Evaluating your own photographs

Donald Miller said:

Let's remember this...a witness of abusive behavior is a victim of abusive behavior.

Click to expand...

That's why I'm outta here. See you on the Azo Forum.

Jim

here is my 2cnts worth.

I don't think you can really evaluate your own work untill you show it to individuals who can dispassionately review it for you.

You cannot do the above unless you have the ability to accept what may be said.

I showed work to a couple of respected local photographers and one gallery owner to get input. The feedback was not for the faint of heart. I learned that in some prints I have great visual ideas, in others great grasp of composition but uninteresting subject matter, some are technically good with no soul, and some are beautiful subjects and compositions but no where near printed to their full potential.

To sum it up, I have the individual elements to make what I would consider fine prints but have not yet put it all together consistently.

When I left the little meeting with one of the photographers, despite all his encouragement and suggestions, I was thouroughly depressed. But then something interesting happened. I have vastly improved my work. And I can evaluate my own work with a new foundation to work from.

Where I come from the saying goes "put up or shut up". From my experience the individuals who are often maligned on APUG because others see them as arrogant are the ones who actually deliver the goods and back up what they say with their work and knowledge.

if I needed major surgery, among all the doctors that have the highest success rate I would choose the one that brags about his success with the biggest house, most expensive cars and best countryclub membership. Why, because you do not get to that level without being very, very good.

Here are some books to consider about looking at and evaluating photographs,

http://www.frontlist.com/detail/0821226231

http://www.anseladams.com/Examples-The-Making-of-40-Photographs-P43C108.aspx

Both good reading.

David said:

It seems a given that we are subjectively involved with our own images. From emotions, to experience at the time of photographing, to technical considerations ranging from exposure to printing. I find it really difficult, therefore, to evaluate my own images because I'm too close to them. The best I seem to be able to do is to say if I like a particular image or not. While other viewers will create their own relationship to the image that has nothing to do with my experiences of the print, I'd like to be better able to evaluate my images. Do any of you have a similiar 'problem' and if so, how do you deal with it?

Click to expand...

Every person who creates something will obviously have this reaction. Our emotions change not only from day to day and year to year but from hour to hour. How many times have we created a masterpiece and the next day thought "what the hell was I thinking" only to come back to it a later date and perhaps enjoy the work, or not.

After this heated debate and obvious red herrings, It probably comes down to the fact that we all need feedback on our work BECAUSE we are too close to it. We need to ask peers, people we respect and any one else. Incredibly, often the uninitiated will come up with the most interesting critiques because of the lack of baggage in the equation.

Some other interesting techniques technically speaking is to look at the print in a mirror, which changes it's perspective. Look at it upside down and see what hits you first-- is the first thing, the thing that you wanted to stand out. Look at it from a distance for a few days and see if you still like it.

We are all on a journey during our time learning our craft and sometimes what we did years ago still stands up and sometimes it doesn't. What it does do is to show the progress we've made on our journey. And just because we've been successful and turned out great work for years does not mean that what we did last night was anything special. Nobody can hit a home run every time at bat and somedays you just get rained out.

Michael

As with anything in life one can make things very simple or as complicated as possible. While there has been a lot of advice and discussion in this thread about self evaluation of prints, I have yet to see anybody post how they do it. IMO this would be more helpful to David than all the photography critics quotations, so I guess I will start.

I have two very simple criteria, one is technical perfection and the other is "emotional" content.

The first one is self explanatory, I make the best possible print and once it is dried and flatenned I examine the print for sharpness and tonal relatioships. Unfortunatelly this cannot be done without certain "viewing" experience. You need to know what a good print looks like before you can evaluate the technical merits of your print. To gain this experience one needs to visit galleries and spend some time looking at the work of those photographers you admire. If visiting a gallery is impossible, buy photography books. While it is not the same, most photography books have very good reproductions that give you an idea or base line.
Of course the best choice would be to buy a print from the photographer one admires, but this is not always possible. I think APUG is an excellent solution for this, you do not need to have a print from someone famous to be able to see excellently done prints. Ask a member who has posted work here if he/she would be willing to send you a "work" print, these print many times are almost perfect but have small flaws or require minute changes to make it perfect. Many at times this is all you need to get a baseline.

