Tastes and Biases

[Aggie]

..

 

[bjorke]

Great story Aggie.

I forget who Adams was quoting in "Beauty in Photography," but he sets out three simple questions for critique: What was the artist trying to do? Did they acheive it? Was it worth doing?

Adams goes on a riff for several pages on this, I won't repeat, but those three questions seem like a pretty good launching point.

--

A key distinction that I think is getting lost is that between CRITIQUE and COMMENT. When one is excited by an artwork, one may feel compelled to comment on that, with nothing more. It's too bad that the net is such a "thin" medium -- we can't see the person making the comment to get a notion of whether they are just tapping out the first thing on the surface of their mind or whether their words are delivered with some deliberation and thought.

Sheer word volume is no indication, as I think I've often proved

(I think it was Brancusi who said: "simplicity is complexity resolved")

 

[GreyWolf]

Constructive criticism is very helpful in improving my vision and my technique.

I guess I must fit into a different category. When I am attempting to improve, I already know what areas I do not like about my work. Therefore I would ask for an opinion or help and guidance on how I might improve on what I am not happy with. The difference as I perceive this is that I am seeking help on a technique or such and not a specific image that I have created.

As for just submitting a print for a critique has little purpose for me. It is like saying....well I am uncertain if this work of mine is of any value...please tell me what your view and opinion is.

Sorry... but it does not work that way for me.

When I create a print that I truly like then it is done and complete. Should somebody wish to view and comment on the print..that is perfectly acceptable and welcome, BUT their opinion is just that...THEIR opinion and it does not change how I feel about my work.

As I have probably said before, I take the journey to satisfy myself. I am fully capable of determining and deciding what this satisfaction is myself. No critique is necessary.

As for those people who deem it necessary to be critiqued and accepted by their peers or perhaps others who have achieved a position of status within the photographic community. Well... it just boils down to the "Emperor's new clothes" as far as I am concerned.

I guess that I do not see critiques as most folks do.

Kind Regards,

 

[Ed Sukach]

[I guess I must fit into a different category.
...Sorry... but it does not work that way for me....
When I create a print that I truly like then it is done and complete. Should somebody wish to view and comment on the print..that is perfectly acceptable and welcome, BUT their opinion is just that...THEIR opinion and it does not change how I feel about my work.
As I have probably said before, I take the journey to satisfy myself. I am fully capable of determining and deciding what this satisfaction is myself. No critique is necessary.
As for those people who deem it necessary to be critiqued and accepted by their peers or perhaps others who have achieved a position of status within the photographic community. Well... it just boils down to the "Emperor's new clothes" as far as I am concerned.
I guess that I do not see critiques as most folks do.

There is a least one other here who operates in the same manner, with the same ideas ... ME!!

I don't think this is so far off the mark. I've been fortunate in interacting with a few of the "bright lights" in photography, and it is my opinion that this is, by far, the most common philosophy held by those in the "upper echelons".

 

[Francesco]

I agree, one must first frame their own opinion of what they have done, of what it is worth to them. I think it is sad if people feel that contributing photos to any online site is simply to join a community, to gain acceptance from ones peers. Why not simply feel that a person likes to submit photos because submitting photos is fun. To much psychoanalysing of other people's motives, people we never met, people we do not know, people we have never seen. At the start of this thread I alluded to what I think is the problem with the personal attacks made in other forums - presumptious behaviour. Under the guise of objectivity our TASTES and BIASES still dominate our words and thoughts. I find that most people just want to have fun whether or not they submit photos, whether or not they join debates, whether or not they post their views.

 

[Ed Sukach]

.. This is simply a repeat of your comments on the thread about critiquing as well as another thread. It's been covered over and over.
It is the opinion of others here, that even if one is magically delivered to another universe or tranformed in a state of perpetual rapture, it still doesn't help the person asking to be critiqued to be showered with just this message.
I know, you are an empowerer. Everything is great. It's so original. Don't mess with their little egos. They may be damaged for life.
But let me put another spin in it. Don't you think that your gushing over everyone and everything will actually lead them to tune you out as a serious critiquer (is that a word), because in essence they learn nothing from you. With every situation they get the nice pat on the head and sent on their way.

