Is there something like "objective critisism"?

[LaFoto]

Yes, I agree.
The critic always is a person.
A person always is an indiviual.
Every individual has been socialised in one way or the other.
Socialisation forms emotions, aesthetic recognition, approaches to all sorts of matters, including the artistic ones.

Hence everyone's critique, spoken by a Professor of Fine Arts or a 5-year-old child in pre-school, is THEIR OWN and only their own critique. Each and everyone of us can only have their own point of view.

That is why I am asking: is there something that is considered "objective" ... and I feel you have already mentioned quite a few things that young students of the Fine Arts may be taught so they have something to begin with, to build their own art up upon. Some of the things you mentioned don't even tell me anything, don't know what they are ("Zone system principles", for example), but this is not the thread in which I would want any answers on this. I can always go ask what that is in the Beginner's Section of Beyond the Basics or so.

Yes, well: lurking profs. Come out of your hiding and speak up .

 

[Ken_D]

"That is why I am asking: is there something that is considered "objective" .."

Criticism, if that's what you're alluding to, can be both objective and subjective at the same time, the first by the giver (objective), the second by the receiver (subjective). Help, on the other hand, does not have to be a criticism, and can be very constructive (IMHO constructive criticism is an oxymoron). There are many people that confuse the two words.
A very wise man once told me that "Photography, like any other art form, cannot be taught, but it can be learned".

Ken D

 

[JC1220]

"photographers do not give feedback on work. Teachers do that, and by teacher I don't necessarily mean an academic teacher.
When someone shows me work who I have not taught I only say, " Thank you."

It takes a lot of energy to comment on work in a way that is useful."

 

[Aquarium Dreams]

Bump.

 

[Efergoh]

I don't think anyone can be truly objective when criting a photograph.

We all bring our own baggage to the table when we view a photo. Put 10 people in front of a single photo, and you will get ten very different interpretations of that photo, all of them wrong, and all of them right.

Is it good? Is it bad? What does it say to you? Is it art? No two people will have the exact same answer. I think a lot of what we think of a photo comes from what we know or don't know about the person who made it.

 

[LaFoto]

Yes. I know this answer.
My initial question has therefore been narrowed down quite a bit.
Let me put it even simpler:

The teachers of those of you who go to classes or went to classes on photography or arts in general: what is it they said are the basics, the - what might be called "objective" - guidelines that determine, for example, their own (your teaching critics) arguments to say: "Try better on this next time" or "Think again because...".

This is not the general question on What is Art? and How Is Art Being Critisised in General? No. But more concrete: what were/are you being taught? What do the professors say are "The Rules"? Or do they say right from the most basic class "There are no rules!"???

 

[Hertz van Rental]

Before you can criticise pictures you need to be able to look at pictures.
There are rules but they are quite plastic and to some extent are determined by the picture being criticised.
Also on the level of criticism.
If you are a 'happy snapper' I would give you nowhere near the level of criticism that I would give to an 'advanced' photographer.
But if you want me to give you the full Post-Modernist Derridaian deconstruction of one of your pictures...
The only real way to learn about criticism is to be shown it. I could teach you more about looking at photographs and criticism in five minutes by sitting down and looking at a photograph together than I could by writing a book on it.
And it would be lots more fun

 

[LaFoto]

But if you wrote that book, maybe the Ph.D. would be ... done!?!

OK, but I am beginning to see that apparently there REALLY is no answer to my question. Maybe I'll have to go to "senior classes" in some uni and begin to read it all myself?

OR you have to come over to Germany and show me in those 5 minutes ... and after that ....!?!?! Well.........

 

[Hertz van Rental]

But if you wrote that book, maybe the Ph.D. would be ... done!?!

Unfortunately that is not what I am researching into - although it does underpin criticism and things.

I shall just have to come over to see you, then.
Maybe in the Summer...

 

[elsaspet]

Hertz, ya know I love ya, but I disagree totally with your definitions above.
To critique objectively, a person needs to drop all agendas, including thier own teachings.
When I look at a photo, even if I would have done it differently, I have to appreciate that the poster was obviously proud about the photo, and showed it, which sometimes here lately can take some courage.
I try to find in the photo, what the poster found originally. And then, as a person with no agenda, I comment on what I find personally appealing, as well as those things to me that aren't as appealing as I would personally like them to be.
I think the key here, is the dropped agenda. When a person asks for help, we shouldn't be all superior. We shouldn't be vague. We should help lift our brothers and sisters up, by giving them our exact opinions less our superior agendas. (I know you don't do that.....just a for instance)
Hugs Hertz!
Cindy

 

[Hertz van Rental]

To critique objectively, a person needs to drop all agendas, including thier own teachings.
...I comment on what I find personally appealing, as well as those things to me that aren't as appealing as I would personally like them to be.

If you relate to something personally or comment on something from a personal point of view then you are displaying an 'agenda'.
You relate the image you see to other images and objects you have seen in a very selective way. That is, you compare it to things you like and things you don't like to define to yourself where the image fits in your scheme of things*.
In effect, you are being nothing more than judgmental.
This highlights the fact that there is no such thing as a truly 'objective' criticism.
As soon as we look at something from our own point of view then we colour all that follows with our view - and that will affect our criticism.

All criticism can do is show just one facet of something that has many facets. It gives us another dimension to enrich what we see and what we do (or we can choose to ignore the criticism if we don't like it).


*This goes against Derrida's maxim that you should only discuss an image with reference to things within the image. That is, critique it on it's own terms.

 

[Alex_B]

humans are not capable of making any 100% objective statements whatsoever.

Some statements might be more objective than others, true, but never 100%.

 

[Alex_B]

To critique objectively, a person needs to drop all agendas, including thier own teachings.

If you truly 100% can do that, then you are not human.

 

[Hertz van Rental]

If you truly 100% can do that, then you are not human.

Well, she is 100% gorgeous so you could be right...

 

[Hertz van Rental]

humans are not capable of making any 100% objective statements whatsoever.

Some statements might be more objective than others, true, but never 100%.

If what you say is true then you are being 100% objective so your statement is false. And if it is false then humans can be 100% objective... :mrgreen: