Photographer posts; photographers seeking "validation"

removed account4 · Sep 3, 2016

TheFlyingCamera said:
Not calling BS on you, but on Picasso - he said that long after he had had formal art training and had developed significant thought on what is and is not art. He could work in a childlike manner, and consciously reject notions of traditional rules for color, composition, form, and spatial representation, but he could not ignore them as if he had never learned them. They were so deeply ingrained in his psyche that they were always subconsciously there. It's why we care to distinguish a Picasso from fridge art on newsprint and crayola.

hey scott
call it BS its ok, i never had a conversation with him and i am
just relaying what i heard from someone else ...
interestingly enough, i know when he he had no formal training
in the arts, and at the age of 13 applied to the
adadamie des beaux arts, and took 2 weeks to
complete what typically took 2 years to finish
and it was the best they had ever seen. ( he was 13 )
i don't believe he turned off what he had learned,
but it was suggested that he said he just wanted to
create art like a child.
i take that 2 ways, i take that, as having a certain way of
stylistically making "naive art" but i also think
it could be interpreted in the context of this thread to
create art for arts sake.

there are too many "critiquers" and people saying
"NO" and it often does more harm than good, children make art and are nurtured
they are usually not told NO, but given more art supplies and said YES! MAKE SOME MORE!
so if someone wants to do whatever it is they want with a camera
and instead of the critiqueers/ authors /bloggers/site critics/know it alls &c
who pen the articles in the magazines, blogs, websites with megaphones
telling them NO YOU CAN"T COMPOSE A PHOTOGRAPH LIKE THAT, or NO YOU CAN'T
USE DEKTOL FOR YOUR FILM, or NO YOU CAN"T ...
they should be encouraging what people do, and sp if someone wants
validation for something worked hard at, it is something they deserve.
too may grumpy old photographers and narrow minded people in this world ...

TheFlyingCamera · Sep 4, 2016

jnanian said:
there are too many "critiquers" and people saying
"NO" and it often does more harm than good, children make art and are nurtured
they are usually not told NO, but given more art supplies and said YES! MAKE SOME MORE!
so if someone wants to do whatever it is they want with a camera
and instead of the critiqueers/ authors /bloggers/site critics/know it alls &c
who pen the articles in the magazines, blogs, websites with megaphones
telling them NO YOU CAN"T COMPOSE A PHOTOGRAPH LIKE THAT, or NO YOU CAN'T
USE DEKTOL FOR YOUR FILM, or NO YOU CAN"T ...
they should be encouraging what people do, and sp if someone wants
validation for something worked hard at, it is something they deserve.
too may grumpy old photographers and narrow minded people in this world ...

I'm not disagreeing with you at all with regards to photography and experimentation. People need to chill out about what is and isn't a good photograph, especially vis-a-vis over-valuing technical precision over emotional content. A good photograph is a photograph that makes you want to look at it more than once. A photograph you learn something new from each time you see it. If that photo was made by soaking your Tri-X in lemon juice and toning the print in urine, more power to you. And if you try the lemon juice and piss route and it fails, well, you learned something new, and can apply it to future work.

My only reason for calling BS on Picasso saying he wanted to paint naively is that he really couldn't. He did attend formal academic training (and for more than two years), and he painted in a very academic, realistic style (even into his red and blue periods) before "returning" to a child-like, naive way of painting. Yes, he dispensed with "rules" and painted what he felt, but even within his transformations/deformations, there's a careful, organized, structured composition and consistency of style no untrained child would be able to achieve. Guernica, for all its visual chaos and distortion and unreality, is not something any child could or would have produced. You can't escape past experience - it always informs your present work, no matter how much you try to block it out or deny it.

removed account4 · Sep 4, 2016

hey scott -

total agreement !

john

LAG · Sep 5, 2016

Excuse me TheFlyingCamera

TheFlyingCamera said:
...A good photograph is a photograph that makes you want to look at it more than once. A photograph you learn something new from each time you see it. If that photo was made by soaking your Tri-X in lemon juice and toning the print in urine, more power to you. And if you try the lemon juice and piss route and it fails, well, you learned something new, and can apply it to future work.

Well, in my pesonal opinion, any photo teaches, being "ethically" good or bad (my favorites to learn), so does the method used. And those, learning and working, are personal choices.

TheFlyingCamera said:
... Picasso ... You can't escape past experience - it always informs your present work, no matter how much you try to block it out or deny it.

And that "Influence" (already mentioned before) is part of the lifelong "personal" learning choice.

TheFlyingCamera · Sep 5, 2016

LAG said:
Excuse me TheFlyingCamera

Well, in my pesonal opinion, any photo teaches, being "ethically" good or bad (my favorites to learn), so does the method used. And those, learning and working, are personal choices.

And that "Influence" (already mentioned before) is part of the lifelong "personal" learning choice.

LAG:

I wasn't referring to good or bad in an ethical or moral sense, only good or bad in the aesthetic or artistic sense. You can have a very successful, powerful, emotional photograph that is ethically bad, I suppose - say a Nazi propaganda photo. And yes, you can learn something from any photograph, even the most banal vacation snapshot. It is of course entirely up to you what you learn.

Thomas Bertilsson · Sep 5, 2016

Jon,

Nothing you say contradicts what I said.

Do you think at some point Hendrix picked up a guitar and tried to play right handed, but switched? I don't know his history. To me that's similar to a photographer using their left eye or right eye in the view finder. It could be instinct for all I know, but Hendrix learning how to play guitar is probably a combination of his own imagination and hard work, and listening to other people playing guitar. Based on past experience we decide what to do today. That's what I mean by contrast. Nobody gets to be as good as Hendrix without blood (bloody finger tips), sweat (wipe that forehead again), and tears (upset that it didn't work after practicing 100 times). Along the way he developed his frame of reference of what constitutes 'guitar sound', and out of that he picked what he wanted to sound like.

Photography? Sculpture? Painting? Print making? Knitting? It all comes with practice, and we find our place trying different things, and not a single person on planet Earth could look at a photograph and thing that it's poorly executed, without first knowing what they think a well executed one looks like. Then of course what constitutes 'bad' and 'good' is entirely subjective, but it IS a frame of reference, with a range of results in each and everyone of our minds.

Of course you shouldn't tell others they're doing things wrong. Always be encouraging, even if you think it stinks; focus on the positive (unless they ask for a critique and actually WANT my thoughts). When I walk through art museums I see realist paintings that I'm flabbergasted by, and I see abstract paintings that I'm flabbergasted by (I see a lot of art that I don't appreciate too). I'm equally impressed by Gerome's 'The Carpet Merchant' and artists like Jackson Pollock or Asger Jorn, or Yaoyi Kusama. I look at all that and form my own frame of reference. Even me, a lousy amateur with nothing to my name, has a frame of reference that contains everything from the skilled realists to the most imaginative abstract wonderland representations. From that range of outcome I form my own aesthetic, and base how I work on all that in my practice and attempts at expressing myself and what's in my imagination.

I think we're essentially describing two sides of the same thing.

Back to studies, sorry it takes so long to reply.

jnanian said:
hi thomas,

i agree and disagree with you at the same time
yes it is true what you said about a music ( maybe )
or a rich person wanting to understand what it is like to be poor
but making art is self expression whether it is with an instrument
or a sheet of paper/crayons or a camera and film. if someone uses
a camera ( or paper or instrument ) and makes something wonderful
and someone says " sorry bub, you are doing it all wrong" ...
the only thing that is wrong is the fact that the critique would never have
used the materials or interpreted the subject matter the way he or she did.
look at jimmy hendrix .. if he was told to play right handed what would we have ?
or dizzy gillespie and his bent trumpet,
or tomatoes being eaten or manray's photography or
abe morell's pinholes or the work done by aaron siskind
or aerial views by radar ...
i mean if someone has a specific things to learn,
certainly it is important for a mentor/teacher/critic to say
nope not there yet, you have to do this and that to be closer ...
but for someone just enjoying themselves, lots of great things happen
when there are no rules, or no one is there to discourage doing something different.
if you were told "you don't roast marshmallows, you just eat them out of the bag"
you would be missing out on a lot.

