for positive feedback only and cannot handle any negative evaluations.

Maybe instead of point forms on the technical I could have written it into lofty terms instead of getting right to the issues. It was in the critique gallery, and I for one critiqued some technical issues regarding posing and colour bias. You on the other hand, blew it completely out of proportion and removed the images so no one could do any follow up.

joe

 

[Tom Stanworth]

My 2 Cents....

Everything is subjective. We will never know what to truly make of a person's critique as perception is everything. The only issue for me is when people have an axe to grind.....and then swing it wildly. This is as rare as hens' teeth on APUG! I think it ends there and agree with Blansky that there is little point in regarding the critique gallery as a social psychology experiment. You submit work and people say stuff! Come on, lets not kick this point to death and into a philisophical issue in its own right. It is not worthy of it!

As for the issue of positive vs negative.....I totally cannot stand the principle of, 'if you don't have anything nice to say, say nothing at all.' What is nice? I would substitute nice for 'constructive', however someone can still constructively say that an image does nothing for them. I also think that people had better get used to taking criticism. We live in a sad world where children never 'lose' anything. They never lose a race, but there are positions, one of which cannot for PC reasons be termed 'last'. Everyone is a winner.......what a load of cr@p!!! What sort of coping skills does this teach? IMHO the sort which requires people to need councilling for the rest of their lives to deal with everyday occurrences, that's what! As for the notion that only positive encouragement works to move people on, is that why we live in a time devoid of common decency and standards, because nobody is told 'No!' or 'That was not good enough, try harder'. Both positive and negative comments have a place and people absolutely should not be afraid of using whichever seems appropriate. I really do feel that we are lucky that we live in a world where some have time to get upset when a nasty person says nasty things. It says a lot about how sheltered and protected elements of society have become. If the sky clouds over and the sun does not come up tomorrow, I would rather not have a well meaning, emotional drip standing beside me! Grrrrr where are peoples' Balls?

I may not be old, but I have spent enough time in parts of the world where things really are NOT nice to get too concerned about someone slating my photography.....some people need to toughen up for cripes sake!

Tom

 

[Michael A. Smith]

Ed: It seems you misunderstand the function of a critique. A critique, properly and thoughtfully given, requires thought and effort on the part of the one giving it. It may be a critique of praise or it may be one to call attention to perceived shortcomings in the work offered for criticism. Whether it is a positive critique or a negative one, its function should be to help the photographer whose work is being critiqued become a better photographer, whatever that may mean in a particular instance. A negative critique, properly given, is not a comment on the photographer, or on the one giving the critique, but on the work being offered for criticism.

I have read a number of times now that a long time ago you were aware (or were party to, I don't recall which), a critique of a burgeoning photographer's work who was "destroyed" by a negative critique and therefore gave up trying to become a photographer. It appears, from what you have written, that your experience of that event caused you to vow never to give a negative critique, nor, for that matter, to accept one being given to you. That's too bad.

If any photographer is destroyed by receiving a negative critique that simply means they do not have what it takes to be an artist; it means that have no innate belief in their own work. Whether a critique is right or wrong, no artist with any confidence in what they are doing, or in where they are attempting to go even if they are not there yet, will ever be so affected by a critique as to be wiped out and discouraged.

The absolute worst thing anyone can do is tell someone their work is good, or even okay, when it is not. I have seen this happen hundreds of times: the photographer whose work was so "critiqued" leaves school or the workshop and gets out into the world of galleries, museums, or commercial assignments--where their work is dismissed without a moment's hesitation. And they haven't a clue, because after all, to spare their feelings their teacher/workshop instructor patted them on the back instead of given their honest evaluation of what the photographer could have done to make his/her work stronger and better--in its own terms--not from the personal bias of the person giving the critique.

And by the way, the only critiques really worth anything are those given by those who are familiar with the entire history of photography, by those who have a full understanding of the visual/aesthetic, historical, technical, personal, and social components of the work. Too few, alas, have that perspective.

As others have noted, if you put your work up in the critique gallery you must be prepared for all types of comments--positive or negative. And you must assume that all comments are well intentioned. To automatically assume that negative comments are ill intentioned is to miss the point entirely. And if you are a serious photographer, you will pay special attention to the negative comments and try to see what truth, however partial it may be, is embedded in those comments. To do any less is to cheat yourself of the opportunity of learning from those who may have some insight, though they may not know everything, into inadequacies they see in the work. To disparage those taking their time and making the effort to give you something--they are, after all offering a critique--or to remove the work being offered because the photographer does not like the comments, is the action of a severely insecure person. To coin a cliche, if you, or anyone else, can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen, and don't offer your work up for comment.

 

[Ed Sukach]

It doesn't matter... Ed will get the last word, he always does, with tons of text... He'll tear it all apart line by line followed up with paragraph after paragraph defending his position... (whatever that is anymore)

Are you saying I am not entitled to defend my position ... or that I can only do so as long as I stay within a limited number of words?

By removing the images and the critiques you take this debate to an area where we can no longer go back and see what people (read: me and the other non praise givers) said, so you can now imply that we was this or we was that...

But that WAS one way to end debate -- or in other words "Let it go".

I will no longer trouble you with critiques since I believe that you are not looking for honesty... you are looking for positive feedback only and cannot handle any negative evaluations.

I refuse to repeat a description of my motives again. If you have not understood them by now, I doubt you ever will.

Maybe instead of point forms on the technical I could have written it into lofty terms instead of getting right to the issues. It was in the critique gallery, and I for one critiqued some technical issues regarding posing and colour bias. You on the other hand, blew it completely out of proportion and removed the images so no one could do any follow up.

As I've said, one way to help end debate. Sorry if I left you without "fuel". I thought that is what you wanted.

 

[Flotsam]

Recently, when Michael's work was being criticised in this this forum, He responded with a spirited and well stated defense that showed his personal confidence in the intent and effect of his photography. That demonstrated to me a critical as well as aesthetic relationship with his own work that I believe is imperative to any serious artist.

When Ed first started this thread, I revisited the last few of his critique gallery posts and reread the comments. While not every single one was an "attaboy" affirmation of perfection, they were uniformly thoughtful, constructive and supportive. Joe's comments, which were the most frankly critical, just plainly stated his reaction to specific aspects of the photograph that he found disturbing. Some might say that that is the whole point of critique.

The green shadows or the lack of separation between the subject and the background, which Ed himself pointed out don't mean much without seeing the originals. Personally, I wouldn't comment on those things because they are likely artifacts of the scanning or digital distribution of the image. Here on APUG there is an assumption that analog images (both Black and White and Color) will suffer in the digitizing and posting process. But things like stiff and deliberate posing, elements such as tattoos that some find distracting, and uncomfortable balance and composition are all valid subjects for mention. Ed, It's your right to believe that because it is your creation, only your opinions matter, but if you show it to other people, they _will_ have opinions that are based on their individual reaction to the subject matter and how it is portrayed. That's their right and if you ask them for it... hey, don't complain when when they give it.

I think that Ed's reaction is disproportionate to the rather mild and well intentioned criticism that his photographs received.

That is my critique of Ed's critique of those who honestly critiqued Ed's photographs in the critique gallery.

 

[Ed Sukach]

My 2 Cents....
As for the issue of positive vs negative.....I totally cannot stand the principle of, 'if you don't have anything nice to say, say nothing at all.'

Nor can I. That is plainly and simply, dishonest. I would submit that to go in the other direction ... ONLY comment if you can find fault is equally dishonest. Unfortunately there is a third alternative ... the work does not fire enough energy in the beholder to cause them to have an opinion, or at least not enough to voice it.

I also think that people had better get used to taking criticism.... Everyone is a winner.......what a load of cr@p!!! What sort of coping skills does this teach?...

I can conceive of art / photography as something other than a contest. Win / lose? I look at this game as a refuge from that sort of struggle. I didn't get into this area to "learn to cope".

...because nobody is told 'No!' or 'That was not good enough, try harder'.

... And it is some sort of sacred duty falling upon us to provide that impetus?

Both positive and negative comments have a place and people absolutely should not be afraid of using whichever seems appropriate

.
I've been trying to say EXACTLY that ... get that point across, through this whole discussion.

I really do feel that we are lucky that we live in a world where some have time to get upset when a nasty person says nasty things. It says a lot about how sheltered and protected elements of society have become. If the sky clouds over and the sun does not come up tomorrow, I would rather not have a well meaning, emotional drip standing beside me! Grrrrr where are peoples' Balls?