The "emotional" content while it seems to be more difficult it is for me the easiest one. My only criteria is am I excited by the print? If I cant wait to see the print dried and mounted, then it is a keeper for me. Now, you gotta remember that as your body of work grows, you will have some prints everybody likes, some that some like and some dont, and some that nobody but you like. This is ok! it is your vision and your emotional response, there is no "right or wrong" answer. If you have reached technical proficience all that is left is for you to develop your own style, and IMO this can only be done by listening to your gut feeling. IMO the worst you can do is try to emulate those who you admire. Not to pick on Michael, but lets use him as an example. If you plan to use Azo, ABC and Amidol and take pictures from the side of the road, then most likely Michael has done it and done it better than you. OTOH if you can acheive the same technical excellence that Michael has, but you follow your own voice, pretty soon you will be making pictures that are your own, not ones that look like Michael's. This might even require that you step away from Azo, who knows? In the end you have to do what is best FOR YOU, and what best satisfies you.

I wish you luck, and keep at it...

Jorge said:

... In the end you have to do what is best FOR YOU, and what best satisfies you.
I wish you luck, and keep at it...

Click to expand...

Bravo!! Jorge.

I agree, wholly!!

Well said/ written! -ALL of this message!

This whole thread has meandered to avoid the subtext which is Evaluation against what and by who's standards, and to what extent? If one makes pictures to be praised or complimented, then his standard is not his own; he is seeking to communicate to that (or whom) which he aspires. No harm there. It's a benign fact, and part of learning the language of craft and arts.

But once a person has mastered necessary technique, he will not likely grow if he does not find his own internal vision, his own standards, which are bound to transcend 'the great one(s)'; after all, each recognized artist’s visual vocabulary is necessarily constrained.

Eventually the accomplished artist evaluates his work on his own, for better or worse, and lets the curators, critics, historians make new frames of evaluation, usually well into his series, carreer.

jjstafford said:

This whole thread has meandered to avoid the subtext which is Evaluation against what and by who's standards, and to what extent? If one makes pictures to be praised or complimented, then his standard is not his own; he is seeking to communicate to that (or whom) which he aspires. No harm there. It's a benign fact, and part of learning the language of craft and arts.

But once a person has mastered necessary technique, he will not likely grow if he does not find his own internal vision, his own standards, which are bound to transcend 'the great one(s)'; after all, each recognized artist’s visual vocabulary is necessarily constrained.

Eventually the accomplished artist evaluates his work on his own, for better or worse, and lets the curators, critics, historians make new frames of evaluation, usually well into his series, carreer.

Click to expand...

I think your judgement is correct. However the initial qiuestion asked was from a relatively new person to photography who was having trouble evaluating.

But in the evolution of his work your last two paragraphs are right on.

As I believe and others may or may not, that you have to learn the language before writing sonnets. So you need critique in order to get to the place, where you decide that you may not want or need them anymore.

Michael

Jim Chinn said:

if I needed major surgery, among all the doctors that have the highest success rate I would choose the one that brags about his success with the biggest house, most expensive cars and best countryclub membership. Why, because you do not get to that level without being very, very good.

Click to expand...

This reminds me .. I have to visit my local Barnes and Noble ... They have the latest book about business management ... Enron: How to Manage a Business Successfully, by Ken Lay. And To Hell with the Actor's Studio, by Segal and Schwarzenegger.

A story...

Once upon a time in a Universe far, far away ... In a town called New York...
Three Photographers (two for certain, and me) were schmoozing together, trying to forget the craziness swirling around them in an all-too common Nut House, affectionately labeled "Reception".
Interrupting the discussion of ... Pizza? Automobile troubles? ... A self-promoting - uh - neophyte started:

"I was a student of AB. I attended one of his workshops .. and he was so impressed by my work that he chose me to be his Special Assistant. AB said he learned a LOT form me ..." and on and on he went in the throes of diarreah of the mouth.

After he left, I turned to AB, and asked him, "Who was that"? AB answered, "I don't know. I've never seen him before in my life."

What was the saddest part of this was that the "neophyte" had actually produced some fairly decent work. He didn't NEED to spew all that beef by-product.

Sad, Really sad.

Jim Chinn said:

I don't think you can really evaluate your own work untill you show it to individuals who can dispassionately review it for you.

Click to expand...

I agree with Jim. Early in your career it's really important to get the opinion of people more experienced than you, but you have to remain strong in knowing who you are and where you believe you are going. Otherwise there is a danger you'll get side-tracked, or deflected from your path.