LAG · Sep 5, 2016

TheFlyingCamera said:
LAG:

I wasn't referring to good or bad in an ethical or moral sense, only good or bad in the aesthetic or artistic sense. You can have a very successful, powerful, emotional photograph that is ethically bad, I suppose - say a Nazi propaganda photo. And yes, you can learn something from any photograph, even the most banal vacation snapshot. It is of course entirely up to you what you learn.

Hello TheFlyingCamera

Correct me if I am wrong, but you did not mention any sense (ethically nor aesthetically), hence my quotation marks. And Yes I used "ethically" precisely to warn that "good or bad" are terms that need self-definition.

The other thing I explained "very bad", or you did not understand "very well" (although it appears we agree on) is that, generally speaking, mistakes are always a much more enriching experience (from our own and others) including the most banal vacation snapshot, of course.

That's right. It's entirely up (to us) what (where, when and how) we learn. Thank you

removed account4 · Sep 5, 2016

Thomas Bertilsson said:
I think we're essentially describing two sides of the same thing.

Back to studies, sorry it takes so long to reply.

me too
long reply is fine by me !

unfortunately there are too many critics and usually they don't know what they are talking about, and discourage more then they help.
i was once asked to critique someone's work (here on apug) but i opted out of the scathing part.
s/he asked via PM and i gave him/her postive feedback, of what i thought
the strengths were of the images, and how the composition worked &c,
but not so much negative because i wasn't familiar with the work, or him/her/where they were coming from or "their point"
and who am i to punch someone in the gut.
... of course the response was that i didn't flame the work, and it was held as a grudge afterwards.

it to me is a high road low road sort of thing.
it is easy to say nasty things, cut someone's legs off at the knees, belittle + and discourage them,
tell them their efforts and time are worthless and they are wasting "precious resources"
and more difficult/helpful to do just the opposite.
unfortunately in this internet age, where people wouldn't dare to
say some of the things they type face to face, and even the most inexperienced people claim to be experts,
and offer criticism/advice &c
too many people take the low road because they can, and it's "fun" to have the power only
relegated to editorial experts and magazine columnists ...
the animated classic "ratatouille" is about just that, low road, high road...

Diapositivo · Sep 5, 2016

TheFlyingCamera said:
My only reason for calling BS on Picasso saying he wanted to paint naively is that he really couldn't. He did attend formal academic training (and for more than two years), and he painted in a very academic, realistic style (even into his red and blue periods) before "returning" to a child-like, naive way of painting. Yes, he dispensed with "rules" and painted what he felt, but even within his transformations/deformations, there's a careful, organized, structured composition and consistency of style no untrained child would be able to achieve. Guernica, for all its visual chaos and distortion and unreality, is not something any child could or would have produced. You can't escape past experience - it always informs your present work, no matter how much you try to block it out or deny it.

Although I generally speaking agree with you, in the case of Picasso and of many other "studied naif" painters, the case exists of painters who are generally really "naif" not having received any kind of formal, academical teaching.
The case of Antonio Ligabue comes to my mind. If you read his biographical notes on wikipedia (the Italian version is more complete) you see how "difficult" the man was (denonciated to the Police several times by the persons he lived with when he was a teen-ager, changed school often for learning problems and for bad behaviour, always subject during his life to violent nervous crises, recovered several times in a psychiatric hospital, the last time for having beaten a German soldier with a bottle during WWII). Yes he was somehow guided by another painter (Renato Marino Mazzacurati) to the basic tecniques, but Ligabue was not the man who would devise complex aesthetical theories. Talking to him would give the impression of a minus habens.