The statement was made that: "Posts like `I like it' or `gorgeous' are useless and don't lead anyone anywhere..." I disagree with that statement. It is true that I disagreed with it in the past: I hadn't recognized any limit on replying - that I could only write something I had not written before. I believe that positive comments- critique -- whatever one chooses to call them - are MORE *"useful"* to the submitter than fault-finding.
I believed it then: I believe that now.

Hmm ... "In the opinion of others here, that even if one is magically delivered to another universe.... it still doesn't help the person asking to be critiqued...."
I'm sure this is true.
In the "opinion of others here" (different "others"), It does help - a great deal

"I know, you are an empowerer."
Thank you. That is what I want to be.

..continuing... "Everything is great. It's so original."
A great deal of "it" *IS*.

... continuing, yet... "Don't mess with their little egos. THey may be damaged for life."
That is written in an irritating tone. I'm going to ignore what is implied and respond to the words, hopefully, sans emotion:
Yes, we should be careful with others egos. The neophyte is apt to be - in fact PROBABLY IS very "fragile". I do not see photography, or any other art as requiring the toughening and hardening of the beginner - as a matter of fact, I think the reverse is true - we should sensitize and inspire.

"Don't you think that your (.... Hah!! This IS directed at me, personally!) gushing over everyone and everything will actually lead them to tune you out as a serious critiquer because in essence they learn nothing from you..."
This assumes that I WANT to be perceived as a "serious critiquer". I don't. I only would like to express my reaction to a work that has an effect on my senses. Come to think of it ... the reaction of others to *my* work ahs always been a area of moderate interest to me. Not the all-consuming raison d'etre ... but interesting. Far more interesting that "how I can fix my "mistakes".

More later... I have a model at the door...

 

[blansky]

ED.

This debate is fascinating and





...damn I have a Jehovah's Witness at the door.

 

[Donald Miller]

ED.

This debate is fascinating and





...damn I have a Jehovah's Witness at the door.

Holy S*** the suspense is killing me...Where you swayed at all?

 

[Aggie]

..

 

[Ed Sukach]

This debate is fascinating and
...damn I have a Jehovah's Witness at the door.

Thank you for your patience.

Eight rolls of Agfacolor later...

I have a theoretical situation, I'd like you advice on... I Know what I would do - obviously there are "others" here that view my reactions as something close to "toxic". What would you suggest?

A rank beginner, who I *know* has had very little experience in photography, presents an absolute *gem* of an image to me, for my critique. I feel the same reactions as when I viewed Renoir's "Torse au Soliel" for the first time. I am simply awestruck. I cannot, in my wildest stretch of imagination, think of any possible way to "improve" that image. What is my next step? Do I hide my reaction? Pretend, dishonestly, to experience *nothing* emotionally? Do I invent some sort of "flaw" to be corrected? Do I disallow them to evaluate this as I would ... that it IS a wonderful photograph?
To do so, I would have to lie, at the basest level -- Is that lying justified by saying, "I'm only doing this for their own good"?

One other thing deserves clarification - You infer that I "gush" over everything here --- and that I really do not honestly feel that way ... or am I mistaken?
However, I'll bring your attention to one simple fact - I don't respond to every image posted here. The only ones that I'll post comments about are those who have affected me - that have fit *my* standards of "excellent" work.

Now... I'm going to chill out, if that is all right with you. I hope to have made my position known ... If I find some confusion about where I stand, I'll write more.

Now- my first priority --- I have a bottle of Sempe' V.S.O.P. Armagnac (Ole said something or other that struck a nerve), and one or two ounces of the stuff are doomed to never again see the light of day.

 

[Ed Sukach]

..

 

[blansky]

Hi Don, welcome back from your travels.

Yes, I'm in. Converted. I was skeptical at first. But after they went through the entire brochure, I was sold. The good news is now they are coming back every week. This is great. I can't wait for those nice mormon boys to come by also. Sometimes I get so lonely.

Ed,

If you were asking me, and I saw a photograph from a beginner that blew me away ( and I have) I would sit down with them and probably ask the following:

What were you using.
What were you trying to achieve.
What does the photograph say to you.
Did you achieve what you were trying.
etc,

Then I would tell them exactly how much I loved it and what it said to me. And perhaps ask them to show me more of their work.

Thats about it.

I would always encourage, I would always tell the way I felt.

If the photograph didn't blow me away, I would ask the same questions.

Then I would tell them what I would try to improve, technique wise. If during the time I asked "what were you trying to achieve" and "did you achieve it" and they described what it was, I would give my opinion on how to perhaps do it.

I would also praise them on a good attempt.

Thats about it.



Michael McBlane

 

[KenM]

I wasn't planning on contributing to this thread, but then I realized that I did have something to offer.

I've only really been doing serious photography for about 4 years - started with 35mm, didn't like it, jumped right to 4x5, and that's where I am. As part of my ongoing photographic education, I've taken a few workshops along the way. The first workshop I took was with Ray McSavaney in Yosemite about 6 months after I started LF photography.

I really thought I had some good images to show. In fact, the images I presented were really quite awful. And I'm not exaggerating - they were bad! It's not that the printing was bad, the composition of the actual images was bad, there was no thought put forth in making the image, etc, etc.

Ray carefully looked at each image, and asked me what I was trying to say with the images - I had no clue, and as a result the images were (to be nice) weak. We then spent a good amount of time talking about what it means to make a photograph, and how you can best interpret the emotional 'value' of a scene and best get it onto the negative, and then onto paper.

Ray didn't pull any punches when he looked at my images, but he gave constructive criticism that helped me immensely. Those negatives have been filed away (but not tossed), and the knowledge gained has been applied to start making good images.

I therefore think that critiques are an invaluable tool in developing as a photographer. Yes, you can print and be satisfied with what you've done, but unless you can emotionally disengage from your photograph and impartially critique it yourself, you'll have a tough time improving. I know I still have a hard time critiquing my own prints, so I use another photographer from my parts to help me out. And so the learning continues.

Lastly, even if you really like a person's print, don't just say it's a great print - tell them *why* it's a great print. You may tell them something that they completely missed - perhaps they like the image for a completely different reason, and by telling why you like it, you're only helping them expand their horizons.

 

[Francesco]

Without access to workshops or fellow LF photographers who live nearby some of us use APUG's gallery to get critique. Naturally, space constraints prevent it from being a one-to-one affair, like a workshop. But most contributors here are articulate enough to be direct to those that submit and are experienced enough to understand what was written about their submitted photos. At least this is my assumption about those that participate here. I do not think less of the critique gallery because it imposes space and time constraints which make it difficult to tackle all the metaphysical and psychoanalytical issues related to the creation of the photograph.

 

[Dave Miller]

What an excellent thread. Ken has succinctly described my experiences when proffering my first pictures into the public arena, in my case a camera club competition. I later got involved in monochrome work on the advice of someone whose work I respect, as a means of concentrating on the basics of the image; colour is a distraction it seems.
I am loath to offer criticism to others, as I’m not expert in that field, but I can record my feelings about their work. This may, or may not amount to the same thing. We have many on this site who are chasing quality, at the expense of compositional interest. Quality that is often lost in the transition to the web. What do I say to these folk? Do I record my feelings or keep quiet? If my feelings have already been recorded by someone else, do I repeat them, or keep quiet? If I feel that what is posted is complete rubbish, do I record my feelings, or keep quiet? Often I see an image that has translated to the screen, and which I find satisfying, am I permitted to gush, or should I keep quiet? I think I shall continue doing what I have generally always done; shoot from the hip, and put my foot in it, time and time again.

 

[Michael A. Smith]

I don't understand how anyone can separate quality from "compositional interest." Without both a fine print and a well-seen and emotionaally charged photograph there ain't no quality. At least not high quality.

Now, what might have compositional interest and have an emotional charge to you might bore me and vice-versa, but that is another matter.

Too often, new photographers find complex photographs to have no compositional interest and to be boring. It is usually that they are relatively inexperienced and unsophisticated lookers. Nothing wrong with that. It is something we all go through. But be careful about saying that something is lacking in compositional interest just because it is subtle--a problem a number of people have.

Back in 1972, when I first started making photographs that were more "all-over" rather than having a figure-ground relationship, my advanced students found them boring. A few years later, after museums started buying that work and after those of the students who I kept in touch with got used to them, they liked my "all-over" photographs best of all. That were more difficult for me, as photographer, to make than the earlier figure-ground ones, and were more difficult for viewers to immediately get a handle on. It took time to "get" them. It is not often that anyone spends as much as 10 or 15 minutes looking at a single photograph, but sometimes after that amont of time, the photograph's secrets emerge, in much the same way a similar thing happens when looking at anything for a relatively long time.

 

[Francesco]

Thanks for your insights Michael. I would like to understand what you mean by complex, figure-ground and all-over photographs. Are these related to just composition or a combination of composition/vision and technique? Can these concepts be separated from ones tastes and biases as to become objective to all who view the photograph or not?

 

[Ed Sukach]

... (If).. I saw a photograph from a beginner that blew me away ( and I have) I would sit down with them and probably ask the following:

What were you using.
What were you trying to achieve.
What does the photograph say to you.
Did you achieve what you were trying.
etc,

I think we have discovered two distinct working processes here.

What you describe above, I would suggest, is the "Pragmatic" approach - i.e., The most effective and efficient way to produce "fine" photography is to deconstruct the "successful" photograph into individual elements, analyze them, and reproduce them in the next effort. One *should* meticulously and methodically take things "one step at a time" - that way there is the most probability of "success". I can see the approach as having a great deal of appeal for those who value predictability and security - the least chances taken.

The second method could be called the "Intuitive" approach.... Much more the "decisive moment", where one does not "take things one step at a time", but "shoots from the hip, relying on preconscious reflexes to direct ones work. Much less cut-and-dried, never with a great deal of conscious thought.

There has to be a great difference between the two, as far as image: The Pragmatist will view the Intuitive as undisciplined "wild men" who apparently do not use due caution in their work: conversely, the Intuitive will have an image of the Pragmatist as slow anal-retentive types, who do not have confidence in their work or the courage to be "free".

I don't think either image is correct. There is definite merit in BOTH systems - and the measurement of "appropriateness" for the individual probably depends - very closely - on their individual dispositions.

My reaction on being presented with an outstanding photograph from a beginner:

1. An immediate expression of what I FEEL - my reaction to the work.

2. Next:"What motivated you to take that particular photograph?" - even before that- "Do you have any idea of your motivation?

3. "How did you FEEL when you tripped that shutter?"

The "message ...?". The photograph IS the message. If I have reacted that favorably, that is prima facie evidence that the communication was successful.

Those here might be interested in a few Personality Profile tests. I 've just taken a *bunch* of them ... and if anyone is interested, I am classified as "INFP" in the "Jung Typolgy Test" (Introverted iNtutitive Feeling Perceiving); and an Enneagram Type 4 - Individualist.

An interesting web site: http://www.typelogic.com.

 

[Donald Miller]

Ed,

"Those here might be interested in a few Personality Profile tests. I 've just taken a *bunch* of them ... and if anyone is interested, I am classified as "INFP" in the "Jung Typolgy Test" (Introverted iNtutitive Feeling Perceiving); and an Enneagram Type 4 - Individualist."


Naah, you have to be kidding...I wouldn't have guessed that in a million years!!!