The first time I showed my work to someone who's opinion I respected, he shuffled through the prints and chuckled to himself, "I remember taking photographs like this". I was mad. It pi$$ed me off!! Then I had to question why that comment got under my skin, and I realized that many of my images were pretty nature scenes...there was no sense of my purpose as an artist in them at all. If it stings, there's probably a kernal of truth to it.

Another thing to keep in mind is that even if a person has a "titled position" they may be blind. I was accepted to a fine arts college with only 4x5 contact prints for an entrance portfolio on the strength of my compositions. I had just learned how to print. I took the prints to the head of the same colleges photography program and he said that my printing was really good, but that my compositions were weak. I chose to believe the fine arts instructors.

If you did have the ability to accurately critique your own work, wouldn't that give you the freedom to really push the envelope of expression? Wouldn't it encourage you to produce work that challenges your abilitity to self-critique? If so, doesn't it make this question ultimately unanswerable? To be an artist is to continually question, learn, and grow is it not?

Murray

P.S. (added later) The last paragraph is not pointed towards any specific person or persons working in any medium...it's just a question with broad strokes!!!

I changed my mind - sort of

When I started the thread I hoped it would stay on topic but it swerved so I left it. Now that it has more or less gotten back I''ll re-enter the discussion provisionally.

Speaking of Paula Chamlee, Patricia said, "There were many other things I learned from her, and because so much of it feels outside of a linear or rational structure, I can't voice what I now somehow 'know' about my work".

Finding voice for this uncertain knowing was a large part of what prompted my initial question. Patricia's comment indicates it is possible to learn (even from others) more than she knew before: she (Paula Chamlee) "opened me to a new direction, and refreshed my vision.

Some (Ed) on this thread have indicated an avowed disbelief in the possibility of a vocabulary to discuss such matters because art is too subjective. (Ed: I hope I haven't misrepresented your position!). I studied linguistics for several years and spent years doing translation work and think that I understand a bit of what language and commnication is about. Its miracle is that we can communicate and a level of understanding is possible. Since communication is possible I think we can discuss this stuff and the subjectivity doesn't need to preclude the discussion.

This is an interesting conundrum and at the heart of what we are discussing. Can, and is so, how can we take a subjective, nebulous, ephemeral thing like a print and critique it (the thread is about self-critique)?
-Do we listen to others (some of you say, 'non' (especially the French:rolleyes.
-Do we become disciples of those who have more experience? Some have suggested that to listen and learn from others amounts to hero worhip. To say this ignores the fact that art is essentially self-expression. So much of what we do turns out to be apparently derrivative but still the only personal good stuff seems to come from the personal, individual inner space as expressed thoughts early on in the thread indicate. So the hero worship notion borders on insulting.
-Everyone seems to agree that finding our own voice and the means to express that voice is essential.

Aristotle said that philosophy begins with a sense of awe or wonder. Murray Minchin said, "To be an artist is to continually question, learn, and grow is it not?" I think to be a human is to be intrinsically the way Murray questioned, but the artistlives that way. The question on the table is: can we learn and advance our understanding/criticism of our work and if so, how?

Finally, Boehme said a book was like a picnic to which the writer brings the words and the reader the meanings. Since the thread took its detour, I'll address the detour just once. Jay: You have seven contributions to this thread and one (the first) was on topic. The rest have, "escalated to rancor" (your words and rancor is a good one: bitter resentment or ill will; extreme hatred or spite". Again, "My involvement began when I posted my point of view on the topic of the thread, but the immediate response was hostile and retaliatory, so here we are". I was the one who responded. I addressed your thoughts and stated that that was what I was doing. I responded to your suggestion of hostility and told you the response was not in any way hostile. I addressed a posturing statement that you made and referenced your history of demonstrated, similiar behaviour. But here you are, now, still claiming hostility towards you (and adding retaliation). I'll leave it as an open question as to why you do this.

I asked you in my response to your contribution, "I refuse to go down the path of having this turn into a personal thing. The question on the table is the only thing I'm interested in discussing. Thank you for honoring that! You never returned to the topic but went on a rant. You could not even honor a simple request to stay on topic.

