When was the last time you went to an art museum and just admired the art? Not disected it, just admired it? When was the last time you picked up an old copy of Life magazine and just enjoyed the images and the stories they told? Or picked up a coffee table book of photographs and just got lost in the imagry?
A critique is as much about finding the things that work in a photo as it is about nit picking it's failures, and to do that well you first have to understand what the image is al about. Whites get blown, focus gets soft... Does that mean the photographer is technically inept or maybe you just haven't digested the image and don't really get it. Too busy cursing at the trees to see the forest, as the cliche goes. I see a lot of critique here that just completely misses the point.
Rules serve a purpose. If you're a wedding photographer or advertising photographer those rules become very important. Creativity and artistry are important, but secondary to the goal of the shoot. So is it fair to judge ALL photos by those standards? It's important to remember that rules also lead to formulaic, generic imagry. Being mindful of the rules is one thing, being bound by then is another.
Images should succeed or fail based on whether they are interesting to look at, whether they draw attention, intrigue, challenge, or enlighten, not on whether they follow the rules. That's putting the cart before the horse. The rules allow us the insight into why the image succeeds or fails, but should not define it.
It's alot like the Blues. Musically, its the imperfections that make it interesting and generate the emotion and power. It's personal and raw. You have to appreciate the imperfections before you can really understand it.
ok... rant over........