Unfortunately, some of us are vilified when we try to use them - accused of using too many words, the "sin" of tenacity...

 

[Ed Sukach]

Ed: It seems you misunderstand the function of a critique. A critique, properly and thoughtfully given, requires thought and effort on the part of the one giving it. It may be a critique of praise or it may be one to call attention to perceived shortcomings in the work offered for criticism.

That is the way I understand critiques.

I have read a number of times now that a long time ago you were aware (or were party to, I don't recall which), a critique of a burgeoning photographer's work who was "destroyed" by a negative critique and therefore gave up trying to become a photographer. It appears, from what you have written, that your experience of that event caused you to vow never to give a negative critique, nor, for that matter, to accept one being given to you. That's too bad.

You could not have read it a number of times. I've only posted it once.
However, that restatement is incorrect. I have seen emerging photographers and artists NEEDLESSLY destroyed by VICIOUS, DESTRUCTIVE "critiques". There is a vast difference between those and "constructive" critiques. What I did was to call for sensitivity on the part of those who would be critics, to present that information in a way that would ... first, DO NO HARM.

If any photographer is destroyed by receiving a negative critique that simply means they do not have what it takes to be an artist;...

No. I disagree, totally. First, choosing who lives and who does not is not even close to a resposiblilty or derived responsibility I wish to assume. NOT up to me ... nor is it up to me to "administer the test".
There is an Artist up here on Cape Ann, who augments his living by pronouncing "judgement" on the skills and future prospect of those who would engage in art. For $500 he will look at your work and give an absolutely infallible judgement of "Whether or not you `have what it takes'."
It is a standing JOKE among established artists here. Those who are accomplished are well aware of how impossibly difficult that would be.

The absolute worst thing anyone can do is tell someone their work is good, or even okay, when it is not....
... their teacher/workshop instructor patted them on the back instead of given their honest evaluation of what the photographer could have done to make his/her work stronger and better--in its own terms--not from the personal bias of the person giving the critique.

I would assume that the instructor WAS critiquing. Be that as it may, I would suggest that it is even worse to drive the student way from the art, needlessly. They have entered into a contract with the instructor: For reasonable compensation, you have agreed to teach them. To drive them away is to breach that contract.
There are those who receive unwarranted praise, that go on to become renown artists. I wonder what the ratio is ...?

And by the way, the only critiques really worth anything are those given by those who are familiar with the entire history of photography, by those who have a full understanding of the visual/aesthetic, historical, technical, personal, and social components of the work. Too few, alas, have that perspective.

Interesting. I disagree, however. I am equally as interested in the reactions of the "uninitiated".
Hmm... If those are the only critiques "of value" - would some sort of qualifying test be appropriate before anyone is allowed to critique here in APUG?

As others have noted, if you put your work up in the critique gallery you must be prepared for all types of comments--positive or negative. And you must assume that all comments are well intentioned.

I did, and I do.

That doesn't necessarily mean that I will embrace that criticism, and change for the sake of conformity. Some criticism IS valuable, some is not.

Would YOU accept and follow every criticism directed at your work?

 

[Michael A. Smith]

MAS: (from before) If any photographer is destroyed by receiving a negative critique that simply means they do not have what it takes to be an artist.

ES: No. I disagree, totally. First, choosing who lives and who does not is not even close to a responsibility or derived responsibility I wish to assume. NOT up to me ... nor is it up to me to "administer the test".

MAS: I'm afraid you don't get it, Ed. Everyone is responsible for themselves. If someone offers a critique in a well-meaning way, and someone takes it badly that is not the problem of the one giving the critique. Who are you, God, to take it on yourself to be responsible for someone else? Someone giving a critique should not be callous. But they MUST be truthful. And let the chips fall where they may.

MAS: (from before) The absolute worst thing anyone can do is tell someone their work is good, or even okay, when it is not....
... their teacher/workshop instructor patted them on the back instead of given their honest evaluation of what the photographer could have done to make his/her work stronger and better--in its own terms--not from the personal bias of the person giving the critique.

ES: I would assume that the instructor WAS critiquing. Be that as it may, I would suggest that it is even worse to drive the student way from the art, needlessly. They have entered into a contract with the instructor: For reasonable compensation, you have agreed to teach them. To drive them away is to breach that contract.