Since I started the thread I thought I had the right to request from you that you stay on topic. I do not have or want any authority to police your involvement but I have asked the moderator to look at this thread and take action if appropriate. Your profile says you have three children. I don't know you from a bar of soap so I have no ax to grind with you but I presume (I hope I'm right) that you don't treat those close to you with the same disrespect and hostility that you spew out here.

well said

I concur well said.

lee\c

I hope no one leaves apug because of one bad apple or a few that over time will appear. There is one measure that Sean has implemented that has only been used on one other person. Sean makes it so that the offender has to have their posts watched, and screened before they can be posted. For those in this thread that have watched it disintegrate, the offender in this has been put on the watch list, along with all the personas of Michael Scarpitti.

Now for what I do to evaluate my pictures. I will look at a negative first to see if I care to do a test print of it. Then I make up a bunch of test prints without regard to having any final work done, ie, buring dodging, proper filter etc. I just want something that gives me the image large enough for me to study it. After the (I do this on RC paper) prints have dried, I go through and toss out any clinkers at this stage. I then put the rest in a old paper box and let it sit for a few days. I have some mat board that I use like large white L's that I will then take that picture and put that clean border around. It is amazing how that can give a different look to even a work print. Most the times, the full image works. Then there are times, that I find moving the L's around, I find a hidden treasure in a portion of the print that is so much better than the full image. I then mark off that section using a red pen. Back into the box the pictures that survive this stage go. They may sit for days to weeks, before I look again. That is when I will pick out a few and make good prints of them. This is my normal work flow. Once in a while I will find that I do have that one good picture that doesn't need to go through this evaluation system of mine.

I am lucky enough to have many very good photographers as my friends. I have shown my work to them on different occasions, and I find it very interesting, that not one will agree with the other. In the end it all becomes subjective based on different personal tastes. I like that we are all different and we like different things. We should be happy about this, or we would all be putting out cookie cutter images of each other. Critiques help us see, and explore other avenues we may have missed. You always learn, and grow. We should be encouraging, and helpful. Which is normally what happens here on apug.

David,

Thank you for broaching this matter. I wrote Sean because of the behavior that has been evident in this thread. Obviously I concur with your position as stated.

I think aggie may have hit the nail on the head with the comment about showing ones work to various photographer friends and finding they all have different feelings about the work.
I work in an abstract form of solarizatons and over the last few years have made over 100 different proof prints. Matted each one and over time shown them to my family of friends and fellow photographers.
It is amazing to me that each person drifts to images and consistantly no single image has stood out as a favorite.(maybe the work is so crappy that its all bad).
I was lucky enough to be accepted by an art dealer to represent this body of work. I was estatic and dying to see their choices for a fall show they would commision me to do. When they came back with the portfolio , I was shocked to find out that they did not pick one image that I thought was in my top ten selects.
I have since decided not to go with this group as I just can't get my head around printing the work they want. For now I have decided to go with my gut feelings on this work and trust my instincts rather than others.
David , this is my advice , show the work to others , gather all the comments you can, and then follow your own (heart) (head) (gut) whatever it is called .

David said:

Aristotle said that philosophy begins with a sense of awe or wonder. Murray Minchin said, "To be an artist is to continually question, learn, and grow is it not?" I think to be a human is to be intrinsically the way Murray questioned, but the artistlives that way. The question on the table is: can we learn and advance our understanding/criticism of our work and if so, how?

Click to expand...

Minor White said "Innocence of eye has a quality of its own. It means to see as a child sees, with freshness and acknowledgment of the wonder; it also means to see as an adult sees who has gone full circle and once again sees as a child - with freshness and an even deeper sense of wonder."

He (and yourself) identify that personal growth and maturity, as well as understanding the need to keep wonder, awe and (I think) curiosity alive is essential to developing one's photography in a chosen direction.
Why is it that a child only begins to be offended by unsolicited advice as they grow older? I think that they 'learn' to lose their sense of awe/wonder/curiosity with the world - and hence openness to learning - and hence open to advice. They learn to lose this from the adults who are careful to hide it, who rather they have the demeanour "I already knew that...".
My best friends and also those who I respect the most are 100mph enthusiastic, and filled with awe and wonder. Being this way helps learn faster and in the direction we want to go.

Regarding criticism; not the type that are meant to demean like "...that's the style of photography I used to do years ago...", but contructive criticism. That is, what comes from a person who wishes to offer constrained comments intended to assist in making the image better is not only valuable, but rather absolutely essential.
But constructive criticism can only be constructive if it comes from someone who actually knows how to make the image better. Bit of a conundrum when it comes to self critique!

