Critiquing the Critics

[Weaving Wax]

No offense taken! But I do think that it's really just matter of opinion. But so are the definitions on critique I suppose..

 

[sabbath999]

Snipped...

if one considers it an art, then one must submit to their work being critiqued as art. if one states that photography is all subjective, then by default he/she participates in photography as a hobby.

How about if somebody considers it a craft, and only takes pictures for the money?

How about if somebody considers photographic art their hobby?

Personally, I don't buy it... but that's me. I take pictures of critters, and I do it because I like taking pictures, and I like critters. I don't get paid, and I do it as a hobby... and it certainly isn't art.

Having said that, I look at your list (center of interest, subject placement, simplicity, viewpoint and camera angle, balance, shapes and lines, pattern, volume, lighting, texture, tone, contrast, framing, foreground, background, perspective) and I look at some of our newer critter pictures http://www.zoopictures.net, and I see that the later ones (the ones taken this year with our new DSLR's) are not too bad... and getting better... and I know that they are still not art.

Y'all can judge them, or you can not, doesn't matter to me one way or the other about people's opinions.

It's not just me... the critters don't care either.

 

[LaFoto]

AquariumDreams, I shared your qualms about how critique could be "guided" which is why a while ago I started the thread on the question if critique can be objective at all (see_here ) ... and it seems like even then we came to the conclusion that it canNOT be objective, ever, since we are all socialised beings and our socialisation is a considerable factor in how we see things and what we like about things.

And one good aspect for me personally that this very diversified forum has offered me is that I learned and am still learning more and more to define what is "me", what I like and what appeals to me, so I learn more about myself.

And I feel that this amount of self-awareness is also necessary to be able to find the words for one's own critiquing other people's work.

In the end, what is it that entitles me to actually pass critisism on someone else's work in the first place? I have never "learned the trade", as it were, I have neither read the Fine Arts nor anything related to Photography in any college/uni, so who am I to speak up. Which is why in the end it is always only my mind I am speaking.

Yes, there are those factors that motcom is mentioning, and I am grateful for that list, for that is the list I kind of expected to show in my thread on the objective critisism.

Then again - once you are well familiar with all these "guidelines" which apply to images of all kind (canvasses, drawings, paintings, photos etc), you can choose to ignore them. It is then up to the viewer to feel/find out if it was your intention to leave the guidelines behind you or if it was just because you (still) don't know any better.

And like I was saying earlier: photography can fulfil so very many functions which can differ so much from photographer to photographer: you can, of course, try to create pieces of art. You can, if you are someone else, try to document things so you'll be able to share them with others, plain and simple. This documenting things can vary: you can be happy with snapshots just so you can ... for example ... come back from your holidays and show those who had to stay "Look, we were here and saw that, and look, Lilly smeared ice-cream all over her new t-shirt" etc., or you can try to capture the feel of the place in a more elaborate/artistic manner so that in the end your viewers say "Hey, this looks GOOD! I like this photo!" or something of the kind.

Then you can have a special interest (critters, for example), and you want to find ways to document the subjects of your special interest in a solidly good manner (not out of focus, not under- or overexposed, not too little in too large a frame, not too centred, maybe).

Or you have the task to photograph critters for a reader... nothing artistic being asked, only a true-to-life documentation of what said critter looks like (to stay with critters as examples, but you could also take plants or flowers, for example).

So I feel that in my ramblings I am coming to a distinction between documentation and artistic representation of whatever it is (architecture, flora, fauna, landscapes, townscapes and and and), and in trying to document things, you can then teach yourself to get better, to step from the point-and-shoot photography to something more thought-over, more planned and composed.

And then there is that huge area of peopled photography, all the matters of light and pose and ... whoa, that field is soooooooooooo large, no wonder there are so many ways to feel/think about it and so many ways in which people pass their thoughts (as critique or critisism).

I don't feel we need any really fixed guidelines on how people should phrase their critique. Who would want to watch over them and enforce them? Common sense and a bit of tact and politeness is all there is required, and maybe a tiny step away from full self-centredness towards a bit more acceptance and a feel for the other person we talk to, and then it should work.