Sometimes, very rarely, genious can be spontaneous.

LAG · Sep 5, 2016

Thomas Bertilsson said:
... Of course you shouldn't tell others they're doing things wrong. Always be encouraging, even if you think it stinks; focus on the positive (unless they ask for a critique and actually WANT my thoughts). ...

Excuse me Thomas

Being always encouraging is of little help, moreover the worst option if you think it stinks: Silence would be a much better help in those cases. Of course you should tell others they are doing things wrong, with the due respect, with proper education by being honest and sharing what is your personal "humble" opinion. This one is an example, and my signature certifies that too.

jnanian said:
...
unfortunately in this internet age, where people wouldn't dare to
say some of the things they type face to face, and even the most inexperienced people claim to be experts,
and offer criticism/advice &c
too many people take the low road because they can, and it's "fun" to have the power only
relegated to editorial experts and magazine columnists ...
the animated classic "ratatouille" is about just that, low road, high road...

I agree jnanian

We still need a great deal of broadmindedness and much more understanding, starting with the very internet itself.

TheFlyingCamera · Sep 5, 2016

LAG said:
Excuse me Thomas

Being always encouraging is of little help, moreover the worst option if you think it stinks: Silence would be a much better help in those cases. Of course you should tell others they are doing things wrong, with the due respect, with proper education by being honest and sharing what is your personal "humble" opinion. This one is an example, and my signature certifies that too.

I agree on the one hand that we do need to be honest in our opinions, when solicited. With a little bit of experience, you can tell when someone is looking for an honest opinion or just fishing for compliments. When honest opinions are requested, though, it is worthwhile saying "this stinks" only if you follow it up with "this is what does work; this is what doesn't, and here's what you can do to improve it". Never offer a critique without follow-through - the person asking you has sought you out and feels that getting your opinion is worth their time. And by accepting their request, you have signaled back to them that you feel they are worth reviewing.

Thomas Bertilsson · Sep 6, 2016

LAG said:
Excuse me Thomas

Being always encouraging is of little help, moreover the worst option if you think it stinks: Silence would be a much better help in those cases. Of course you should tell others they are doing things wrong, with the due respect, with proper education by being honest and sharing what is your personal "humble" opinion. This one is an example, and my signature certifies that too.

I do disagree with you to an extent. Someone untrained and just starting out may be crushed if you give feedback that is too honest. I never offer my negative opinion of what I think about a photograph, or any work of art, unless solicited. To me it's rude to just deliver what you think without being asked, about works of art, especially since it's a largely subjective enterprise. It's someone else's learning curve, someone else's creative outlet; who am I to just offer my opinion without being asked? We don't know up front who they are, what their level of experience is, and how well they will handle critique. Our comment may do more damage than good.
When asked, however, I still try to put equal focus on what they do well and not so well, as clearly as possible. It's key to try to make the critique objective yet productive, and it's a great responsibility to make sure that takes place.

I do agree with you that great sensitivity is required when you do give a critique. It has to be productive and inspiring. We can hopefully help someone grow and improve by keeping them motivated to continue, especially if we don't know them. It's a careful balance to help someone grow, but to also keep them motivated to continue.

Dali · Sep 6, 2016

To me, it is a communication problem between "the artist" and the viewer. Nothing new since Marcel Duchamp.

Unfortunately, very few people (me included) expresses what they mean when producing a painting, a sketch or a picture. Without a reference frame given by "the artist", the viewer is seeing the painting, the sketch or the picture through his/her own reference frame. If both "artist" and viewer reference frames are somewhat compatible, then the painting, sketch or picture acts as a communication medium and the viewer can make an informed judgment. But if both frames are not matching, then there is no communication which yields comments like "I don't like" or "it's crap" which is often equivalent to "I don't understand".