So try to use two methods to improve my own pictures:

• Look at the work of others' who in my opinion do well at what I'm wanting to achieve in a particular area. So I pick this photographer for technique, and that one for vision, and that one for concept inspiration, etc. Then interpret the differences to my own pictures, for myself.
• and try to ask if it meets, or could meet, a vision that I'm trying to develop. Which is often evolving with each picture anyway.

Bob Carnie said:

David , this is my advice , show the work to others , gather all the comments you can, and then follow your own (heart) (head) (gut) whatever it is called .

Click to expand...

I agree totally with the way Bob put it, and in one concise sentence. This is exactly what I do.

It was a few converstions with Michael A. Smith that finally opened my eyes. Those few bits of advice he gave me made all the difference in the world. The second most influential event was getting to see his, Paula's and Lee Carmichael's work first-hand, and compare it with mine. That was a moving experience.

Adding to what some others have said, if you follow your gut, you will be able to explain your work, both to yourself and others. If you can't explain it, and have to resort to the old "you don't understand" excuse; well, you're right - no one can understand it.

By the way, the quote in my signature is not from some long-deceased photographer nor artist. Its from my now-retired High School football coach.

Alex Hawley said:

I agree totally with the way Bob put it, and in one concise sentence. This is exactly what I do.

It was a few converstions with Michael A. Smith that finally opened my eyes. Those few bits of advice he gave me made all the difference in the world. The second most influential event was getting to see his, Paula's and Lee Carmichael's work first-hand, and compare it with mine. That was a moving experience.

Adding to what some others have said, if you follow your gut, you will be able to explain your work, both to yourself and others. If you can't explain it, and have to resort to the old "you don't understand" excuse; well, you're right - no one can understand it.

By the way, the quote in my signature is not from some long-deceased photographer nor artist. Its from my now-retired High School football coach.

Click to expand...

All so true. Look at the work of others, show your own work, and find a way to grow from both experiences. When you are comfortable with your knowledge and talent you will, hopefully, find your own path. Your *way* may not please anyone else, but if you have educated yourself appropriately, trust your instincts, and believe in yourself, you will do good work.

And remember, in photography the work is the image. The technical stuff is but moans, groans, sighs and lamentations on the path to discovery and revelation.

Sandy

I tend to be so critical of my own work that it is hard to clear my head so that I can really hear the comment others. I have a couple friends (photographers, my wife and an instructor) who's opinions I hunt down. I have a specific intent with my work and if the viewer is not familiar with what I am trying to do, their comments may be relevant in a general sense, but may miss the mark in the specific. All in all, I think it is important to get critiques, understand what it is you are trying to do and not to kid your self.

Egads, a Minor White Article Part One

Sorry, but I don't know the book source of the Minor White article "Silence of Seeing". I photocopied the article some time ago. It's only reference is: SILENCE OF SEEING
Minor White
Professor of Photography
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
The pages are numbered 170 thru 173.

Since, it was such a treat for me to read and consider this work, I'll retype it for you.

On a personal note, he comes close to being a photographic hero.

Here is the article in its entirety. I claim responsibility for all the typos!

The silence of seeing formulated in these pages has a contemplative-experimental basis. So with a pun in mind, if still photography represents a silence of seeing then it could be practiced in cinema, television, still photography, or any other form of optically originated images. Silence of seeing may be applied to the totality of photography: its photographers, its camera work, its audiences, its critics.

here the formulation and application of silence is restricted to camera work becaue that small segment of photography centers around creativity. The present formulation differs from that given and encouraged bu Alfred Stieglitz. Steiglitz thought of camera work as the "art of" because it aspired higher. Compared with a church spire in a village, it stands higher than necessary. He favored art and "I" consciousness. I prefer this formulation: a camera is employed and work necessary to use photography for intensified consciousness. Possibly we each mean something beyond either art or consciousness.

The present writing was also done in a state of heightened silence. Hence writing in the first person seems the more appropriate. The word "I" will be used as a child says it unaware of self; also as an old man says "I" who constantly remembers how young he is compared with the universe. Speaking thus my experiences may be generalized in relation to myself without implying universality. I write for the plesure of those who will recognize the experience in themselves. For such people "I" will mean collectivity instead of uniqueness or aloneness.

