The Art Of Critique

[dylj]

You're not sorry 8 posts into this forum. You're not sorry because you already know you will be in the majority and you will eventually bully those of us wishing to engage in intelligent adult discourse about art. And yes, we will eventually go away, but it will be your loss. So I suggest to you, before you bring any more ugliness, that you move on to the other million threads that will be more to your liking.

I'm not sorry ANYMORE, because you don't deserve my apologies. But caspertodd and the other poster deserve yours.

 

[Alpha]

This is very reasonable, and I can appreciate this.

What I don't agree with is putting down other people for being social.

Being social has its place, and I agree it isn't always outside the context of critique. But I do think that too much overt socializing in critique threads is indeed a bad thing. If you were in front of a panel of professionals trying to get a critique and half of them broke out a cooler and started drinking Coronas, cracking jokes, and talking about their weekends, you'd probably find yourself rather upset.

 

[The_Traveler]

This is very reasonable, and I can appreciate this.

What I don't agree with is putting down other people for being social.

The point being that the social aspects have almost completely diluted the photographic aspects.

Count the new posts and see what percentage are complete, redundant questions.
Count the new posts and see how many are actual pictures rather than snaps.

If the mods would actually set an example rather than letting this just happen, there is some chance that this place won't lose all the decent photogs it has.

Considering the traffic this place has, it could be a great learning experience but it is mostly a child's playpen, only slightly beiter than Flickr.

 

[dylj]

Being social has its place, and I agree it isn't always outside the context of critique. But I do think that too much overt socializing in critique threads is indeed a bad thing. If you were in front of a panel of professionals trying to get a critique and half of them broke out a cooler and starting drinking Coronas, cracking jokes, and talking about their weekends, you'd probably find yourself rather upset.

I completely agree. Being social has its place, and being serious has its place. Artists, I hope, won't err on either side.

 

[Alpha]

I completely agree. Being social has its place, and being serious has its place. Artists, I hope, won't err on either side.

They do have their places but social and serious are not on the same spectrum. On the continuum of liberal to conservative, independent is not in the middle. And on the continuum of moral to immoral, amoral is not in the middle. Similarly, I think the opposite end of "serious" is not "social." Social is something else altogether.

 

[Overread]

Count the new posts and see what percentage are complete, redundant questions.
Count the new posts and see how many are actual pictures rather than snaps.

If the mods would actually set an example rather than letting this just happen, there is some chance that this place won't lose all the decent photogs it has.

1) The only stupid questions are the ones you don't ask - all this shows is that be have more beginners on site than there have been in the past

2) How would you like the mods to lead the way - lock or remove any thread with shots that are snaps and not photos?

 

[The_Traveler]

They do have their places but social and serious are not on the same spectrum. On the continuum of liberal to conservative, independent is not in the middle. And on the continuum of moral to immoral, amoral is not in the middle. Similarly, I think the opposite end of "serious" is not "social." Social is something else altogether.

Oh Crap. You've actually said something serious and smart, that requires thought. You're going to get a bunch of sophomoric hand-waving about this one from people who think they understand.

:lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao:

 

[dylj]

They do have their places but social and serious are not on the same spectrum. On the continuum of liberal to conservative, independent is not in the middle. And on the continuum of moral to immoral, amoral is not in the middle. Similarly, I think the opposite end of "serious" is not "social." Social is something else altogether.

You are correct. I suppose the right way to say what I was trying to get at is this: Be serious about your art. But don't take yourself too seriously, because that's when artists commit suicide.

Literary criticism is my background. Some critics are the funniest people I know, and they show it in their critiques. In the poetry and fiction workshops I have attended, the banter we get in the midst of our discussions is often the most enjoyable part of them. The social aspect of a community of artists is ESSENTIAL to their growth.

 

[kundalini]

WOW, yet another potentially enlightening topic of discussion is on the brink of being flushed down the drain by egos and personalities.

I like to have as much fun and socializing as I have the desire to improve on my skills. I agree that there is a time and place for both. From all the comments above I can clearly see both sides of the same coin. The 'debate / discussion' is partially fueled (IMO) because there is no real Critic's Corner. Unless I post something in Just For Fun, I want honest critique on my photo. But to be honest, I also post photos for the craic. On those that I wish to be looked at seriously, I have rhino's hide and don't care for the 'attaboys'. Other times, the 'attaboy' gives a good feeling and I hope my photo made someone smile that day.

