Is Critique A Requirement to Learning Photography?

[BrianShaw]

Judges, critics, mentors, patrons, buyers, or self... at some point one needs to decide who the “consumer“ of our photography is... which can be very circumstantial... or even a complex multi-variate problem to solve.

... and what our individual goals are... which may also be multi-variate... at the same time or over a period of time.

 

[elmontanero]

As a high school photo teacher I have to tread the line on this constantly. The short answer is Yes... a good critique is fundamental for growing. It's loaded with perils though.
At the end of every major assignment we assemble the whole class and go through them. Digital class so they're projected to over five feet. I try to direct the best I can.
First Quarter of the semester class is "puppy dogs and ice cream, rainbows and unicorns": Positive feedback only for each other. Student gets their critique then comments on the next two presenters. Takes a long time. I will give more "critical" feedback. Mostly Technical: focus, depth choice, appropriate Shutter Speed. Some composition info: Move closer, eliminate distracting elements. We do a "still wet" look mid assignment with hopes that students will go out and make the changes. (digital is so fast and they still won't always go out and fix the problem) I do not allow photo editing till after the first 45 of the 90 days, good capture is the focus.
After that initial break we move to a couple of different forms. Students will look at the work of another student and make a full commentary on paper, including what I call " the Plus One " which could make the picture better. One of the better ones is "Dead Artist" review. Student doesn't speak about their own work and the reviewers go first, students have to write down major points of the reviewers comments. This allows them to see though the other person's eyes rather than their own. The student can give comment at the end or can just say, "Thanks". I do not allow comments like, "this doesn't work for me", "I don't get it", and other vague nonsense. Usually it's only said to put someone down and elevate the person saying it.
A colleague says comments need to be "k.i.s.h": kind, intelligent, specific, helpful. Honestly for the kids - they learn a bunch by commenting about someone else's work - about their own work.
Good Critiques are (as touchy, feely as it sounds) in a trustworthy room. The 45 days of positive help foster that, the latter 45 are focused on, "this could make it even better" type of responses. In a work full of throw away "likes" - which mean no more on the 'gram or FB than "I saw it". Really talking about someone's work is another thing altogether. I try to point out that my best friend takes the time to tell me good things - but also will tell me when I'm blowing it. A doctor that only focuses on the good lab results would be a terrible doctor - you need to know the points of improvement. It's not always good, but I would feel remiss if they'd never been in an art critique and then went to college and were devastated. (my experience)
I didn't have as much good direction as a young photographer. I get even less as an adult. The only feedback of "did this sell" isn't good enough to me. Pop music sells - and it's crap for the most part. So as a man approaching 50 with alarming speed - I'm taking classes at the local Community College. Having a deadline, making prints in a darkroom, knowing there's a critique to get ready for has been nothing short of a blessing to my work. The critiques aren't as good there as I'd hoped for, but meeting with the professor - whose work I admire - has made me think about my work much more than before.
I'm constantly trying to make every critique better and more useful for the students.

 

[John Koehrer]

I like the story of Edward Weston who, when asked about critiquing peoples work would look at the work,
sort it into two piles; pick one up and say "these I like"

 

[faberryman]

I have taken one photography class each semester at the local community college for the better part of five years. Sometimes it is a darkroom class even though I have a darkroom at home, or a digital photography class even though I have a computer at home. Each class requires me to produce a portfolio or series of images. It keeps me on task and constantly creating, and I get lots of feedback from other students even if it is largely uninformed. I always learn something.

 

[BrianShaw]

I like the story of Edward Weston who, when asked about critiquing peoples work would look at the work,
sort it into two piles; pick one up and say "these I like"

A friend of mine had a small portfolio reviewed by St Ansel. She told a very similar story. Then they talked about favorite subjects.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

....
People learn quickest by being exposed to excellence. My eyes were opened by the public library service, back when education of ordinary people was thought worthy of the taxpayer's shilling. Bill Brandt, Edward Weston, Dorothea Lange, Robert Frank, Cartier-Bresson, Tony Ray- Jones, Man Ray. ...