And The Critique Forum says that words may be "brutal" (sounds harsh in my ears but be it, it may be the term to be used in English, what do I know? English is not my native language) ... so it is important in there NOT to take things really PERSONALLY, but to always be aware that it is about the PHOTO ... which may mean a lot more to us, as the author of said photo, because we have all the knowledge of the making-of and the context, than it does to the viewer who comes to see the "naked photo".

 

[motcon]

How about if somebody considers it a craft, and only takes pictures for the money?

then it's a hobby unless that person truly employs guidelines of art

How about if somebody considers photographic art their hobby?

same as above.


don't attempt to confuse the issue with semantics; won't work.

 

[mysteryscribe]

And it's all rock and roll to me....

 

[motcon]

there are many different types of forums here.

at the extremes -

one for just showing pictures and another for serious critique wanting to understand the process and product of art.


in summary: nearly all of us agree, but are just using different ways of expressing thoughts.

it's a lot easier to accept a comment of, 'hey, i like that' and perhaps easier yet to dismiss comments of, 'i hate it' than it is to say to oneself, 'i liked what i saw, but her/his critique of it makes sense and if i want this to hang on my wall, perhaps i'll reshoot it'.

there are plenty of forums in which each type of person can post. everyone should be happy.

 

[Mike_E]

Criticizing peoples photographs is like criticizing their children. "Twere best done kindly and only when asked!"

mike

 

[motcon]

I believe you critique the image not the photographer. Don't matter to me who shot it or what it is going to used for. To me it's about the image being as good as it can be not anything else.

i'm going to consult you before i engage in these discussions - you summed it up perfectly.

 

[sabbath999]

It's not semantics... I don't understand why it is necessary to say that art cannot be a hobby.

My dictionary says that art is "the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power" and that a hobby is "an activity done regularly in one's leisure time for pleasure."

All I am saying is they are not mutually incompatible. In fact, many of the great works of art ever created were done in people's leisure time (i.e. when not working their main job) because the artist enjoyed the creative process... or had not found a way to make enough money at it to eat.

Art can be (and very often is) a hobby.

 

[Mike_E]

Sabbath, there are some who would say that art can Only be a hobby. When you start charging for it, it becomes a commodity.

mike

 

[motcon]

ok, one more post before i shower then be about my day.

the image in the following link was posted elsewhere and the person asked, 'please tell me anything and everything that i could possibly do to make this a better photograph.' he made it clear that he wanted a critique. in that case, the person would've posted the image in the 'serious critique' forum.

he could've stated, 'hey, i loved this scene so i photographed it.' he would've posted it in a more general gallery if that were the case.

given that he asked for a critique, i critiqued it.

http://motionless-continuum.com/Gandalf/nyc.htm


you could easily say, 'but Will, i like the tree trunk on the other side of the arch. so be it, however; if we are being objective, it doesn't belong there.

people photograph for different reasons... as well they should. a harsh critique of someone's image who just wants to photograph is an atrocity. similarly, a fluffy comment on an image posted by a person who wants serious critique is an injustice.

many, many years ago someone sat me down in a chair and asked me what i wanted out of my art. she then proceeded to objectively critique everything that i created. she recommended books, she gave books to me as gifts, she encouraged me to understand the guidelines. i knew where i was with my art, but i also knew to where i wanted it to progress. i wanted more out of it. even though i have thousands of slides and negatives that i like because i enjoyed the subject matter, if i were to submit them to myself for critique, they'd get many paragraphs of objective criticism. i'd post them in the general gallery...because i like them and am not interested in them being anything more than they are. other shots that i've taken i've sent to numerous photographer friends for their critique - shots that i liked and eventually wanted to frame, then hang.

there's a place for everyone here. it really comes back to the photographer to decide how far he/she wants to progress. that dictates which forum in which one should post and also the type of responses to expect.

i'm not going to speak to the tone of some of the comments that are made; that's an entirely different subject. personally, i look past tone to look for content in the message.

oh, and as for the young lady who 'set my head straight' when i needed it, i feel compelled to state, 'thank you DD, where ever you are'.

