Critiquing the Critics

[Hertz van Rental]

on a side note: could you elaborate on this, because IMHO it's exactly the other way around.

"In the beginning was the Word and the Word was God."
Sound familiar?

Read Barthes or John Berger or any of the Structuralists for full details.
Or read Derrida for an analysis of the whole Western myth of language and the privileging of the 'word' over the 'voice'.

To put it simply, you can change someone's entire perception of an image by changing the caption, even different captions for the same image.
No-one questions the authority of the word - they prefer to accept that they have misinterpreted the image. That quite clearly demonstrates that the Word is more powerful than the Image in our minds.
Many studies have been done - if you hunt you will find them.

 

[mysteryscribe]

As one who now and then dapples in posters, which by their nature has words stuck in there somewhere usually, I find it hard to come up with a neat little saying for an image but if i start with the image I find it easier to find a little saying. What does this mean I wonder.

I am caught up by a little catch phrase from my favorite author. "Beware my friend of the tyrany of words."

 

[ksmattfish]

Just wondering- How much credence do you give critiques you recieve? Do you just take it all in at face value and believe everything you read, or check up on the reviewer to determine if their comments have value? How do you verify their comments/opinions?

You have to judge the value of the advice and opinions you are given. To me a critique from a stranger who I know nothing about is probably useless. It's possible an unknown could offer wisdom out of nowhere, but usually I'll need to know something about the person so I can put what they say in context. I think it's natural to give more credence to those whose works and accomplishments I respect, but it's important to listen to everyone (unless I'm just convinced they are talking out their rear end).

I think the best way to verify or assess the value of someone's advice is to get to know them. In the real world they may be someone I associate with in the local arts community. Online I can check their websites, and maybe forum posts and that sort of thing.

I also think that conversation makes a better critique. I agree that a critique shouldn't all be about whether they like the photo or not, it should be about whether the photographer is accomplishing what they were trying to achieve, and how could they do it better, more efficiently, etc... I find having this sort of conversation difficult through internet forum posts because it takes so long. Whatever end of the critique I am on there are a lot of questions and answers needed. You can present a photo with no other information, and ask for people's opinions, but that's not a critique.

 

[Hertz van Rental]

I also think that conversation makes a better critique. I agree that a critique shouldn't all be about whether they like the photo or not, it should be about whether the photographer is accomplishing what they were trying to achieve, and how could they do it better, more efficiently, etc...

:thumbup:

 

[Puscas]

"In the beginning was the Word and the Word was God."
Sound familiar?

well, it took a while before there was any word..

Read Barthes or John Berger or any of the Structuralists for full details.
Or read Derrida for an analysis of the whole Western myth of language and the privileging of the 'word' over the 'voice'.

To put it simply, you can change someone's entire perception of an image by changing the caption, even different captions for the same image.
No-one questions the authority of the word - they prefer to accept that they have misinterpreted the image. That quite clearly demonstrates that the Word is more powerful than the Image in our minds.
Many studies have been done - if you hunt you will find them.

oh I see. I thought you meant that our modern day world is more verbal than visual driven, which I think is not the case. I mean, when someone sees a newspaper, they look at the image first and read the words later. The proces you describe happens after that. So I wasn't thinking about the same thing as you. But thanks for your reply!



pascal

 

[Hertz van Rental]

when someone sees a newspaper, they look at the image first and read the words later.

But you will find that people do not actually draw any conclusions from the image - it tells them virtually nothing. They rely on the words to explain to them what the image cannot.
Your choice of newspaper as an example demonstrates my point. It is the worst medium for subjugating images to the written word

 

[danalec99]

Words are unfortunately more powerful, in a way that it can influence how you react to an image.

For example, the reaction would be different if I were to name this image "A silhouette of Brad Pitt & Angelina at a cafe" than just "a cafe on Jersey shore"

 

[Puscas]

But you will find that people do not actually draw any conclusions from the image - it tells them virtually nothing. They rely on the words to explain to them what the image cannot.
Your choice of newspaper as an example demonstrates my point. It is the worst medium for subjugating images to the written word

Like I said: we were talking about two different processes. So my choice of example doesn't demonstrate your point, you're merely translating it to your point. And now I have to look up the word subjugating...(don't you have an image to replace it..:mrgreen

And I see what you and Danalec are saying. And I think you're right. But likewise would you react differenct to a caption if the image changes. Say you have a picture of a dish with the word delicious above it. Replace the dish with a woman and the impact of the caption changes (it's suddenly sexist for example), so it's the combination that delivers the message.

but sorry, I'm not trying to hijack the thread, I was just intrigued by the remarks. And again, thanks.




pascal

 

[skieur]

What should be critiqued and is critiqued in high level competitions is technique as in all the technical aspects of focus, exposure, shutter speed, colour balance etc. and composition as in the elements of design applied to photography. Personal comments in competition critique are obviously not acceptable.