I had many books which helped me to escape from the crowd photography and which came to me by local library subscription.
Photographing America - Bresson, Evans. Ansel Adams in Color. For example. Even watching Annie Leibovitz DVD (I think every library in Canada has it) was very helpful to understand how photography starts, what to do and where it ends.
And my learning about expose was done by reading many photobooks and trying to get what is written in them by using of DSLR. Library subscription saved me a lot of $$$.

We watched documentary about one actor. They never accepted him to the acting school. He learned it all by himself in the library. And he was accepted by directors because he was interesting person to talk with, comparing to average actor after school.

Our property taxes supporting local libraries. And our local librarians have above average salaries. Well above...

 

[blockend]

Bruce's way:

 

[btaylor]

Photography is a medium of communication. If your viewers don't "get it" you've failed to communicate successfully.

Thanks for that, but I don’t think you addressed what I said. How many? How many need to hear the tree fall for it to make a sound? One, right? So if I make an image that’s meaningful and successful to ME, then I am satisfied— in fact I only create images for my own
pleasure. Again, thoughtful discussion, “critique,” from others can be helpful in crafting one’s own vision. And to take another point here, the purpose of the photograph needs to be taken into account— a successful sports action image has a very different definition than an abstract.
I agree it would be difficult to create a group of people that photograph similar subjects to your own for group critique. As mentioned previously perhaps going out of the field of photography would be helpful. Many years ago in school I enjoyed the critiques we had, some were specific to photographers others included painters/sculptors/ceramists. Great learning experience to hone in on what one was trying to create.

 

[eddie]

Of course, the person to whom the meaning is most important is the creator. However, if the creator is trying to elicit a certain response in others, and they don't respond in the manner desired, I think it could be assumed to be a failure. (I don't make "message" photos, and I've always thought there's a thin line between delivering a subtle message, and banging someone over the head with it. It's a tough area to navigate.)

 

[ReginaldSMith]

As a high school photo teacher I have to tread the line on this constantly.

Great information. I think high school kids would be very challenging. It's fantastic that you have worked out those techniques.

 

[ReginaldSMith]

I agree it would be difficult to create a group of people that photograph similar subjects to your own for group critique. As mentioned previously perhaps going out of the field of photography would be helpful. Many years ago in school I enjoyed the critiques we had, some were specific to photographers others included painters/sculptors/ceramists. Great learning experience to hone in on what one was trying to create.

Good thoughts. The last critique group I was in had photographers who all had their own interests and styles, and we also had one painter, and one musician. Critiques were in depth, and about half the time was on specific photographs, with the other half about refining your goals, expanding them, contracting them, revising them, and getting more out of the journey. It was very beneficial, and I doubt I'd ever find such a group again. It was a kind of 'salon'. In all my years as a photographer, I progressed the most during that period.

 

[ReginaldSMith]

However, if the creator is trying to elicit a certain response in others, and they don't respond in the manner desired, I think it could be assumed to be a failure.

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.

 

[eddie]

This often leads to the questionable practice of leading the viewer...

That’s why I said there’s a thin line.

 

[faberryman]

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.

I rarely see that in titles; it is usually reserved for the Artist's Statement.

 

[BrianShaw]

That’s why I said there’s a thin line.

I don’t consider leading a viewer with a title to understand the intent or goal as a questionable practice. Why would it be?

 

[ReginaldSMith]

I rarely see that in titles; it is usually reserved for the Artist's Statement.

I used an verbatim example from a major exhibition I entered several years ago.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Bruce's way:

I watched it and it was just enjoyable. I totally agree and understand what he was saying .

 

[eddie]

I don’t consider leading a viewer with a title to understand the intent or goal as a questionable practice. Why would it be?