To experience anything in the here-and-now I usually have to shut out multimedia dreams and thoughts twittering like cuckoos at dawn. Such a noise! Si it seems logical to locate a way of silence before attempting to experience a photograph, or the subject of one I am about to photograph. In the search for a way of quieting the twittering machine, meditation was encountered; so was the WZen way of just sitting. Ultimately I found that a self-induced quietness was best for me. That way allows all my scattered parts to reassemble. I become present. Sometimes I think I center in the Solar Plexus, at other times I cannot locate any special area. Wherrever located, once felt I can give all my attentionto the photograph at hand, or to the subject I am about to take a silver tracing of.

I feel doubtful of my attempts to describe induction of stillness for the purposes of camera work. There is an object, for example an ice crystal, or its silver image on the other side of my stillness. That condition satisfies part of the definitionof the word "contemplation" - the object part. But few of the objects of my attention are sacred, as the full formulartion requires. Christ and biddha figures are scarce, handwriting on the wall is a little more plentiful (graffiti). Unless, of course, I make subjects sacred by the quality of my consentration.

In various experiments with stillness I went so far as to play that I was a member of photographer Anyone's audience of viewers. I looked at his pictures in my silence and my stillness. I saw more - deeply and sooner. My experiences of his image was intensified, became a journey. It did not become a psychedelic trip because of the nature of his image. That was enacted on a stage of war. The inner journey through an emotional ambience led to a sense of injustice. That journey over, I spent someenjoyment analyzing the photodynamics; you know, how this line meets that one in a smash, how this form constricts the space behind it. In this photo all of the subtle and obvious pleasures of visual tactility and structure led to a powerful sense of the inevitability of war. By way of association the main thesis of the Bhagavad Gita entered: inevitability without injustice. That was my final understanding of Anyone's image.

Seeing in silence ordinarily leads to an understanding , which in turn closes the event of seeing in a satisfying way. The journey through Anyone's picture was neither comfortable nor pleasant-nor the understanding cause a welcome relief-nor the closure in any way aesthetic. The satisfaction was one of revelation surfacing in consciousness.

At another time a different relation may dominate between Anyone, his image and me. If my understanding of his image is not the same as Anyone's, I do not protest to him, or contradict him because his experience is different than mine. On the contrary I cherish his experience because it may give me a glimpse of an unfamiliar Anyone. I may like that part of him. Whenever I hear a man object to another man's response to the same photograph I get the shudders. They are both right and, when honest, beautiful. Whenever they treat honest experience as contradictions the barriers rise higher than ever between them. And blindness is heard as the sound of seeing.

By means of people's responses and reactions to photographs, I have met many stranger and wonderful, peculiar and haunting, angels and demons in my friends and my strangers. Sometimes in the process of cherishing my responses I find that strangers are friends- and friends enemies in disguise. Seeing in silence leans me over a high cliff onto a different view of the commonplace. Through the Looking Glass, through the camera, through perception, through vision to what's behind! I only wish I could make such vision occur more often and last longer. So I induce this kind of silence in myself frequently. I also take those moments when it happens spontaneously as evidence of grace.

Along about the middle of my life I came upon quiet and stillness as a preparation for seeing. Before that I went as seeing negatively, that is criticizing before I even had a chance to know the photograph. In that turbulent way I acquired a certain taste by which to measure excellence. That measure was a blend of many sides - book devouring, gallery hopping, personal biases, prejudice, lying to myself, and imposing a grid of assumptions instead of waiting until a photograph, or subject about to be photographed, spoke to me. Half of all this raucous activity was useful; to this day I am not sure which half. Since I assumed that a measurement for excellence was required I had to go through all the uproar to devise a yardstick. The building part of it was useful. The error was in unconsciously coming to believe the measurement, which I accidentally called "Spirit," was an absolute, or close to that. At the same time something like seeing was deflating my confidence, and making me think that I did not know one iota of what Spirit meant.

Then I discovered how to be quiet with myself before photographing anything. Seeing in stillness stripped of all baggage, I began to find such deeper experiencing as left no need to criticize. Ny experiences were more rewarding when I did not apply any standard of quality. When I neglected to judge, vision was richer. Thus for several years I sought experiences at the expense of criticism.

During these joyful years of growth as a beholder, I became convinced that it really does cost creative effort to give words to journeys through photographs. If I described the experience, the recital would be a minus-feeling travelogue. It was not criticism that was missing but something real out of my deeper self. So I sought to give more of myself. Had I been a painter I would probably have invented drawings or sketches of the exxence feeling of my journey. Or if a dancer, I would have improvised choreography. Being wordy I tried to create a written poetic equivalent of the exxence of my experience. I hoped to create something that would be a special kind of mirror, so if the photographer looked into it, he would see a hank of myself and a bone of himself in mutual understanding. I wanted to give back some of the energy that his image stirred in me.