The value of the critique depends on the knowledge and experience of the person in photography and how "trained" their eye is. The other element is that if the comment precisely relates to technique or composition, then it is probably worthwhile and valuable too.

skieur

 

[motcon]

What should be critiqued and is critiqued in high level competitions is technique as in all the technical aspects of focus, exposure, shutter speed, colour balance etc. and composition as in the elements of design applied to photography. Personal comments in competition critique are obviously not acceptable.

The value of the critique depends on the knowledge and experience of the person in photography and how "trained" their eye is. The other element is that if the comment precisely relates to technique or composition, then it is probably worthwhile and valuable too.

skieur

well said.

marry me.

 

[Hertz van Rental]

And I think you're right.

I'm glad to hear it. It means that you agree with all the major thinkers on the subject and all the research that has been done on this for the past 60 years. People may well glance at a photograph first but then they immediately scan any associated words to discover what the photograph means or represents. Only you do it so quickly and it is so automatic that you are not conciously aware you are doing it.
It is because a lot of what goes on in our heads happens at a subliminal level that a critique of any image - certainly at any advanced level - has to take in meaning.
Any photograph you take reveals far more about you than you can possibly imagine. The images you make are are not just pictures of things, they are reflections of your world view, attitudes and the self-image you want to project to others*.
Without accepting and understanding this no photographer can ever hope to have even the slightest degree of control over it. And then, no matter how much technical control you apply in terms of focus, exposure and composition, you will only ever manage to produce images with just shallow surface gloss**.
This is one reason why a good critique should always start with the question: "what was it you were trying to do?"



*(And before anyone starts arguing or telling me I'm wrong, read a few books on the subject and study it. Starting with Freud. I remember giving a lecture on this subject only to outrage one student. And I quote: "I don't have a subconcious! If I did I'd know about it." )
**(But I'm sure there are a lot of people who would be happy with that.)

 

[motcon]

This is one reason why a good critique should always start with the question: "what was it you were trying to do?"

i fundamentally disagree with this statement/thought. if we are talking about a formal critique, these words should never be uttered. if the photograph is a complete failure, then the question should be asked as there in lies a great learning opportunity.

*(And before anyone starts arguing or telling me I'm wrong, read a few books on the subject and study it. Starting with Freud. )

not arguing nor 'telling you are wrong', we simply agree to disagree....and i've read a great many books on the subject. i prefer the writings of Hofstadter, Jung, and Arnheim.

 

[Hertz van Rental]

Jung was a student of Freud, Arnheim worked in perception and Hofstadter is a mathematician... Personally I prefer Piaget and Vygotsky.
As most psychology starts with Freud (either agreeing with him or disagreeing with him) he is always a good place to start.

If we are talking of 'formal critique' (as in 'criticism') then most technical aspects of the image are totally irrelevant and don't form part. But naturally one does not need to ask the photographer that question.
If we are talking critique for those who are still learning - as the critiques on here tend to be - then the first question must be 'what were you trying to do?' Wether the picture is successful or not. Improvement in photography comes about by thinking on what you are trying to do. Slavish following some formula or other rarely teaches anyone anything.

(Just remember - I've been reading for twenty years longer than you. And providing I don't lose my place I should finish reading my first one in the next few years )

 

[mysteryscribe]

Jesus I thought it was about whether the colors in the picture matched my wallpaper.

 

[motcon]

Jung was a student of Freud, Arnheim worked in perception and Hofstadter is a mathematician... Personally I prefer Piaget and Vygotsky.
As most psychology starts with Freud (either agreeing with him or disagreeing with him) he is always a good place to start.

that doesn't make Jung a Freudian. they are nearly opposites when it comes to psychology.

Arnheim worked in the psychology of visual perception and how the brain works and views the world of art.

Hofstadter is, first and foremost, a cognitive scientist (explaining psychological triggers and feedback)

If we are talking of 'formal critique' (as in 'criticism') then most technical aspects of the image are totally irrelevant and don't form part. But naturally one does not need to ask the photographer that question.
If we are talking critique for those who are still learning - as the critiques on here tend to be - then the first question must be 'what were you trying to do?' Wether the picture is successful or not. Improvement in photography comes about by thinking on what you are trying to do. Slavish following some formula or other rarely teaches anyone anything.

asking what one was trying to accomplish after a critique puts the critique as well as his/her efforts in perspective.

(Just remember - I've been reading for twenty years longer than you. And providing I don't lose my place I should finish reading my first one in the next few years )

as such, time is irrelevant. it's what one does with time that is important. you've had 20 years more than i to read, but that in no way suggests that you've read the same quantity (or more) .

regardless, this isn't personal. back on topic....