Sirius Glass · Sep 6, 2016

Thomas Bertilsson said:
I do disagree with you to an extent. Someone untrained and just starting out may be crushed if you give feedback that is too honest. I never offer my negative opinion of what I think about a photograph, or any work of art, unless solicited. To me it's rude to just deliver what you think without being asked, about works of art, especially since it's a largely subjective enterprise. It's someone else's learning curve, someone else's creative outlet; who am I to just offer my opinion without being asked? We don't know up front who they are, what their level of experience is, and how well they will handle critique. Our comment may do more damage than good.
When asked, however, I still try to put equal focus on what they do well and not so well, as clearly as possible. It's key to try to make the critique objective yet productive, and it's a great responsibility to make sure that takes place.

I do agree with you that great sensitivity is required when you do give a critique. It has to be productive and inspiring. We can hopefully help someone grow and improve by keeping them motivated to continue, especially if we don't know them. It's a careful balance to help someone grow, but to also keep them motivated to continue.

My experience decades ago was that I could get valuable feedback at camera clubs, which was great, but I could also get some crushing and damaging remarks from some camera club self proclaimed experts. I prefer to give one on one critiques face to face in a positive constructive way.

LAG · Sep 6, 2016

TheFlyingCamera said:
With a little bit of experience, you can tell when someone is looking for an honest opinion or just fishing for compliments

That's a perfect answer for the OP in this thread!

Thomas Bertilsson said:
I do disagree with you to an extent. Someone untrained and just starting out may be crushed if you give feedback that is too honest. I never offer my negative opinion of what I think about a photograph, or any work of art, unless solicited. To me it's rude to just deliver what you think without being asked, about works of art, especially since it's a largely subjective enterprise. It's someone else's learning curve, someone else's creative outlet; who am I to just offer my opinion without being asked? We don't know up front who they are, what their level of experience is, and how well they will handle critique. Our comment may do more damage than good.
When asked, however, I still try to put equal focus on what they do well and not so well, as clearly as possible. It's key to try to make the critique objective yet productive, and it's a great responsibility to make sure that takes place

Thanks for your time (studies), and for the disagree part in the answer.

<< Unless solicited?, without being asked? >> To my way of thinking this is only a question of basic good behavior standards (when one decides to post/shows/publish his work, at the same time should kindly warn if there will be opportunity to receive that feedback, or not)

But also think this, when you offer an opinion you should not think "who" are you talking to, but only "what and how" are you talking about, by doing your best to explain and be understood. Then, that productive part (the important) will come for him/her and for you, too. The receiver is the one who must be able to distinguish what he/she has left to learn, and you the one who must be able to recognise what you have left to learn to explain.

Sorry for being so philosophical.

Regards

LAG · Sep 6, 2016

Dali said:
To me, it is a communication problem ... But if both frames are not matching, then there is no communication which yields comments like "I don't like" or "it's crap" which is often equivalent to "I don't understand".

Excuse me Dali

To me (what fails) is "the message", not the communication.

removed account4 · Sep 6, 2016

LAG said:
That's a perfect answer for the OP in this thread!

hi LAG

there is a difference between fishing for compliments and
posting results of things to show what you are able to and have done.
what the OP seem to be annoyed with is that there are people whose experiments
and opinions were revered, they were the people who wrote the articles and gave advice
they were the photographic sages ... but with the internet people post things that 2o years ago
would have been looked at as foolishness... not really fishing for compliments but
just to say " hey, look what i did" ... and from the POV of the OP he is annoyed with
people who post these things just to get someone to notice what they do ( validation ) ...

it seems this thread took a left drift at critique and is now about how to give a critique
and now NOT to give a critique...

Dali · Sep 6, 2016

LAG said:
Excuse me Dali

To me (what fails) is "the message", not the communication.

But sometimes to appreciate the message as it should, one needs education or a clear communication.

LAG said:
Excuse me Dali

To me (what fails) is "the message", not the communication.

