interesting look at critics

[DonW]

https://visualsciencelab.blogspot.com/2012/03/vital-role-of-critics-and-ongoing.html?m=1

I have been following and enjoying Tuck's blog for years. He makes some interesting points in this post from 2012.

It's long but worth it imho. The comments are also very good.

Just throwing this out there for discussion.

 

[jtk]

What do you find "very interesting" and "very good" about that incredibly windy blog?

 

[DonW]

What do you find "very interesting" and "very good" about that incredibly windy blog?

Sorry to old to fall for your bait.

 

[jtk]

Sorry to old to fall for your bait.

That wasn't "bait." I spent a lot of time on your link, hoping for the best...didn't find anything "interesting." That's why I asked you to tell us what you had in mind.

 

[John Koehrer]

Something about opinions and everyone having one, I think.

 

[jtk]

Something about opinions and everyone having one, I think.

John...sounds like you spent a lot of time with that blog, like I did. Did it seem worthwhile? How?

 

[jtk]

Something about opinions and everyone having one, I think.

John, you're undoubtedly right ..

 

[Valerie]

Some random thoughts and ramblings while I wait for the coffee to enter my bloodstream. I found the article to be quite interesting. As a college photo instructor, it is a struggle to get student critiques beyond "I really like it", "Its really cool". Students are used to "liking" without actually thinking about the work. They are inundated with instagram photos that are "cool" but have no depth. Art requires depth. It is about expression and meaning. We cannot escape the digital age, but we can learn visual literacy, to be critical and discerning, to make judgement calls about what's relevant and what is not (which will be different for each person).

One of their assignments is to go to a well-respected gallery or museum and write their own critique of a photograph. Seeing a work "in person" in its intended form tends to be an enlightening experience for most. "I didn't know Ansel Adams' prints were so small!". Did you know that Bill Brandt drew with pencil on his photos to add texture? If you look at the actual photo just right you can see the indentions in the paper. Can't get that online. Some semesters I bring them to the Museum of Fine Arts Houston Printroom. There we can have a private viewing of photos from the collection that they get to choose from. Wanna see a Talbot? Done. Right next to Cindy Sherman, Edward Steichen, and Sally Mann. Again, can't get that experience or sense of what an image really looks like online. (Just don't breathe heavily on the work! lol) Students are also so surprised to see that their ingeniously creative photographic project was already done 50 years ago.

A good critic/critique is indeed gold. It will help you see the thing in new light, with new eyes. You may intensely agree or disagree with the critic but you WILL come away with something more. A good critic can point out both what works and what doesn't work. It's not personal. It's meant to guide the viewer, cull the less-than-stellar work (and hopefully spur the artist to dig deeper going forward).

 

[Saganich]

Well, the main point is I believe that the landscape of photography (especially in the electronic formats) is overwhelmed with pedestrian "art" and he suggests maybe we need more educated critics to help us understand what is relevant and why. He suggests the reason why this isn't occurring is that popular culture no longer believes in the rational role of a critic, and because culture (on-line culture) has so declined into a morass of pointlessness that no talented critic dare attempt to stick a toe in. I don't totally disagree, if i were a talented critic or artist I wouldn't go anywhere near the internet.

 

[Saganich]

And I totally agree with Valerie.

 

[Bob Carnie]

