Is Critique A Requirement to Learning Photography?

TheFlyingCamera said:

The center where I teach has a monthly "Coffee and Critique" event on a Sunday morning. People bring in work to be critiqued by us faculty and by the attending audience. They get to set the tone of the critique they're getting - if they're just looking for basic technical critique or compositional guidance, we provide that, or if they're looking for something more esoteric or deeper, like sequencing a series and does image X fit within the sequence or not, and why, is also available. We can get upwards of 30 participants on a good Sunday. I really enjoy participating, and have brought my own work to show in addition to doing critiques. It's no-pressure but high quality.

Click to expand...

ReginaldSMith said:

There's a big difference between judging and critique. I think contest judging as promoted by so many clubs is a destructive process in photography. All contests, like car races, or bike races, create a set of understood winning methods that are soon copied by every competitor in the quest for the win. It doesn't take long before all the pictures begin to have the same characteristics. In the PSA and clubs that follow those ideas, the word of choice for all photographs is "IMPACT!" This is their holy grail of photography. It's the prized quality above all else. In their theory the value of photography is limited to shock and awe and surprise. The photographic equivalent of a hammer blow to the head. Anything that might require reflection, or contemplation, is not worthy of top consideration. I think they are reflecting perfectly the Madison Avenue goals of advertising - - where they call them "images that stop you in your tracks." That's a sadly limiting view of photography.

Critique begins by using your own standards to judge your own work. This makes the commentary fit your own goals. The critique is a way to measure your progress using your standards, not an artificial one created by others for other work.

I hope you have a better experience in the future.

Click to expand...

jtk said:

"Judging" and "critique" may both be irrelevant to some serious photographers,

Personally, I dislike camera clubs more than commercial photography (which isn't often "Madison Avenue" ).

My experience is that "print viewing" (one at a time in a quiet, well lit setup) as a member of a prepared group, followed by minimal comment by each member of that group, can be rewarding.

That was taught by Minor White and passed to me... one of his personal students used that kind of print viewing as a learning reward for his own students. Preparation of the group involved quieting them down, a meditative pause, and asking for mostly-non-technical personal response. For example "I'd get more from that image if it was more open-looking" rather than "It's too dark."

Another of Minor's formal teaching methods asked students to take prints out on the street (or wherever) showing them to random people...not friends or obvious sensitive types. Simply ask them what they think. They'll often say "what am I supposed to think?" Then just ask them to respond with whatever they'd like. That may be scary but it can also be an eye-opener. Another learning reward.

Click to expand...

Sirius Glass said:

The main reason I stopped going to camera clubs is the shift from constructive criticism to contests. In order for me to win a contest, many people would go home losers. I did not need to drive others down so that I could feel better..

Click to expand...

jtk said:

I'm not as noble and caring about others who might "go home losers" as Sirus Glass seems to be. Perhaps not to my credit, I don't think in terms of winners and losers. The reason I don't like camera clubs is that they seem very formally dedicated to sameness, fixed ways of seeing things, limited concepts about photography.

Click to expand...

TheFlyingCamera said:

The center where I teach has a monthly "Coffee and Critique" event on a Sunday morning. People bring in work to be critiqued by us faculty and by the attending audience.

Click to expand...

ReginaldSMith said:

This often leads to the questionable practice of leading the viewer with a title intended to telegraph the desired response. Titles then become ostentatious, pretentious and often downright silly. Of course certain documentary styles have appropriate titles, "Corn Silo in Davenport, Iowa." But, hanging a photo of a surf line with a stick poking up from the sand and the title, "God's Mighty Majesty Is Everywhere" is a practice I decry.

Click to expand...