 

[Alpha]

You are correct. I suppose the right way to say what I was trying to get at is this: Be serious about your art. But don't take yourself too seriously, because that's when artists commit suicide.

Literary criticism is my background. Some critics are the funniest people I know, and they show it in their critiques. In the poetry and fiction workshops I have attended, the banter we get in the midst of our discussions is often the most enjoyable part of them. The social aspect of a community of artists is ESSENTIAL to their growth.

I completely understand where you're coming from. But the wit and comic eloquence characterizing such writing is few and far between in most of the threads in question. That I would love to see. But instead I see much more irrelevant banter than poignant humor.

 

[dylj]

I completely understand where you're coming from. But the wit and comic eloquence characterizing such writing is few and far between in most of the threads in question. That I would love to see. But instead I see much more irrelevant banter than poignant humor.

Well said!

 

[One Sister]

Well, okay then, The_Traveler, kundalini and Alpha, let's get back to the discussion of photographic skills and artistry and hopefully all of us (serious and non serious alike) will learn something. My original question was, once we begin to achieve the technical aspects of any photograph, how can we critique art? How can we fairly critique a subject we do not care for? If we were juried, I'm sure all sitting in judgment would have different tolerances for the subject matter. By what criteria is art judged do you think?

 

[Alpha]

Well, okay then, The_Traveler, kundalini and Alpha, let's get back to the discussion of photographic skills and artistry and hopefully all of us (serious and non serious alike) will learn something. My original question was, once we begin to achieve the technical aspects of any photograph, how can we critique art? How can we fairly critique a subject we do not care for? If we were juried, I'm sure all sitting in judgment would have different tolerances for the subject matter. By what criteria is art judged do you think?

The single criterion by which we judge "art" is our personal aesthetic. It's different in subtle ways for everyone, and similar for a lot of people in the same ways. But in terms of "art," as judges we're always destined to come down on one side or another. Are you a Hemingway fan or a Fitzgerald fan? There's only so much you can base such decisions on even the less technical aspects like subject matter and composition. The way I see it, if you cover your bases well, chances are someone will appreciate it as "art," even if not me. If you venture outside the norms of technicality then you're at the peril of your judges' personal aesthetics. But even if I don't dig it that's no fault of yours.

 

[kundalini]

How can we fairly critique a subject we do not care for?

Certainly we have grey matter that's functional. If you (I) open a post and don't care for the subject matter, there are two courses of action for me. 1) Hit the Back button on my browser. 2) Comment on an aspect of the photo that I feel my contribution may be of use to the OP. Let's say I don't like pictures of monkeys (I do btw...hilarious to me), that doesn't automatically disqualify my considerations. I still have the capability to comment on lighting, composition, DoF, etc. I realize the tog had limitations in which to take said photo, but that still leaves a whole gamut of aspects in which you can apply critique. Look at it as a portrait of an old man/woman. I have little experience with panning shots. I can still comment on if the overall feel of the shot works, if the subject is in sharp focus, if the colors pop. In my mind, it doesn't really matter what the subject is, I can still contribute 'something'. I may be far better with certain subjects, but ..... I hope I made my point.

 

[One Sister]

Alpha, I know beauty is in the eye of the beholder (blah, blah, blah), but I would like to give a case in point as it is an image from one contributor on this thread (http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=123182). All decent images, I thought. I use this example because DigiJay has requested critique in the thread for such (http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=122391) and I believe he would like serious critique from others. Pay special attention to his last image. The wolf. I would like to know what would make this an image of great artistry. Has he achieved it? How do we know except by having others tell us?

Kundalini, I know that we all have something to contribute, no doubt, but after the technical issues have been met, then what? (And for goodness sake don’t mistake this for me thinking I have all technical issues accomplished on all my images-not.) How can we begin to bring our images to the taking-your-breath away place? Is this just luck…all the time? If we've met and fulfilled the technical issues is it just up to the subject matter to determine the artistry? Is any focused and well lit polar bear (whale, wolf, fill in the blank here) art?

Also, how can those of us new to critique make ours better, more helpful? Thanks for participating in this, inquiring minds want to know.