I have nothing against titling photos. I do it myself, but mostly identifying a subject and place. I think a title can be used to drive home a point, especially in a message oriented photo, which can take away any subtle power a photo may have. Let's say you have a set of identical twin 6 year old boys à la Diane Arbus. The one on the left is dressed as a coal miner (face covered in coal dust), the one on the right in a lab coat. A simple title like "Choices Made" would leave it to the viewer to discern your intent. A title like "Which One is the Trump Voter" would be banging the viewer over the head with your message. I think it takes away the viewer's role in contemplating the image. I've seen this sort of editorial titling over the years. To me, it identifies the photographer as unsure of the potential power of his image.

 

[faberryman]

I used an verbatim example from a major exhibition I entered several years ago.

Hence "rarely".

 

[BrianShaw]

I have nothing against titling photos. I do it myself, but mostly identifying a subject and place. I think a title can be used to drive home a point, especially in a message oriented photo, which can take away any subtle power a photo may have. Let's say you have a set of identical twin 6 year old boys à la Diane Arbus. The one on the left is dressed as a coal miner (face covered in coal dust), the one on the right in a lab coat. A simple title like "Choices Made" would leave it to the viewer to discern your intent. A title like "Which One is the Trump Voter" would be banging the viewer over the head with your message. I think it takes away the viewer's role in contemplating the image. I've seen this sort of editorial titling over the years. To me, it identifies the photographer as unsure of the potential power of his image.

I, too, stick to the facts when titling images. I suppose it gets down to intent, or as I wrote earlier, “the consumer “ of the photo. In many photography pursuits contemplation is neither a desirable goal or a good idea. In art photography, whatever that is, I understand the role of contemplative viewing.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

I rarely see that in titles; it is usually reserved for the Artist's Statement.

But it does exist. Australian photographer Ken Duncan has titles for much of is work that are heavy with religious-themed overtures; the OP's quote was a jarring reminder of Duncan's tedious practice.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

... banging the viewer over the head with your message. ...

Probably unintentionally, it would also reveal to the audience a simplistic prejudicial stereotype held by the photographer.

 

[BrianShaw]

Ouch...

 

[eddie]

Probably unintentionally, it would also reveal to the audience a simplistic prejudicial stereotype held by the photographer.

Exactly my point.

 

[Arklatexian]

Not everyone with a camera refers to themselves as a photographer. And not every photographer is pursuing a thought out path of improving in either the art, the craft or both. To the remainder then, do you think critique is a necessary or important part of your path? If so, how do you facilitate critique? Of course, there is always a spouse or family member to say, "Hey, that's cool." Or, "Whaat the heck is that?" But, do you find it easy or hard to obtain frequent and meaningful critique?

Some photography clubs run critique sessions. And most formal classes at college or university would offer critique, but when the class is over, then what?

The many Internet site catering to photography offer very thin levels of critique because it is impossible to control as hundred thousand people and millions of photographs. And, there is policy of not offending people, because one man's terse, but accurate assessment is another man's offense.

Is it needed at all? Where do you find it? How has it helped or hurt your quest?

Having critiqued and been critiqued, I found that critique can be quite helpful if it is a true critique that cites strong points as well as weak points. If it is in the form of a competition, then that is what it becomes, a competition between picture makers, a sport as has been said before. I have never done "serious" digital photography, only B&W film photography. The biggest problem most of us have had in having our pictures "critiqued" is in presenting a picture that is absolutely un-interesting, boring, many times beautifully photographed and printed of nothing thereby lacking any form of "impact" which is what gets a viewer's attention and keeps the critiquer from saying the dreaded words: "nice picture, next picture". If the person doing a critique stops, asks questions, makes suggestions, you then know that person has seen things in the picture that can be improved and that is always a joy when the picture is yours. So yes, I think a critique is very important unless the maker has a chip on his/her shoulder and dismisses anyone's opinion but their own. Then no one can help...........Regards!