MAS: No one drives anyone away. People drive themselves away. I am not so egotistical as to think my comments could ever discourage anyone from becoming an artist or making photographs if that is what their heart is set on. Maybe you have more power than I do and have to be circumspect when you give a critique.

MAS: (from before) And by the way, the only critiques really worth anything are those given by those who are familiar with the entire history of photography, by those who have a full understanding of the visual/aesthetic, historical, technical, personal, and social components of the work. Too few, alas, have that perspective.

ES: Interesting. I disagree, however. I am equally as interested in the reactions of the "uninitiated".

MAS: Really? EQUALLY interested? That's weird. Really, really and truly weird. I hope you don't mean that. Can you imagine someone unmusical giving a critique of a string quartet--someone who had never heard a string quartet, or any classical music before? What would their opinion be worth to a composer? Nothing. Zilch. Nada. Likewise, how could the opinion of someone who knew nothing about photography be of equal importance to that of someone who had mastered every aspect of it? If you think the two viewpoints are in any way, shape, or form, of equal value, then you have a serious problem.

ES: Hmm... If those are the only critiques "of value" - would some sort of qualifying test be appropriate before anyone is allowed to critique here in APUG?

MAS: Oh, come on, Ed. Anyone can give their opinion. But that doesn't mean it is worth the virtual paper it is written on.

ES: Would YOU accept and follow every criticism directed at your work?

MAS: Now that is a contradiction if I ever heard one. You are one of the most illogical people I have ever encountered. On the one hand you say that you are interested in the comments of the "uninitiated". On the other, you say you won't pay attention to them. As for myself, I am only interested in the comments of those who know a lot more than I do about our beloved medium. They are those, usually, but not always, curators, who have looked closely and critically at thousands upon thousands more original prints by masters than I will ever have the opportunity to see--and I have seen a lot.

MAS: I did not see your prints this thread seems to be, at least in part, about; I almost never look at the critique gallery. But to pull your prints from a critique gallery because you did not like the comments is the worst form of cowardice. Others spend serious time and effort engaging your work, but you don't like their comments and say, in effect, "F*** you. I'll just take my toys and go home." After that, why would anyone even bother looking at your work again? You must recognize that by removing prints because of unfavorable comments you have acted in extremely bad faith.

Ultimately, photographs, like all works of art, are beyond words. "Works of art are of an infinite loneliness and with nothing to be so little reached as with criticism. Only love can grasp and hold and fairly judge them." --Rilke.

That being said, in the context of teaching and learning, much can be said. Your defense of your own work, that it "enraptures" you, closes off all discussion. It is certainly not necessary for you to know why a particular work of yours or anyone else enraptures you. But if you are not willing to make the effort to figure out why, then why do you enter into discussions about your work or offer it in a critique gallery? Your previous answers are no answers at all--they amount to, "I'm curious what others think, but I won't pay any attention to the comments if I do not like them."

If you do not believe that it is true that in the context of learning and teaching a great deal can be said, then never put your work up in the critique gallery again.

I am sincerely sorry, Ed, some of this appears personal. But, Ed, you do contradict yourself at every turn. I believe that if you wish to continue to enter into these discussions, for your own good, you must be willing to respond non-defensively to the comments that come your way. The opposite of defensiveness is not defenselessness, as you assumed earlier in this thread. It is openness. You must truly defend yourself--with reasons. ("I'm enraptured" is not a reason. It begs the question, "Why?") If you cannot, or are not willing to, make the effort to do that, you should not expect anyone here to take you seriously.

 

[Tom Stanworth]

Michael,

Never thought that this would happen, but I agree with 95% of what you say. I almost agree with you on prefering the critique of someone who is more experienced than oneself. I would, however, be satisfied with 'someone I consider knowledgeable and credible'. Unlike Ed, I do no have any interest in the critques of any and everyone......as this includes those who regard the high street howling wolf under moon posters or the mono calenders with shots of the kittens with the blue toned eyes (and the fluffiest tails in the world) as art. I do however, think that If one identifies that a person has a taste which in indicative of them representing one's target audience, or they produce work we ourselves regard as credible, this is a good match. The photographer and sophisticated buyer tell you different things, both of which are valuable in their own right. I think paying attention to either the 'market' or the art community in isolation is not wise. Wherever my work goes in the future, I would like it to be credible with the initiated and would not be in the slightest bit concerned if 9/10 high street punters found it unappealing. If 1/10 fell in love with it, I would conside that more than enough. However, if the public ALL found it unappealing and it only appealed to seasoned fellow photographers, I would be concerned. Just like with literature, there are many very sophisticated members of the public, who may not produce work, but have a sophisticated taste and intelligent appreciation of it. I just dont think this can be dismissed if one produces work to elicit an emotional response through visial stimulation. It should be able to do this without an understanding of 'what went into it'.


I strongly feel that Eds vision of critiques is one where there is so much concern about saying the wrong thing (that could tip an emotionally fragile person over the edge) that poeple cannot be bothered/are too scared (too many unknowns - do I be honest?....Oh, but the persons budgie might have died, so I had better be nice). Perhaps we ought to take out critic's insurance in case we are sued dor mental scars? This is laughable! FIRST, DO NO HARM.......crumbs, this is not medical triage, but submitting work to an arena where you fully expect people's comment. Eds view (applied) does far more harm than good. It results in dishonesty, unexpected failure, cronyism and people being emotionally spineless and needing constant support just to function (and that is in our privaleged context). To me, it is indicative of all the efforts that have been made by certain forces over the last 40 years to sanitise society and ensure that everyone excels, demonstrating the telents which we supposedly all have in abundance (another complete lie). Society is all but ready for the refuse tip because of such a mind set IMHO. It has not benefitted anyone but the apethetic and dangerous elsewhere and generally prevents those who are truly gifted being able to gain proper acknowledgement for their talents, which therefore are never fully developed and reaslied.

I confess to having slight smirk on my face right now. You are exactly where I was a month ago with Ed. You cannot argue or discuss your way thru this...... Thankfully , I am not at risk of RSI this time


Rgds,

Tom

 

[Ed Sukach]

Reply - Part I:

=Michael A. Smith
MAS: I'm afraid you don't get it, Ed. Everyone is responsible for themselves. If someone offers a critique in a well-meaning way, and someone takes it badly that is not the problem of the one giving the critique. Who are you, God, to take it on yourself to be responsible for someone else? Someone giving a critique should not be callous. But they MUST be truthful. And let the chips fall where they may.

No, I am not God. I do live in this world and I am concerned with the effects my actions have on others. Simply put, I accept responsibliy for MY actions.
You see no conradictions here? "...Should not be callous" - "And let the chips fall where they may"?

MAS: No one drives anyone away. People drive themselves away. I am not so egotistical as to think my comments could ever discourage anyone from becoming an artist or making photographs if that is what their heart is set on. Maybe you have more power than I do and have to be circumspect when you give a critique.

I have the impression that you are a well-respected educator. Certainly, when you teach, you have some effect on the consciousness and belief systems of your students - that is far from being "powerless". I am sure you use it well ... wait a minute ... why am I defending you from ... yourself..???

ES: Interesting. I disagree, however. I am equally as interested in the reactions of the "uninitiated".

MAS: Really? EQUALLY interested? That's weird. Really, really and truly weird. I hope you don't mean that. Can you imagine someone unmusical giving a critique of a string quartet--someone who had never heard a string quartet, or any classical music before? What would their opinion be worth to a composer? Nothing. Zilch. Nada. Likewise, how could the opinion of someone who knew nothing about photography be of equal importance to that of someone who had mastered every aspect of it? If you think the two viewpoints are in any way, shape, or form, of equal value, then you have a serious problem.

Did you mean to deliberately mis-quote me, Michael? I said I was equally INTERESTED. - Not that I considered all critiques to be of equal IMPORTANCE, or to hold equal weight. I've repeatedly said that "some critiques are 'good'; some are not." I will invariably consider comments and critiques from those I respect to be more important than others.
'Good' or 'not so good' they are all INTERESTING.
I would suggest that you read this a few times, so there will be no misunderstanding - at least not the kind that caused you to heap flaming brimstone upon my head.

ES: Would YOU accept and follow every criticism directed at your work?

MAS: Now that is a contradiction if I ever heard one.

