Evaluating your own photographs

[David]

I started this thread in order to learn something I didn't know. I thank all those who had something to add. As, unfortunately, too often happens, morons enter who can do little but boast, criticize, misjudge and generally demonstrate their desire for conflict. In doing so they not only ruin an environment for constructive encounter but crap all over others in the process. I don't underand it and frankly don't want to. Now that the discussion has sunk to lows where this critic feel comfortable I choose not to participate in this thread any longer.

Good debate can be fiery, passionate and opinionated. It is, however, not personal, petty and pissy. BS like "further evidence of your inflated ego. I find you ridiculous at times, desperate for praise at others, sometimes I even pity you." Too bad computer screens don't have mirrors for those writing this vitriole!

I do have one further question: How is it that you exclude certain names from contact in APUG? Good day!

 

[John McCallum]

Thanks for asking the (initial) question David. I still got quite a lot out of the discussion.

... one further question: How is it that you exclude certain names from contact in APUG? Good day!

See attached...

 

[Ed Sukach]

Art has specific discourse. It is mysterious only to the mystical and uninformed.

Then I wish to be - remain "mystical and uninformed".

Come to think of it ... I will be "uninformed" until I know it ALL.
from past experience, I don't think that is going to happen.

Let's see a show of hands ... How many here know it ALL?

 

[Ed Sukach]

By the way ... Does anyone HAVE an example of "Objective Evaluation" ... or "Specific Discourse" they might post here?

That might serve as some sort of "mooring pin" that an intelligent discussion could revolve about. Until something like that occurs ... everything here is starting to sound like flatulence in the wind ( ... and I won't exclude myself, either..).

I DO NOT question anyone's motivation. I am SURE (well - even if I wasn't, I'd have to operate that way anyway ... what other course of action would make sense?), ... SURE we are all trying to HELP each other!!! Not only that, but !!!!!!

 

[Michael A. Smith]

John,

Thank you. It is always gratifying to learn that my comments have been helpful. By the way. Paula and I have been invited to New Zealand for February 2007. I hope we will have the opportunity to meet. Send me a private email with your address and phone number.

Jay wrote, " Fawning praise." and "[I, Michael, am] desperate for praise."

Your ability to distort knows no bounds, Jay.

The curators I quoted fawn over no one, EVER. And they would certainly never fawn over me. Although they collect my work, I'm not nearly important enough in their eyes to fawn over even if they engaged in that kind of behavior. What an insult to the curators.

"Desperate for praise." The praise came entirely unbidden, as it always does. I have had enough success in my career, luckily beginning quite early in it, that very long ago I needed no praise of any sort whatsoever. I can't help it if it comes unbidden. Another example of your distorting things.

Yes, your attribution of motives to myself and others (the curators) is wilfully distorted. Your "amusement" is a lie. Your passive-agressive ending of many of your negative comments to me and to others with the emotional equivalent of, " Have a nice day," (and even those very words on occasion) indicates the depth of your emotional dishonesty.

It is really something that you, who do your photography privately, and show it to no one, at least to no one in the photography community of museums, galleries, historians, critics, curators, and established photographers (perhaps you have not the courage to put yourself and your photographs to critical scrutiny though you profess having no interest in doing so) have opinions about photography that you expect others to take seriously. You are the equivalent, in my example in my response to Murray, to the man selected randomly in the street, rather than the doctor. And yes, in this case, relatively speaking, I am the doctor. Note the "relatively speaking" before you start with "there he goes again."

 

[Ed Sukach]

John,... You are the equivalent, in my example in my response to Murray, to the man selected randomly in the street, rather than the doctor. And yes, in this case, relatively speaking, I am the doctor. Note the "relatively speaking" before you start with "there he goes again."

Interesting. I, for one witnessed one close example where the choice of "A man in the street" would have been a FAR better choice than a "Doctor" ...
This so-called "Doctor" (must have been - he had the diplomas, the license, he was "respected") ... advised my wife over the phone... (from very little information gleaned from her), "Oh, it's nothing. You'll just have to wait it out." That was advice that very nearly killed her ... due to a perforated appendix and peritonitis. Interestingly, she was operated upon - an emergecy operation - by the local "Fixer of Doctor's Screw-Ups", who happened to be a SKILLED surgeon/ diagnostician ... from New Zealand. Even more interesting was that his name actually WAS Dr. House.

My daughter, working for a Law Firm (another story followed) heard all this, and commented of "Doctor" #1 ... "What did he do - flunk Doctor 101?"

There are well-qualified Medical Doctors; at the same time, there happen to be those who are not. I am of the opinion... I'll pause for the wince ... that it is far more likely that a licensed physician would be qualified - rigid courses of study, internship, examinations in a field that really doesn't see much originality ... than it is in Art.... where expressions of "feelings", and tenuous "communication of emotional content" abound, and seem to be intensely important.

 

[Ed Sukach]

By the way, "jdef" - I respect your opinion as well.

 

[MurrayMinchin]

Regarding the negative comments adressed to yourself: of course there are always those who choose to find any negative that they can in a person, and focus on that. But in my experience they tend to be stuck in their own world of self righteousness and self delusion. Certainly they have made a decision that they have nothing to learn from the person to whom they address their derogation, and therefore can afford to offend.

I didn't say anything negative about the content of anyones comments, just the delivery.

We can all learn from Michael's experience. His article on "out flanking a print" is a good example...it really is a quick, efficient way of zeroing in on a Fine Print.

http://www.michaelandpaula.com/mp/index_skip.html


Murray

 

[MurrayMinchin]

OOPS!

Just tried above link...you'll have to click on "writings", then scroll down and click "On Printing - And Why There..."

Murray

 

[jjstafford]

By the way ... Does anyone HAVE an example of "Objective Evaluation" ... or "Specific Discourse" they might post here?

Choose a photograph by anyone and we can begin.

 

[c6h6o3]

Choose a photograph by anyone and we can begin.

Can we begin it in another thread?

 

[c6h6o3]

OOPS!

Just tried above link...you'll have to click on "writings", then scroll down and click "On Printing - And Why There..."

Murray

If I were God there would be a very special place in Hell for those damnable frames....I just hate 'em.

 

[Ed Sukach]

Choose a photograph by anyone and we can begin.

OK. With bated breath...

 

[MurrayMinchin]

What I've Learned

1) I'll never write a post about a personality trait again...if something bugs me that much I'll send a PM. All I've done is drop some chum into the water, and that's enticed others to come up from the murky depths where they dwell to continue old battles. For that Michael, I apologize.

2)I'll try to be more understanding towards cultural differences. What would be frowned upon in my neck of the woods as "tooting ones horn", could very well be accepted in another culture as a way to build their case in a discussion.

3)Conflict leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

4)Life is short...seek the positive.

Murray

 

[Donald Miller]

I find it really interesting to read these posts and to see how this matter has degraded into personal attacks. In the interest of Apug fellowship, I think that these personal attacks should not be tolerated and should be reported.

Michael,
I want to take this opportunity to thank you for your very real contribution through your knowledge and your photographic output. I appreciate your mature responses in the face of contentiousness.

Donald Miller

 

[Mike Lopez]

1) I'll never write a post about a personality trait again...if something bugs me that much I'll send a PM. All I've done is drop some chum into the water, and that's enticed others to come up from the murky depths where they dwell to continue old battles. For that Michael, I apologize.

2)I'll try to be more understanding towards cultural differences. What would be frowned upon in my neck of the woods as "tooting ones horn", could very well be accepted in another culture as a way to build their case in a discussion.

3)Conflict leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

4)Life is short...seek the positive.

Murray

Good thoughts, Murray, but it seems it was inevitable. Jay rarely misses an opportunity on any forum I know of to lash out at Michael. I've never had a conflict with Jay and I'm not looking for any now, but it's blatantly obvious that he has some sort of vendetta with Michael. I'm not sure that Jay was the reason, but I haven't seen a post from Michael on largeformatphotography.info in quite awhile. He probably just got fed up with it. That's quite unfortunate, because I know of nobody more willing to help people he has never even met in person.

 

[Michael A. Smith]

Passive agressive is when you say one thing that sounds "nice" on the surface, but the real meaning is quite otherwise.

I never siad your work was bad, Jay. For all I know it could be exquisite. That you choose not to show it publicly is fine. But not knowing what you do makes it difficult for anyone to evaluate the worth of any of your suggestions. In the absence of work to back up your comments and suggestions, your comments and suggestions are worthless. Now, if I added, "just my opinion of course," that would be passive-agressive.

And it is a wonder that you engage in forums in the photography community when you have no other interest in participating in it. Makes me wonder what the real motive is.

Thanks to those who have spoken up in my behalf and even to you, Murray, for realizing that your posting that started all this was really not proper on this forum.

 

[Patricia Langer]

I was fortunate to have Paula review my portfolio at the recent Large Format Conference, and her insights were invaluable to me for these reasons --1) I have been feeling 'restless' with my pictures, trying to reach for something and not quite able to get it. She, just by looking at 12 pictures, saw what I was reaching for immediately. I hadn't said a word. She made suggestions that opened me to a new direction, and refreshed my vision. 2) She talked to me about the edges of a picture, demonstrating how my matting was obscuring a detail that was significant enough that I chose to include it when I made the photograph. Lifting the mat returned me to the original photograph. 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.
I spoke with Michael a few times at the conference, and was both impressed and moved by his generosity of spirit. I believe him to be a person who values excellence, knows it when he sees it, and has a huge passion for photography.
I hope that he doesn't withdraw his input because of opportunistic trashing.

Patricia

 

[Michael A. Smith]

I did a search on the Azo Forum. It is interesting that when I wrote that sentence about amateurs, in frustration I was responding to your posting. You had been divisive and started the first argument, and to date the only one (unless there was another you strated, I don't quite recall) on the Azo Forum since its inception a few years ago. And in my frustration with you I was responding. I believe some of the entries in the thread where I made that comment were eliminated--the only time that has ever been done. I will not tolerate personal insults on the Azo Forum. That they came from you (and you were insulting others, not me), indicates that, really, you contribute to get great pleasure in being insulting to others. Sick.

 

[David]

I saw this just a moment ago and it seemed 'germane' to those with a critical spirit.

"If you want to be heard: speak up,
If you want to be seen: stand up,
If you want to be appreciated: shut up."

'nuf said

 

[RAP]

Hello Michael,

In the middle of more controversy I see. GREAT, it means you must be doing something right. I still recall the debate, heated discussion we had over something about an individuals ability to learn to be an artist vs natural ability, or something to that effect. It was a great interchange which I learned a few things, especially the parts about art vs illustration. I enjoyed it very much.

As for evaluating ones own work, that is difficult for which you could say you have to be your own worst critic. Self evaluation of ones own work should be ruthless, merciless which can be difficult for some. For me, it starts when I decide to take a photograph and ends with the finished print in hand when I decide if I want to show it to the world or throw it in the garbage or file it away for future evaluation.

The creative process is like a foreign language that the artist uses to translate his personal emotional response to his subject, run it through the creative process of his medium, on to the finished product, in this case, a photograph, ready to hang on the walls for others to see and form their own evaluations.

His evaluation should be whether he is successful or not. Did he translate what he felt, into a language that as many viewers as possible will be able to understand.

 

[Ed Sukach]

... Self evaluation of ones own work should be ruthless, merciless which can be difficult for some.

Oh? Why does it have to be "ruthless, and merciless"? Isn't honesty (as much as is possible) more important than self-flagellation?

His evaluation should be whether he is successful or not. Did he translate what he felt, into a language that as many viewers as possible will be able to understand.

I would break this down somewhat differently: First, did s/he say what they WANTED to say (the supreme test of success, IMHO); and second, is the work appropriate for the audience ... will THEY get it?

 

[Donald Miller]

I have read this thread with interest once again. What has become increasingly apparent to me is that there is one individual that is continually at the center of every contentious argument. There is one person who is a common denominator in all of these heated debates that ultimately disintegrate into personal attacks. I have observed these attacks levied against Sandy King, Michael Smith, Jorge, and others. It seems that this person lives their life achieving some measure of personal satisfaction from diminishing another person through abusive verbalization. I concur with what Michael Smith just mentioned, this is sick behavior.

This photographic community is a true community. In social structures when this sort of behavior is exhibited the social unit ultimately must decide to either continue to tolerate this abuse or they must take steps to eliminate the offender from the social unit. The danger that exists is that if this behavior is allowed to continue then the social unit itself will ultimately disintegrate.

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

 

[Jim Chinn]

David, you wrote,

"Since starting this thread I have read of Minor White's article entitled 'Silence of Seeing', While the article focusses on criticism (not just the negative variety) it highlights the state and stages of photographic criticism.

In what publication or web site can a find this article? I would like to read it.

 

[Ed Sukach]

... There is one person who is a common denominator in all of these heated debates

And now, the guessing game begins. Is it me?

Is it the guy who constantly changes his name... "No(r)m De Jour"?

What is the alternative ... A truly homogenous, dissention-less monolithic structure? That would be really interesting .. we could enjoy the pleasure of reading the SAME words - the SAME ideas, over and over again. We would never have to think!!! So easy - so peaceful... so stagnant ... just like a swamp.

I don't think we should descend into "personal attacks" ... but I don't see where anyone has been immune to that failing here ... we are all limited as to the depth of our self-discipline.

There is a de facto element of democracy here ... and as in every democracy, nothing comes free ... there is no such thing as a free lunch. We pay for the privilege of equality by listening, with respect - or at least tolerance - to every "whacko" (a.k.a. - Those who do not agree with OUR obviously SUPERIOR views).

I'll suggest a remedy. If anyone IS attacked personally, all we have to do is STAY on topic. We are responsible for what each one of us writes... If someone else - anyone - decides to mis-quote, or launch a personal attack, based on wild assumptions, we can call attention to that fact ... but NEVER try to retaliate in kind.