So, to continue with Duchamp's example, his fountain has a clear meaning by itself? Lucky you are.

LAG · Sep 7, 2016

Dali said:
But sometimes to appreciate the message as it should, one needs education or a clear communication.

No, we all can have a perfect education, and a perfect communication, but if what is failing is the message ...

Dali said:
So, to continue with Duchamp's example, his fountain has a clear meaning by itself?

Exactly (to him it surely has!), and why is it no so for the rest? perhaps due to the absence of a clear definition of the idea (message) by the author? What I am sure is not because of our education, nor our communicative skills (which are equally necesary).

jnanian said:
hi LAG

there is a difference between fishing for compliments and
posting results of things to show what you are able to and have done.
what the OP seem to be annoyed with is that there are people whose experiments
and opinions were revered, they were the people who wrote the articles and gave advice
they were the photographic sages ... but with the internet people post things that 2o years ago
would have been looked at as foolishness... not really fishing for compliments but
just to say " hey, look what i did" ... and from the POV of the OP he is aggrevated with
people who post these things just to get someone to notice what they do ( validation ) ...

Excuse me jnanian

What I was trying to say when I quote the TheFlyingCamera post, is that I can appreciate the clear relationship between "fishing compliments" and "seeking validation", for my way of seeing this thread, of course. Anyway, I have already given a clearer opinion about the OP concern on my #35 post.

jnanian said:
it seems this thread took a left drift at critique and is now about how to give a critique and now NOT to give a critique...

It seems, you are very right!

Dali · Sep 7, 2016

LAG, Duchamp's fountain has no meaning by itself apart from being a fountain, nothing more and nothing exceptional there.

The meaning came from the fact that he wanted this fountain to be part of an art show and de facto would be put in situation. What is the meaning of presenting a fountain in an art show? Here, the fountain is not the message, it is the medium (and to be very clear, I don't agree with Marshall McLuhan here) of a reflexion about the art notion. As a side note, Duchamp took a fountain but his demonstration would have been similar with any other mundane object which clearly demonstrate that the fountain has no meaning by itself.

John51 · Sep 7, 2016

What's missing in dig pics is how easy it is to accidentally mess up. Sometimes an accidental double exposure, lens flare or other weird no-no somehow looks kinda cool. Most of us don't exactly know why it looks cool but I guess it must follow some of the 'art' rules for us to like it.

The more people buying film the better. If they feel the need for a bit of validation to keep doing that, hey let's give them some validation, it helps keep the film industries going.

The example of pre soaking the film in lemon juice is just vandalism. Muck up your own films all you want but to risk the images of other people using the same lab is terrible.

LAG · Sep 7, 2016

Dali said:
LAG, Duchamp's fountain has no meaning by itself apart from being a fountain, nothing more and nothing exceptional there

I thought it was a urinal, my fault!

removed account4 · Sep 7, 2016

LAG said:
I thought it was a urinal, my fault!

it WAS a urinal and ut turned it upside down and called it a fountain

Dali · Sep 7, 2016

Yes, it is an urinal but it was presented under the name "fountain".

(John was quicker then me...).

removed account4 · Sep 7, 2016

Dali said:
Yes, it is an urinal but it was presented under the name "fountain".

(John was quicker then me...).

sorry Dali -- didn't mean to be "quick draw mcgraw !"

Photographer posts; photographers seeking "validation"

removed account4

TheFlyingCamera

Membership Council

removed account4

LAG

TheFlyingCamera

Membership Council

Thomas Bertilsson

LAG

removed account4

Diapositivo

LAG

TheFlyingCamera

Membership Council

Thomas Bertilsson

Dali

Sirius Glass

LAG

LAG

removed account4

Dali

LAG

Dali

John51

LAG

removed account4

Dali

removed account4

Photographer posts; photographers seeking "validation"

Membership Council

Membership Council

Membership Council

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency