If art criticism pushes your buttons, then go for your life. But I personally find much of it (like literary criticism) to be pompous and sterile stuff, whether in academic publications or in APUG threads.
Thinking about other work and how your own might stand next to it is hardly art criticism. Though, it might be a little delusional and yes, pretentious. But everyone and everything is pretentious at the moment, it's certainly an overused word and mostly a reactionary one. Of course, being objective about other work as a means to develop your own is bound to be somewhat sterile, as opposed to sentimental poetry about the experience. Yes, being moved by images is great and I frequently am, as a viewer. As a photographer, don't you think some detached analysis of composition, treatment and contents is beneficial for the development of your craft, eye and perhaps - dare I say it... concepts? Do you think Edward Weston always wore his heart on his sleave and let his emotions gush through the ground glass, searching for his Juliet, in the form of rocks? There's more that went into his images than romanticism and being moved. Not to compare myself in any way shape or form, but I'm sure he was called a pompous arse once upon a time too.
When I was younger and wiser I also quickly developed very strong opinions on the merit of others' work, and what constituted good or 'proper' photography. I found I could develop these opinions without actually seeing the work in person, presented as intended, without speaking to its creator, and without even trying very hard to imagine a context in which an image which initially did not amaze me might nevertheless work very well. I now know a lot less, and find that I see quite a lot more.
Your life and photography obviously took you in a different direction, antipathetic to thinking too much, photographically. Perhaps mine will too, but should I just accept that now and give up? I feel 'pontificating', if that's what it is in your mind, only helps my photography - I certainly see the impact of this thinking in my results. Perhaps you never did. Horses for courses. Though I don't appreciate trying to be stifled. When I've heard that photography groups kill an ambitious photographer, I can see where they are coming from in this regard.
I don't prescribe to this idea of seeing the prints - as a photographer - because the presentation is concerned with impact and immediacy of evocation, for the benefit of the
buyer. I believe great images work in any presentation format, which only makes seeing them in person more exciting. Though I
don't think it's the be all and end all of seeing work, only the end goal of an artist's presentation, with the intention of interesting buyers. I certainly don't have any haste in exhibiting my own for that reason. As I've said, I'm concerned with
images and the making of them, which doesn't require me to see prints - though I occasionally do,
as a lover of photography and there are many I would like to see, just for the experience - to
finalise my knowledge of their work. Why would anyone think though, that an hour stood up in a gallery, with twenty people stood around you is the best way to spend time with
images? Poring over well sequenced books (preferably by the photographer himself) in the comfort of your own home, without any social distraction, in your own time, perhaps making notes, is without question the best way to absorb, be moved by and analyse images. I know a great expressionist painter who rarely goes to exhibitions. Would you suggest that they need to see Munch's work in person before they know what they're talking about or painting? What about a filmmaker? Do they have to see an original print of Ingmar Bergman's before they can have an understanding or appreciation of the films? Are you telling me I have to see a Robert Adams exhibition before I can understand or appreciate his work? I'm in the UK for a start, where would I see his prints in my photographically skeptical and ignorant country?
Galleries are more experiential in my mind, social and in the interest of commerce, which some people obviously thrive on. Why are people so warped about the importance of seeing and making the 'fine print'? I'm starting to think it's just a 'healthy' excuse for materialism. Even if the fine art print community is a conscious reaction to contemporary photography, both concerns seem to run counter to the making of great photographs. They are both extremes, idealism. It's nice, sometimes moving, to see a fine traditional print, but it doesn't have any more impact on me
as a photographer than a good reproduction. I maintain that ambitious practicing photographers should be concerned with
images, not objects on walls. Too radical?
The reason that people can and will argue forever about what constitutes art, or the difference between good and bad art, is that everybody looks at art through their own eyes and feels their own personal response. (Some even have an overwhelming emotional investment in a certain set of tools that strangely warps their views on the question.) If a large high-resolution colour image of weeds generates some significant emotional response in me for some reason, or works to make me feel a particular way when presented in some particular context, why should I care what someone else thinks about the banality of its content, or the means of its creation?
I appreciate your sentiment. Though I think as long as people are serious about the creation of art, it will be talked about and pondered from every angle aside from emotional response. Emotional engagement is what gets us going, but thinking about the 'whys', 'hows' and 'what ifs' are what keep us stepping up our game. If the impulses of emotional reactions were
all there was, we'd still be living in the dark ages. I enjoy the light.