 

[motcon]

It's not semantics... I don't understand why it is necessary to say that art cannot be a hobby.

My dictionary says that art is "the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power" and that a hobby is "an activity done regularly in one's leisure time for pleasure."

All I am saying is they are not mutually incompatible. In fact, many of the great works of art ever created were done in people's leisure time (i.e. when not working their main job) because the artist enjoyed the creative process... or had not found a way to make enough money at it to eat.

Art can be (and very often is) a hobby.

it is semantics. art can be a 'hobby', but it's still classified as 'art', correct? it is, therefore; subject to the guidelines of 'art', whether or not one does it as a profession. if one does it 'just to do it', then it's just a hobby. sure, i give credence to the dictionary definition of art, but i'm going to default back to the beginning of the classification of art, thousands of years ago, those records of methodology, etc. to define 'art'.

when i lived in boston, this place was one of my favorites to visit (it kept me thinking properly):

http://www.museumofbadart.org/

their collection is of works that people created as a hobby, but they aren't art. art can be a hobby (a past time), but a bonafide hobby (past time) can't be art unless one pursues the annals and guidelines of art.

again, i think we're saying the same thing here, my friend...our lines are just blurred a bit.

 

[motcon]

odd coincidence, but i just read this from my myspace inbox. she and i have been friends for over 20 years.....and she now tells me something that gave me goosebumps and already made my day. take from this what you will:


Date: May 8, 2007 12:26 AM
Flag as Spam or Report Abuse [ ? ]
Subject: hey
Body: i just uploaded a bunch of pictures, some of my art. you can consider it your own personal show, because I won't be doing one around here in may after all.

I don't know if you know how instrumental you were in teaching me about what art really is, but, and I know i mentioned this before, it was that time we were at the apartment I lived in with jean, and i was making a card for my poppop for his birthday or something, and I was doing something, and then, you looked at it and you were like, uh, that doesn't look right, and I was like, how can I mess up something I am in the process of creating? and that has always stayed with me, and I have told that story many times over, in teaching about the creative process, that you should not mess up something that you are creating as you go. I am very thankful for that lesson, and thankful for you in it.

hope you like them. I have just started using color this year, this is all new to me, a whole new concept. It's still in the baby stages, but I like it. It makes me happy. I think that's important, you know? If you don't like what you are making, why make it?

hope you are well, and I hope my letter before made sense, and was received well. it was the only way I meant it.

jen

 

[mysteryscribe]

I knew I should never have read this thread....

The number one rule in true art is, ignore the rules someone else imposes on you. But that said, the image still has to be worthy. In my mind it has to have a certain harmony and balance. But what works for me might not work for you.

That said, In my opinion critique's only purpose is to teach. It is not meant for the writer of the critique to show you how much more he knows than you do. It is simply to have the creator take a second look at his work in a new way.

I have a piece I posted in a forum, someone said it has to much space at the top of the image. I went back and looked and sure enough it did. I learned from his critique not to be so sloppy posting images.

Critique by its nature requires the artist to stop and think. That's all it can do. It can't force you to change how you do things. Most of the things we do to an image aren't all that important to the image anyway. They can make it more powerful, but it's the origninal vision (hate that word) of the shooter that is important. All the rest is just details.

As an example my son in law shot a wedding recently. The groome's brother was just back from Iraq. He wore his dress blues to the wedding. At the reception my SIL was walking by his table and noticed the Marine holding his almost infant daughter. She was playing with the shiny metals on his chest. The SIL shot the image and of course everyone loved it. Now I didn't see what all was done but I guarentee you that if the image had been slightly out of wack it wouldn't have mattered to that Marines family. It was the power of the image first anything else is just icing. Now thats my opinion for whatever it is worth.

 

[Hertz van Rental]

The number one rule in true art is, ignore the rules someone else imposes on you.

The rules aren't imposed - they are just there. If you think you are ignoring them or breaking them, then it just turns out you are conforming to some other rules you didn't know about.
It would be better to say: forget about the rules and they will take care of themselves.