So how good are you really at critiquing? ;)

[ksmattfish]

I'm sure that each of us could come up with long lists of famous art we personally find unappealing or lacking. Many people complain that Minor White's photographs are "boring", but he is still considered a master of photography of the 20th century. Ansel Adams' work has often been commented on negatively on this forum.

It's not hard to find "flaws" in an image after the fact. Many famous photos would be dismissed in most Photog 101 critique sessions if presented as from an amateur. Critique comes across as criticism, but it should be viewed as other people's vision of your idea. As the artist/photographer you can choose to accept or discard these opinions and ideas as it suits you and your work. Professional critics, whether literary, art, or music often seem to be able to drum up much more meaning in the work than the creator ever thought of.

Eggleston's work has often reminded me of the early work of many amateur photography students (myself included); I think his style seemed to stagnate and never progress beyond this early amateur look. But that's just my opinion. Obviously others hold a different opinion as he is often heralded as "the father of modern color photography". IMHO, if you want to see growth in a style similar to Eggleston, check out the work by Huger Foote; it blows my mind.

One of my favorite photographers is Charles Jones (1866 to 1959). Charles Jones probably considered himself a gardener first and a photographer second. Most of his subject matter is the plants and vegetables he grew (this alone would bore many people). He published some gardening articles, but mostly died in obscurity. No one ever listed his name among the great photographers.

In 1981 a photographic collector stumbled upon a trunk of prints photographed by Charles Jones. This trunk had been passed over by many other art dealers and collectors, but this particular collector saw something special, bought the trunk, and began researching the photographer who took these photos. Now Charles Jones' prints hang in swanky New York and London art galleries, and he is considered a modernist visionary who preceded the work done by such famous photographers as Karl Blossfeldt, Paul Outerbridge, and Edward Weston.

When I show slides of famous photography to my photog classes I often get comments about Jones' work such as "That's just a pile of lettuce." To which I respond "Let's see what you can do with a pile of lettuce." So far no one has impressed me as much as Jones' veggies.

So to each their own. Don't try to impress others, just work to please yourself. You'll find it much more fulfilling to please yourself than to struggle to please the world, and along the way you might pick up some fans. Fame in the art world has more to do with who you know that what you are doing. Most now famous artists didn't get much attention while they lived. As I have commented on in the past, if you want to be a world famous, filthy rich photographer, the key isn't skill or photographic technique, it's stalking Brittany Spears until you can get a blurry, under exposed, low res shot of her boobs.

Although I do have to make the comment that Canonrebel used this same description for one of my photos I posted here...

A macro of a 2-inch area of sandy beach would have more character.

I am honored to be considered in Lee Friedlander's company.

Here's a link to a little blurb about Charles Jones.

http://www.cnn.com/books/news/9809/30/plant.kingdoms/

 

[Nagala]

I read through everything and still don't like it. I don't care how many words it takes a wine connoisseur to describe a glass of chardonnay, if I don't like it when it first touches my lips or after trying to acquire its taste, I just don't like it. Sure, you can defend ANY image with enough words. I prefer images with meanings I can infer upon inspection, not explanation.

 

[ksmattfish]

if I don't like it when it first touches my lips or after trying to acquire its taste, I just don't like it

I think that to some extent this is how everyone feels, it's just that some folks opinions carry more weight, and some people, even if they don't really like an image themselves, place more importance on the "expert's" opinion than on their own.

I'll pay $30 for a small block of good, imported Reggiano cheese, and in the same grocery basket I'll have a huge, $3 block of Velveeta. I love them both. In France they make a cheese that is covered in mites during the aging process, and it sells for some seriously big bucks. But I don't care how much some gourmet tells me it's worth, I wouldn't pay one cent for a block of bug infested, covered in dead bugs and bug crap cheese. I'm sure there are some folks who'd say I don't know what I'm missing.

 

[canonrebel]

Although I do have to make the comment that Canonrebel used this same description for one of my photos I posted here...

A macro of a 2-inch area of sandy beach would have more character.

Hi ksmattfish, I remember your image. I actually liked it but I really couldn't explain why.