My bad. I had assumed you would be flexible enough to recognize a rhetorical question ... that recognition is always a slippery slope. "[ rhetorical question ] A question put only for literary effect, the answer being implied in the question". Of course you would not - I can't imagine anyone with a I.Q. larger than his hat size answering "yes" to that one.

For my error in judgement:

You are one of the most illogical people I have ever encountered.

I am going to continue this reply in Part II - I'm trying to avoid "bit heaven").

 

[Ed Sukach]

MAS: Now that is a contradiction if I ever heard one. You are one of the most illogical people I have ever encountered.

Interesting Opinion.

MAS: I did not see your prints this thread seems to be, at least in part, about; I almost never look at the critique gallery. But to pull your prints from a critique gallery because you did not like the comments is the worst form of cowardice. Others spend serious time and effort engaging your work, but you don't like their comments and say, in effect, "F*** you. I'll just take my toys and go home." After that, why would anyone even bother looking at your work again? You must recognize that by removing prints because of unfavorable comments you have acted in extremely bad faith.

I will admit to being more than a little puzzled about the motivation that caused you to assume the role of MY conscience.

OK - This deserve 'splainin':

The Critique Gallery is a valable asset, and a wonderful source of information linking us, on the 'creator" side, with the voice of the APUG "public" -the "experiencers" - on the other side.

Imagine for a moment, another situation... a free-standing Gallery where an artist has submitted his work. There are, necessarily, assumptions regarding the exhibiton of his work; The location of the Gallery; the atmosphere in the Gallery; the "theme" of the exhibiton; those who will visit the Gallery;... many others.
He submits work in good faith - the show is hung. A few days later, he visits, to find that some of his assumptions were, in fact, incorrect. His work is imbedded among others of a completely different nature, and from its very proximity, the "meaning" of his work is adulterated. - Something like, the show has ten other artists, all bent on breaking the conventions applied to pornography, and his "fine art" work is only there as an example of a "wimpy" artist lacking courage - as a contrast to the violently explicit work of the others. Additionally, there are a bunch of post-it notes applied to the walls near his photographs attacking him personally.
Given that situation, I cannot conceive of a more logical action, than to take his work down, and to vacate the show.

That is purely hypothetical .. but the principle is the same. The work is exhibited, unless there is an agreement otherwise, at the pleasure of the ARTIST. If, for whatever reason, he deems the presentation to be something other that the "proper place", he has an absolute RIGHT to take the work down.

Now, seeing that we are being honest, I'm surprised that I had to write this.

That being said, in the context of teaching and learning, much can be said. Your defense of your own work, that it "enraptures" you, closes off all discussion.

I am flattered that you were "keeping a book on me" ... it is always good to be "of interest" ... but there are distortions here. MY work is NOT the only work that "enraputers" me. - in fact it is only a small fraction of that body of work. From Renoir's "Torse au soliel, to a *wonderful* portrait of a woman done by a High School student in colored chalk... to photogaphs (not mine) of a young girl on the facets of an octagonal lamp shade.

It is certainly not necessary for you to know why a particular work of yours or anyone else enraptures you. But if you are not willing to make the effort to figure out why ...

Where did I ever say that I did not care? Many tines I have not been sucessful, and I refuse to agonize over that failure; I will move on. The only alterantive is to do nothing. I would LOVE to know WHY ...

, then why do you enter into discussions about your work or offer it in a critique gallery? Your previous answers are no answers at all--they amount to, "I'm curious what others think, but I won't pay any attention to the comments if I do not like them."

I'll say it one last ime -- I DO pay attention, I 've experessed my motivation and interests so many times ... I'm afraid that if you have not understood my motivation after all this, the chances of you EVER understading them are slim.

I am sincerely sorry, Ed, some of this appears personal.[/QUOTE}

It does. You would expect to call me an "irrational coward" and NOT have it seem "personal"? I am disappointed. I would have expected better from you, Michael.

[QOUTE] But, Ed, you do contradict yourself at every turn. I believe that if you wish to continue to enter into these discussions, for your own good, you must be willing to respond non-defensively to the comments that come your way. The opposite of defensiveness is not defenselessness, as you assumed earlier in this thread. It is openness. You must truly defend yourself--with reasons. ("I'm enraptured" is not a reason. It begs the question, "Why?") If you cannot, or are not willing to, make the effort to do that, you should not expect anyone here to take you seriously.

