Ray Heath said:
g'day Bob
my guiding consideration is always the subject
what is the subject?
how can i present it in an interesting way?
what are the techniques that i could use to enhance it?
how do i want my viewer to perceive it?
i suspect you'll get few postings for this thread, it seems the people here have a lot say when it's to do with opinions on materials or equipment, but they have clearly stated, in other threads, a distain for art
Ray,
I think that is a very sweeping statement to make about a community of 10,000+.
Also, there is far less in the way of definitives on the subject of art - due to the very nature of the subject - than there is, lets say, about the developing times for a film in a specific developer. Its a lot harder to give a "yes" or "no" answer. It is also a lot easier to offend someone, hurt their feelings, or make them feel excluded when making a criticism of their creativity, than it is when commenting on proper or improper technique or equipment. Most people here know that. If I tell you that your photo is overexposed, or improperly developed, I am simply stating a technical fact, one from which you can hopefully learn to make you a better photographer. If you wanted to know how to make the sky darker in a photo, or how to print a particularily contrasty negative, there is a wealth of knowledge that can give you a definitive answer.
On the other hand, if I tell you that your image is pointless, lacks content and originality (or taste, or creativity, or impact, etc.) - then its a whole different story. All of a sudden I am not making a factual diagnosis of technique, I am attacking something that hopefully was born of your artistic toil and contains large parts of your heart and soul, creative essence and probably a piece of you as a person. So people tread lightly, and generally don't offer their opinions of that sort unless they are requested, i.e.: in the critique forum. They don't want to come across like know-it-alls who make sweeping satements doomed to inaccuracy (imagine that...).
If you feel the shortage of artistic content, take a "stroll" through the galleries.
Also, the word is "disdain". Look it up. While you're there, look up "pretentious".
*****
As to the original topic of this thread, I can't say I have an approach that is quite as thought out. To me, what separates art from just a representation of something is its ability to convey (and evoke) emotion. For example, your driver's license photo is not really a portrait - but it does fit all the criteria on the most technical level. The first (and as such most crucial) judgement I make is the ability to captivate me, capture my attention and make me look again. That is the bulk of it. Then, I ask myself what I would do differently to make it better - the shorter that list, the better the work. This includes the technical aspects - only in so far as looking if the technical ability or lack thereof in any way detracts from the impact. Then I tend to sleep on it. If I still think of the image (or whatever the work is) the next morning, if I want to revisit it again - then I know I am truly taken by it.
This explains some of my cryptic comments that I am sure puzzle people when left beneath their postings in the gallery. Things like "I just had to see it again today - still love it!".
And the longer that lasts, the more I love the work of art. I can still remember the first time I saw a Van Gogh picture. The night sky, the swirling stars... wow. I know it was great, not because school taught me that, but because over twenty years later, I still get a shiver of excitement.
Cheers,
Peter.