 

[Ed Sukach]

Those here might be interested in a few Personality Profile tests. I 've just taken a *bunch* of them ... and if anyone is interested, I am classified as "INFP" in the "Jung Typolgy Test" (Introverted iNtutitive Feeling Perceiving); and an Enneagram Type 4 - Individualist."
Naah, you have to be kidding...I wouldn't have guessed that in a million years!!!

interesting how accurately these work - although there is a matter of variability of "degree" and strengths along the invidual axes.

Where are you?

 

[Donald Miller]

Those here might be interested in a few Personality Profile tests. I 've just taken a *bunch* of them ... and if anyone is interested, I am classified as "INFP" in the "Jung Typolgy Test" (Introverted iNtutitive Feeling Perceiving); and an Enneagram Type 4 - Individualist."
Naah, you have to be kidding...I wouldn't have guessed that in a million years!!!

interesting how accurately these work - although there is a matter of variability of "degree" and strengths along the invidual axes.

Where are you?

Kansas the last I checked.

 

[Ed Sukach]

Where are you?

Kansas the last I checked.[/quote]

And I'm in Massachusetts. What about your Myer-Briggs Type Indicator or Enneagram Profiles?

 

[Donald Miller]

Ed,
I was tempted to be cute and ask you which one of my personalities you wanted me to respond about...but since this is apparently a serious matter to you I will try to be more serious.

I haven't taken the E profile that you mentioned. On the MBTI I am not terribly strong in my preferential way of approaching the world. I would say that my tendency is more I then E, more N then S, more F then T, and more J then P.

However I think that in the course of living our lives we need to develop all of those traits to some degree if only to understand others better.

Seriously I would have placed you higher in the S then N and more predisposed to make decisions based on thought (T) then feelings (F). This is based upon my obsevations of your tendency to become very technical and cerebral. Not having had the opportunity to observe you personally I had no impression if you were extroverted then introverted (although my impression was more E) and I certainly felt that you had a certain amount of J tendencies. I have not observed in you the tendency to vaccilate on decisions that most P's evidence.

So apart from my earlier observation...yes I am surprised that you placed as you did. I would think that if the results of the test that you took are accurate that you would not have been very happy in your vocation.

I was thinking about this very thing the other day and came to the conclusion that there are certain personality characteristics that certainly lend themselves to an artist or any person that engages in creative endeavor. I obviously would include a photographer in that catagory. I think that an introverted, intuitive, feeling, and perceptive would be more likely to fit the creative mold. Introversion may not be an absolute prerequisite but I think the intuitive, feeling classifications are vitally important.

What are your thoughts on this?

 

[Donald Miller]

Hi Don, welcome back from your travels.

Yes, I'm in. Converted. I was skeptical at first. But after they went through the entire brochure, I was sold. The good news is now they are coming back every week. This is great. I can't wait for those nice mormon boys to come by also. Sometimes I get so lonely.
Michael McBlane

Michael,

I am so relieved...you know I was worried about you. In the course of one's life (for those who have the problems that you have) there exist only one or two influential events that may tend to straighten one out. One of those is the "right" woman and the other is religion. It has been apparent to me for some time that your wife (wonderful woman that I am sure that she is) just has not succeeded in this daunting task. That leaves religion and I am so heartened to see the direction that you have taken.

 

[Alex Hawley]

I think that an introverted, intuitive, feeling, and perceptive would be more likely to fit the creative mold. Introversion may not be an absolute prerequisite but I think the intuitive, feeling classifications are vitally important.

Don, just a couple examples to substantiate your theory. Two very strong personalities who were hardly introverted. Winston Churchill and General George S. Patton Jr. Both were highly creative in their career fields. Both were intuitive and feeling. Churchill became a fairly good painter after retiring from public life. Patton wrote beautiful poetry, and not poetry about war. He also had high regard for art and beauty. So, no, introversion is not a necessary part of creativity. (Patton was also frequently seen carrying a camera, in addition to his revolvers.)