Really. I'll take all this under advisement.

BTW ... a bit of unsolicited advice, seeing that you are providing a lot of it yourself: I would avoid walking into your local Taverns and "letting the chips fall where they may" by calling people "irrational cowards". You will be - guaranteed - taken seriously.

 

[Michael A. Smith]

I did quote you exactly, Ed. In my follow-up, substitute "interest" for "importance." Same thing.

 

[Richard Boutwell]

Oh, where to begin?!

Ed, it is almost impossible to discuss anything with you. You turn most general comments into personal attacks. And, in reaction to those perceived personal attacks you reply with rhetorical and subversive comments which provide nothing constructive to the discussion which you initiated. It is ridiculous trying to reason with you. I am growing tired of pointing out inconsistencies in you writing and responding to your irrelevant remarks (some not even directed to me).

In posting nothing further, it needs to be understood that I am not “tapping out”, but that I realize that banging my head against the wall while trying to respond to something that is not worth a response is counter productive. As Joe Symchyshyn pointed out, you will always get the last word. You will dissect and distort anything that does not agree with you position—something which you always contradict.

As for your “Guru on the hill” comment: It is a fine example of your irrational reaction to a general comment. After reading one of you posts, a musician friend replied, “He is so insecure!” I agree with him, I am sure others see it in your writing also.

------------

In your very first post you wrote, “I have posted a few images to the Critique gallery ... not because I see Critiques as some sort of invaluable learning tool— . . . , but as a way to gage interest in my work from the surrounding community and . . . “
“. . . that sums it up - I value critiques for the insights they provide into - not my work - but into the critics' BEING.”

I took those statements to mean basically this: “I don’t want to learn from the critiques. I want to gage the level of interest in my work” The second comment plainly states that you are not interested in the help that is offered by the critic. You need to be more articulate if that is not what you really mean.

-----

From one of my earlier posts:
“When I say ‘bad’, I mean the space was poorly considered; There was no separation (but there was the stated intention of separation) between the person and the background, and there was no separation at the edges; The model was stiffly "posed". I can go on but I don't have the picture here for reference.”

What you perceive as a destructive critique is simply my observation on your picture. If you really would like to see a destructive critique I suppose could formulate one. But, It would be really, really mean—that would make me feel bad so I will not do it—I won’t be mean, or make myself feel bad. It is your problem if you confuse honesty (something which you say you value) with meanness. That is what “letting the chips fall . . . “ really means.

In response to my comment about the apparent lack of an edge and it not supporting the model’s visual weight you replied, “I didn't remember that. There wasn't anything worth remembering.”—That is a direct contradiction to what you said here, in reply to MAS’s comment on you truly not being interested in a critique of you work, “I'll say it one last time -- I DO pay attention.”— which is also a direct contradiction to what you wrote in your first post.

It is interesting that a comment on the green cast was worth remembering.

My comment can be applied to 90% of your posted pictures and could improve them (well, when there were color pictures in your gallery). Almost more importantly, other photographers reading my comment may not understand that a photograph (or any picture for that matter) is essentially constructed of space and tone, and that idea could help them advance in their own picture making, regardless of what you personally get from the critique.

--------------

There are millions and millions (maybe billions) of bad photographs in the world. We all have them (some photographers simply learn from and destroy their failures and then move on). One can learn from their own bad pictures or one can learn from critiques. It still requires that the picture maker be objective, open and receptive to the comments and not take them as personal attacks on their very existence.

------------

There is a difference between a review and criticism. A review is about publicity. A critique is about teaching. Sometimes that criticism is not given for the sake of the maker, but for those interested in learning about that which is criticized (literary criticism is an example).

—ED, to clarify: these are not personal attacks. I have taken care in my writing so they will not be perceived as such. If you still find them to be insulting then there is nothing further I can do or say.

 

[Graeme Hird]

What an interesting thread.

I believe the manner in which a person argues his point says more about the person than the point he is trying to make.

 

[Andy K]

Graeme, this thread became too pedantic to bother reading thoroughly several pages ago.

 

[Dave Miller]

Graeme, this thread became too pedantic to bother reading thoroughly several pages ago.

I quite agree; but then why are we reading it?