Poems do not always come out to order, or on time. Speechlesswould resort to expressive silence, eye contact, a handshake, or an embrace. Imagine my delight when a friend, somewhat self-consciously, communicated his response to my photograph by describing his experience with his hands on my bare back. I was suprised by the forcefulness of the communication. And grateful, very grateful to learn how far an image out of my camera had moved him.

I had felt all along that the simultaneous meeting of picture, photographer, and beholder was and is a rare opportunity. But all previous encounters had been fearful. And strangely enough fearful of love surfacing in an embarrasing way. With his hands on my back, our private psychological hours synchronized, a moment of recognition flared. We recognized the energy of the genitals and watched it take the direction of respect and wonder. We stood in awe of the radiance encountered. Of evaluation there was none, unless a moment of being together exceeds all judgments of unions. An experience as full and open as the flight of swallows in the circle encompassing friend, photograph, and maker urge me to wish the same for all people.

Minor White article, part Two

Such encounters multiplied. Along the way I observed that if I make but one step toward evaluation I become the critic. At once I am whirled outside the circle of friend, photograph, and maker. Two steps and outside of the circle of three I remain.

Evaluation, or criticism at its most positive, however, cannot be postponed forever. I questioned how to evaluate from within the circle of friend, image, and photographer. I would try, I thought, to evaluate during the silence of seeing an image that had been experienced in contemplation. Slowly, a few years in fact passed. Now I can say that when I go with myself together in silence before an image, I go as if before an altar. Just as I listen for the photograph to speak, I look to the altar for judgment. From many such experiences I have come to believe that, though we generally think of camera work as images and photographs, camera work includes the office of the critic. The temptation arises to qualify with such words as "positive" and "enlightened." but a capital C is as far as I want to go.

Photographers these days shun the critic, want nopart of him, indeed they would exclude his office if they could find a way. But they cannot because the critic is a part of the photographer, part of every member of his audience, part of humankind. The critic is ourselves in the role of a stranger-outside, hence an enemy.

The flesh-and-blood critic has an advantage that the photographer cannot possibly have. He is not burdened with the disadvantage of having been present when the exposure was made. This puts him on the side of the beholders He could be the one member of our viewing audience with both a preofessional knowledge of the mechanics and familiarity with the store of camera work images in the world. This puts him on the side of the photographers. On my side he can give me, in my role of photographer, a consciously expressed, perceptive experience-response to my image - something my lay audiences can never do consistently, some days on, most days off.

We could further elaborate on the qualitiets of the Critic. He would be familiar with his personal foibles. He would be able to discriminate his opinions from his knowledge, and prefer, "consdiered judgments" to ego trips. He would have a breadth of knowledge of camera work to compare my photographs with others like it. If I could become so aware of myself, my hangups, and impartialities that I could commit myself objectively to isolate nourishing photographic contributions to potential vieweres, or to the totality of camera work, I might try to perform the critic's task. I, however, do not hanker to recognize my deficiencies. I want to remain a subjctive photographer. To do that I feel that I must defend and cultivate my personal idiosyncracies, enlarge my ego to the size of a colossal olive. I would rather leave objectivity to the critic and damn him for misunderstanding my images and me whenever I feel like blowing off steam.

Contnuing on my ego trip in the role of cameraman, I would expect, if not demand, that the Critic would turn his poetic force in my direction now and then to sustain my energy and at times renew it. A rebuff often has more energy packed in it than an affirmation. Simple affirmation is needed only when needed, not every minute. Occasionally I hunger only for that bit of the man himself, in response to my image. That packs the kind of energy that regenerates. I take from him the energy only, not directions or orders. The energy from an enlightened Critic would have a consistently higher energy charge than that from anyone else-except that from the passing remark of a child.

The Critic's moment of understanding of my image, when communicated to me, has the power to release me from the long commitment to a photographic image-if I am ready to let go. By the action in me of his objective response I can let go and start the sesarch for the next photograph with seed-hunting force. The seed is in me alrady-the germinating sun comes from the outside-the heat of the sun comes from the honest respopnses of my friends and the still more objective responses of a stranger-critic. The heat of the sun is as essential to the turning of the creative cycle as it is to the growth cycle of plants. Without the critic, or his function activated somehow, the creative cycle of camera work slows down and comes to a halt.

I don't know any critics in photography who work like this. I do know that they have never been encouraged in photography to take the time to become fully qualified. We have critics who seem never to have heard of the silence of seeing or George Eastman House. Yet contemplation in preparation for seeing and evaluating images might lead them to enlightenment. Anything less than understanding weakens me, dries me up. Enlightenment awakens me. Less than fully qualified critics notwithstanding, I have only lacked rain. Something in me forces me to seek rain by letting my images out among strangers until one of them, a child sometimes, a passing remark, releases me from my photography. At times I have waited years before something out of the passing scene or parade of students responding to my images pierces my blindness with understanding.

Outwardly, photographic images made while in contemplation rarely look much different from those made in a bustle of activity and noise. This is true until the imageas are lookded at in silence, in a state of intensified perception. Then the difference shows.

All of the above must seem quite simple and ordinary. To make sure that the reader is left with a conviction, if not an experience, that rather extraordinary states of consciousness are being pointed at, I will further say that when I look at something in contemplation, that something changes-or I change-or we both see differently. It is as if one eye sees outwardly, the other inwardly, through my heart and out to the potential viewer. Energy enters and when I have given that energy a shape, it moves out to others.

I am viewer, photographer, critic and image at various times and in random sequence. Nevertheless the larger creative cycle turns within relentlessly, though not evenly: inception, the waxing upturn, the full flowering of the idea-feeling force in the image, the waning downturn showing images to friends and benefitting by their responses until the seed-energy brings the wheel full circle and the upturn begins again. All the phases have characteristic and emotional rises and falls. Still for me the most magic moment of all is that blank period when one image is over and the next is about to start. There is an anguish of waiting-will it ever really start again? The tension of that moment can never be released until a bit of energy from an honest response pierces - like rain, like son, like love.

In the role of photographer I rarely can observe in myself the currents and cycles of all these forces working, beyond an intuitive recognition of rapport with livingness. In a state of heightened awareness an intuitive recognition of living energy accelerates work on an image. My energy is expended in the rite of exposure. but things go differently in the role of the viewer. I can see the whole inner-outer action that results in response. At htis stage I become aware of what was going on during the exposure ritual. Long years have given me faith that the photograph made in a peculiar kind of half-seeing and half-sensing its importance it will reveal to me later the whole of the experience. I can make the journey in leisure. To be sure sometimes I am surprised at what the journey reveals that I had no inkling of during exposure.

In the role of the critic (enlightened and knowledgeable viewer) I am saddened when I feel obliged to pass judgement. Hence I feel that I dare not make evaluations from anything less than the total experience of the image in a state of concentration and contemplation. I feel compelled to give out of my deepest self, response, and out of God knows where, judgement.

No matter what role we are in - photographer, beholder, critic - inducing silence in seeing in ourselves, we are given to see from a sacred place. From that place the sacredness of everything may be seen."

Thanks David for typing out the article. Above and beyond the call of duty!!!

pdf version with most typos corrected

I just proof-read the article (after submitting it) and it's horribly typed. I'll try to attach a pdf. Try reading that instead of the items above.

Thanks David, are your fingers OK? That Minor was one shallow guy!

I saw a book of his (forget the name - something about manifestations????) in a bookstore just after I got into LF over 20 years ago that rocked my world...here was a guy that by composing rock forms and maximizing the textural range of his materials was creating amazingly powerful images. (Was it Mirrors and Manifestations?...and no I didn't just Google that). His images and chosen subject matter, the rock stuff anyway, opened doors for me that Ansel's "If I am to photograph a rock, I must present a rock" (that's from memory too), never could.

What year was that written? Was it when the Beatles, Stones, et al were in India searching for enlightenment? Knowing Minor, (which none of us can really claim), he was probably well to the left on the bell curve on the searching for enlightenment front.

The article didn't give me an instant headache, but I'll have to read it a few more times to allow the important bits for me to effervesce out. Then again, maybe I'll just scoot on over to Google and try to find that book - if his images meant that much to me so long ago, maybe it's time I saw them with all I've learned since. You are a word guy, and can probably glean from his writings more than most ever could...this has made me want to see his images again. Thanks.

Murray