I liked the article,, I disagree with some of what is said ( in Toronto there are many , many university courses on photography art history and I am pleased with this as though most of the students do not follow a career in art history , they do carry with them an appreciation for what we do and actually when they can purchase what they think is good work)
I have exhibited solo, and group shows, and I have printed in the thousands gallery shows that land in various locations. I have found the solo shows to be a real eye opener for me as what I thought was great, others not so much . I try to exhibit with others as much as I can and I do have a strong thick skin and always willing to take criticism of what I do, in fact I do this with all others shows I print, I have to stand by them therefore I get involved a bit more than just a financial transition with my clients.
I always try to understand why the person who asks me to print is wanting to place the work on a wall, I give them my opinion of what they are trying to produce, in many cases I make them write a statement about the work. This statement allows me to see if they are full of bullshit or actually have an interesting idea. Not all the work I do is serious work, I love doing wall decor, I love printing family photographs, or old family photos. The common element is the pleasure in making the framed prints. I try to steer clear of people from other disciplines attempting to make money from photography because we all know how easy that is..If money is the sole motivator I seriously try to not encourage the work to be done.
I strongly believe in stories or projects that over a long time talk about a photographers experiences, beliefs or ideas to present to others. I do not believe in the one shot wonders or going out with a camera and looking for photographs, I think this is taught a lot and to me its not a cohesive approach.
I have no problem looking at images on screen and visualizing what they look live, but then again I do this everyday so I have a record in my mind what all the different processes actually look like and can make the connection.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Artist stand on the shoulder of giants of past artist. I hope critics base their criticism on that solid foundation. But as some say about critics. They're like palace eunuchs. All they do is watch but can't do. To me, critics are supposed have a constructive critical eye that deepens understanding and advance what they criticize.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Bruce Gulden has youtube videos where he is commenting on others photos send to him for it. Nicely and honestly.
Inspired Eye provides youtube video for each monthly magazine and they are very educative for me with their comments on the photos they have selected for the magazine.
Those are photogs by themselves.
But if college teachers or exhibition curators are involved... If teachers are photogs by themselves, why not. Curators... based on what I see in exhibitions now, they are driven mostly by correct for one political view agendas and photography itself is less relevant criteria for them.
It is getting closer and closer to what I have seen in the Soviet art galleries.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I too think it is very insightful, and appropriate, for this forum. At this point, given the article is from 2012, it's not saying anything truly NEW, but I think more people should read it and at least wrestle with its implications. There are some perils of following his recommendations lock-step, for example: reading Beaumont Newhall's History of Photography. It's a good starting point, but unless you're aware of it, it's easy to take as prescriptive when in fact Newhall was a critic himself with his own axes to grind, and if you take his book as gospel, there's an entire photographic movement he dismisses (pictorialism). So much of what's in that blog post was extremely resonant because we've been having a very similar discussion over in a thread about photographing the nude. There's a strong undercurrent of backlash against any form of criticism of nude photography in that thread, and even a drive to embrace mediocrity as a positive goal. I say eschew mediocrity.

 

[Dali]

I agree with Valerie but I think that most of what is posted in the internet is not meant for critique but for self-appreciation.

Pushing the door of a gallery and you expect to explain your work to the owner or those in charge of exhibitions. With the internet, you don't have such ordeal: You post and you are 99% sure not to face any critical questioning. Hence the overall poor quality of what is posted, in line with the poor value of the matching comments (I like, I don't like, etc)

 

[cowanw]

That bit about Beaumont Newhall's History of Photography put me off as well. Being heavily weighted to American photography and to Newhall's buddies. There is a world of photographic history out there.

The other thing that bothered me was the use of statements as fact rather than opinion by which the conclusions were justified
"Your role, as an artist is expression. Not necessarily self-expression but expression that moves the dialog of social reflection forward by taking apart the cultural DNA in a new way."
"Art should have something to say."

Art can do that but it can also just look good.

"The number of critics with a grounding in both the history of Photography and general Art History has remained the same or declined."

There have never been very many

"But one of the first things I'd do is erase all the images from every website and gallery, stock file and sharing facility and let people and culture start all over again."
"Now we need to concentrate on history and taste and aesthetics."

Empty galleries don't help the study of the past works
Whose tastes, whose aesthetics?
All in all I thought it was a good high school essay, but lacked depth of knowledge (and the history that he promotes) and above all evidence for his assumptions which are presented as fact.
While I reject many of the assumptions of the state of current photography and agree with Bob's observations, I sympathize with many of the concepts of this essay

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

"But one of the first things I'd do is erase all the images from every website and gallery, stock file and sharing facility and let people and culture start all over again."
"Now we need to concentrate on history and taste and aesthetics."

Empty galleries don't help the study of the past works
Whose tastes, whose aesthetics?

Unfortunately, the words "taste and aesthetics" are often code words for a very specific cultural and temporal taste and aesthetic, notably western European (and their descendants/diaspora) "classical" art. It's a very arrogant perspective to dictate norms, and rather ironic in applying it to photography, perhaps the first medium to emerge in such a way as to be not exclusively grounded in a specific cultural tradition, but instead open almost equally to all cultural traditions.

 

[winger]

Some random thoughts and ramblings while I wait for the coffee to enter my bloodstream. I found the article to be quite interesting. As a college photo instructor, it is a struggle to get student critiques beyond "I really like it", "Its really cool". Students are used to "liking" without actually thinking about the work. They are inundated with instagram photos that are "cool" but have no depth. Art requires depth. It is about expression and meaning. We cannot escape the digital age, but we can learn visual literacy, to be critical and discerning, to make judgement calls about what's relevant and what is not (which will be different for each person).

One of their assignments is to go to a well-respected gallery or museum and write their own critique of a photograph. Seeing a work "in person" in its intended form tends to be an enlightening experience for most. "I didn't know Ansel Adams' prints were so small!". Did you know that Bill Brandt drew with pencil on his photos to add texture? If you look at the actual photo just right you can see the indentions in the paper. Can't get that online. Some semesters I bring them to the Museum of Fine Arts Houston Printroom. There we can have a private viewing of photos from the collection that they get to choose from. Wanna see a Talbot? Done. Right next to Cindy Sherman, Edward Steichen, and Sally Mann. Again, can't get that experience or sense of what an image really looks like online. (Just don't breathe heavily on the work! lol) Students are also so surprised to see that their ingeniously creative photographic project was already done 50 years ago.

A good critic/critique is indeed gold. It will help you see the thing in new light, with new eyes. You may intensely agree or disagree with the critic but you WILL come away with something more. A good critic can point out both what works and what doesn't work. It's not personal. It's meant to guide the viewer, cull the less-than-stellar work (and hopefully spur the artist to dig deeper going forward).

I agree. And I would really like to share this post with some who are in the local photo club with me, if that's okay with Valerie. I also wish I was in TX to take your class.

 

[DonW]

Great discussion, which is exactly what I intended.

 

[Valerie]

I agree. And I would really like to share this post with some who are in the local photo club with me, if that's okay with Valerie. I also wish I was in TX to take your class.

Yes, its okay with me. And taking my class consists a great deal in students being asked "What do you think? Why?" lol

 

[winger]

Yes, its okay with me. And taking my class consists a great deal in students being asked "What do you think? Why?" lol

Thank you!

 

[TheRook]

If you want your photography to conform to how others are doing it, I suppose relying on critics to put you on that path is a safe way to go. If you are looking for true originality and uniqueness in your work, then intuition should be your primary guide. Art has no hard rules. If it did, stylistic movements which break from tradition, such Expressionism or Cubism, would have never come into existence.

 

[DonJ]

If you want your photography to conform to how others are doing it, I suppose relying on critics to put you on that path is a safe way to go. If you are looking for true originality and uniqueness in your work, then intuition should be your primary guide. Art has no hard rules. If it did, stylistic movements which break from tradition, such Expressionism or Cubism, would have never come into existence.

Critics have helped plenty of artists develop and refine their original vision. The key is in listening to the right critics.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

If you want your photography to conform to how others are doing it, I suppose relying on critics to put you on that path is a safe way to go. If you are looking for true originality and uniqueness in your work, then intuition should be your primary guide. Art has no hard rules. If it did, stylistic movements which break from tradition, such Expressionism or Cubism, would have never come into existence.

There's a vast difference between a critic and a critique - one is someone who finds fault, the other is an event where constructive advice is provided to push the artist forward, building on the strengths of their work and addressing the weaknesses. A good critic will provide the latter. A bad one will just criticize. Being a good critic takes a LOT of work, to be able to recognize the strengths in someone's work, and be able to elevate them, even if they're not your cup of tea.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

There's a vast difference between a critic and a critique - one is someone who finds fault, the other is an event where constructive advice is provided to push the artist forward, building on the strengths of their work and addressing the weaknesses. A good critic will provide the latter. A bad one will just criticize. Being a good critic takes a LOT of work, to be able to recognize the strengths in someone's work, and be able to elevate them, even if they're not your cup of tea.

How would I find someone who could be a good advisor?