Critiquing the Critics

[motcon]

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

actually, it is. also make damned sure that the textures of the picture are in harmony with the carpeting.

'...dat sher wud go nice wit mi shag carpit...'

don't be a victim of the texture trap; house guests will snicker.

 

[mysteryscribe]

Now don't take this wrong but it sounds to me like this defeats the purpose of an open forum. When we begin to assume that only a few voices are worth hearing, then we are in the committee version of critique. Five men make a panel and all work is submitted to them. This goes against my idea of a forum and slips into the juried display.

If we advocate that only certain people are qualified to give critique, I'm not sure growth is helped by it. Then again what do I know.

 

[motcon]

Now don't take this wrong but it sounds to me like this defeats the purpose of an open forum. When we begin to assume that only a few voices are worth hearing, then we are in the committee version of critique. Five men make a panel and all work is submitted to them. This goes against my idea of a forum and slips into the juried display.

If we advocate that only certain people are qualified to give critique, I'm not sure growth is helped by it. Then again what do I know.

you are entirely correct. the desire is to promote growth, but by defining what 'is' and 'isn't'. there isn't a committee (as far as i know).

we're trying to hash out ideas, not a formal structure, per se.

 

[Alex_B]

*listens to the masters' talkin*

 

[The_Traveler]

My, my. Has this turned into a graduate students' discussion, everyone pulling hard at the sleeves of their favorite authority figures?

 

[Alex_B]

My, my. Has this turned into a graduate students' discussion, everyone pulling hard at the sleeves of their favorite authority figures?

Well, I myself have no authority figures in photography or arts as a whole.
I am just a stray dog

 

[motcon]

My, my. Has this turned into a graduate students' discussion, everyone pulling hard at the sleeves of their favorite authority figures?

when a thread is titled, "Critiquing the Critics", i think one should expect some hardcore discussion.

or shall we go the way of the 'critique' precedent?

'he's nice; i like him'
'he's mean.'
'ooo, hi!'
'i don't like to talk about critique; makes my tummy squirm.'

 

[Alex_B]

when a thread is titled, "Critiquing the Critics", i think one should expect some hardcore discussion.

I think this is still a very mild discussion as far as aggression and bitterness are concerned. So I see no problem with this thread.

 

[The_Traveler]

when a thread is titled, "Critiquing the Critics", i think one should expect some hardcore discussion.

or shall we go the way of the 'critique' precedent?

'he's nice; i like him'
'he's mean.'
'ooo, hi!'
'i don't like to talk about critique; makes my tummy squirm.'

Don't get me wrong. It's fun to watch - as long as I don't have to actually read the stuff.

 

[mysteryscribe]

Yeah this is fun not art appreciation 101. Like all discussions here, and on most forums, it quickly gets tedius to those of us who are left brain thinkers. Whatever that means.

 

[The_Traveler]

I actually learned the most about photo criticism from movies - particularly "
Cannibal Women in the Avocado Jungle of Death"

 

[mysteryscribe]

Well learning what not to do is important. Believe it or not, and I don't either, I took a film course in college. It was bout the time caboret came out. We had to go see it of course.

The rest of the class and the professor really didn't care much for my comments about Lisa singing caboret. Every fame of the scene could have been printed as a still portrait. The lighting was that good.

Hell they saw it as a movie. I saw it as a string of still images strung together. That's how I figured, I don't see things like most people.

Now back to the discussion at hand.

Since there are so many gurus on site is there room left for "Gee whiz clyde you should have shot that cow after you tipped her, would have been a better rule of thirds shot.

No harm intended guys,

 

[abraxas]

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.

I think in a serious and professional setting though, a critique from a stranger can be valuable in that personalities and social relationships aren't involved.

Thanks- great response without distracting self indulgence. I have to say this thread has been quite illuminating.

 

[Hertz van Rental]

you are entirely correct. the desire is to promote growth, but by defining what 'is' and 'isn't'. there isn't a committee (as far as i know).

we're trying to hash out ideas, not a formal structure, per se.

Absolutely. If everyone ever agreed on everything then at that point the world would come to an end.

The state of play:
1) There are two main approaches to looking at an image - looking at what the photographer was trying to say/did say (the meaning of the image); looking at the technical aspects and how the photographer is using them (exposure, composition, focus).
The former does not need to look at the technical aspects. The latter does not need to enquire into what it all means.
It is, of course, possible to approach each seperately or to combine them in any way you like.
It is then up to the photographer to decide what sort of crit he would like or feels he needs.
2) Whilst there is no formal crit structure as such, there are certain points within which it has to work. But these are largely set by each individual case.
And there is no right or wrong way. Only ways that work for an individual and ways that don't.
3) Mysteryscribe needs the services of a professional interior decorator.



(I thought Hofstdter's work was with cognitive models for use in AI. Somewhat different to cognitive psychology.
Sorry. Couldn't resist. I hate staying too much on topic for too long...)

 

[mysteryscribe]

Nah I dont need a pro decorator. Why pay someone to screw things up when you can do it yourself.

Now I might consider paying a pro as in hooker.

as for the real discussion going on in the background. It is irellivant because:

At the end of the day whatever conclusions you come to will be immediately trumped by, "awesome dude" as a critique.