I probably lack the ability/training necessary to recognize fine art when I'm viewing it. I have difficulty in appreciating abstract in particular. I look at it and I try to relate to what others are saying about it, but more often than not I am just not moved by it. And it causes me to feel "left out" sometimes because my inability to feel what everyone else is feeling leaves me outside of what I perceive to be the "in crowd".

As I read some of the comments about the picture at the beginning of this thread, I am definitely feeling left out as if I lack a certain sensitivity that others obviously have. That picture still reminds me of many of my earlier shots which I considered mistakes. It is frustrating to look at the same object as others do and not be able to see what they are seeing.

So, when I view an image I can't understand, I'll just identify it as abstract and move on.

 

[Osmer_Toby]

i'm tellin ya man, a wolf would make all the difference in the world. or somethin else that would really pop.
a whitetailed deer, maybe? nah, too much like the wolf. same concept, different animal.
gotta be somethin cool you could do with this... :scratch:
too damn many possibilites with photoshop being as powerful as it is. no such thing as a bad picture anymore.

(hey, is "anymore" one word, or two: "any more"?)

 

[tsien]

I took another look of this photo today. It had haunted the hell out of me last night.

An idea: I´m sure many of you on the board have taken photos of a similar street scene. Can anyone just post one and let´s compare.

Hope this discussion won´t stop here.

 

[danalec99]

The doggie, which is waiting to cross the road amuses me.

 

[ksmattfish]

I probably lack the ability/training necessary to recognize fine art when I'm viewing it. I have difficulty in appreciating abstract in particular. I look at it and I try to relate to what others are saying about it, but more often than not I am just not moved by it. And it causes me to feel "left out" sometimes because my inability to feel what everyone else is feeling leaves me outside of what I perceive to be the "in crowd".

Don't worry about it. I think it's good that you are true to your own opinions/feelings, and not swayed by the "in crowd".

 

[canonrebel]

I prefer images with meanings I can infer upon inspection, not explanation.

Nagala, may I borrow your quote? This is the best description of ME that could ever be put in words!

 

[canonrebel]

it would be cool, tho, if you could somehow place, say, a wolf on the sidewalk. that would definitely make it more interesting.

Hey Osmer_Toby, Here's your wolf 8) .....

 

[MDowdey]

that dog looks like he is in heat for that wolf. his tongue is sticking out.


md

 

[markc]

Looks like a William Eggleston photo (if it's not his it's right up his alley). I kind of like it.

Eggleston popped into my head too, but like doxx the lack of color made me think otherwise. Now knowing that it's Friedlander, it makes sense. The composition is much stronger than what I've seen of Eggleston's work.

I've thrown out a lot of rules I used to use to determine if I considered a photograph was good or not. One thing that used to be important to me was impact, but I found that fleeting on repeated viewings for many images. Now, what I find important is if my eye finds the image compelling enough that I spend more than just a moment looking at it.

This shot grabs my eye and leads it around the image quite strongly, spiraling into the center, and doesn't let go. It is "broken", but like a heavily cracked stained glass window, sometimes what's broken is more complelling than what isn't. It isn't pretty, but I find it a very strong photograph.

As far as Picaso goes, I didn't care for his "modern" work until I learned more about higher-dimensional space. Then it became much more interesting.

 

[ksmattfish]

Looks like a William Eggleston photo (if it's not his it's right up his alley). I kind of like it.

Eggleston popped into my head too, but like doxx the lack of color made me think otherwise.

While most famous for his color work, Eggleston also did BW. Check this link for some of his BW photos.

http://www.getty.edu/art/collections/bio/a1540-1.html

 

[Osmer_Toby]

it would be cool, tho, if you could somehow place, say, a wolf on the sidewalk. that would definitely make it more interesting.

Hey Osmer_Toby, Here's your wolf 8) .....

hey, cool! :thumbsup:

 

[mentos_007]

I think that it was chosen to the book because it is different. we all got used to taking pictures of nature or portraits and this is a photo that shows a real life, a part of everyday views in the big city.

But I don't like this photo I prefer my nature shots