| Photography Forum: Philosophy Of Photography Forum: |
 |
Q. What do you want from critique?
Asked by alan
(K=1843) on 4/11/2000
|
Recently I was reading the "people photography" forum and I came across one of the "tell me what you think of my web site" questions (click here to visit the thread). I visited and, honestly, thought the work was awful. I was as honest as possible - maybe my comments seemed overwhelmingly negative - but I was amazed because the other participants seemed to feel the need to temper negative criticism with positive comments.
threads like these
http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000yJl
http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001DJx
http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000oDH
seem to deal with the same question --- what do the rest of you want from critique? If someone thinks my work is bad, I want to hear how bad they think it is and why...it is no help to me if they feel compelled to add in something nice because they don't want to hurt my feelings.
what does everyone else want from critique?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gary Watson
(K=1665) - Comment Date 4/11/2000
|
Critique is really about dialogue--and honesty. Some posters skin-- and skulls--are amazingly thick.They never shrink from presenting themselves for rejection.That said, it's still worthwhile to put work forward.I try to judge my own work on basic technical grounds:composition, background, and exposure.Whether a judge or critic shares my enthusiasm for a given subject, though, is beside the point and shouldn't unduly affect their view of the work.I agree, though, that some people have out-sized notions of entitlement and expect utter crap to be regarded as peerless. Indeed, what's wrong with saying you've never seen anything as bad? They asked, right?
|
|
|
|
Jeff Spirer
(K=1973) - Comment Date 4/11/2000
|
I don't care if someone doesn't like my work. What I don't want from critique is useless picking at individual elements in every photograph. Like "that corner should have been burned in." A lot of those types of things are asthetic choices, like "correct exposure," and should not be critique for anyone who has gotten beyond Photo 101 and several years of heavy shooting.
So what I want from critique is something about the photograph, or a collection of photographs. The best critique I have ever had was from a documentary photographer, successful enough to have an Aperture monograph, who talked about my portfolio for half an hour without speaking about any specific photographs (except to offer to trade for one). His critique was around what I was trying to accomplish, what I was saying, and how coherent my work was as a portfolio.
For individual photograph, I want people to speak about what value (or lack thereof), a photogaph might have. Does it speak? If not, why not?
|
|
|
|
Tony Rowlett
(K=1575) - Comment Date 4/11/2000
|
I suspect that most photographers around here don't really post photography with the question "How can I improve this photograph?" because, quite simply, nobody will ever be able to improve any photograph because it has already happened. Besides, to have posted it in the first place implies satisfaction with the work, regardless of what will eventually be said by responders. I'm with Jeff in that I prefer thoughtful, "big-picture" discussion about how a photograph speaks or doesn't speak and not about a corner that appears dark or light or whether specific components are in focus or not. Are we guilty of posting photographs with the statement "Here's my latest! What do you think?"? Sure we are. I know I am. But as photographers it's probably a natural tendency to post with ego. I'm pleasantly intrigued by Trib's attitude that his work is mainly for him and him alone. My impression is that he has a one to one relationship with his work kind of like a gardner does with a plant or garden. I admire his lack of a need to show his work to anyone. (Trib, if I have misunderstood... sorry... it's called brain freeze) But I think a "critical discussion" is better than "Here's what you should have done."
|
|
|
|
Tony Rowlett
(K=1575) - Comment Date 4/11/2000
|
...and I'm really glad you asked this question because, 1) for as pertinent as it is, it's never really been asked before, and 2) I was worried that everybody has philosophized photography to death.
|
|
|
|
alan
(K=1843) - Comment Date 4/11/2000
|
If somebody thinks that some aspect of a given photograph is a problem, I guess that I want to know about it ... 99% of the time, though, these "what you should have done..." type remarks are useless. The work, after all, is, in the end, my responsibility. Why do I want to hear how someone else would have done it? Most people don't seem to agree with me on this point.
One of the best critiques I ever had was from an artist that I respected. It was a difficult and frustrating experience, but I discovered then and there that I had a lot to learn, that my work was "all over the map", that if I wanted to hope to produce work that measured up to my stated ambitions I had to roll up my sleeves and work longer and harder than I had been. I guess one could say that a lot of his comments were "negative" -- to me, they ended up being the most positive since they motivated me to see how much I could do ... better than all the kind platitudes anyway.
|
|
|
|
Tony Rowlett
(K=1575) - Comment Date 4/11/2000
|
You've referenced some really great threads. I really enjoy revisiting old threads because of the way they jog my memory about how I felt (or still feel) about a particular subject.
You remember the elephant that could paint with its trunk? Some of the paintings were interesting and some looked like, well, an elephant painted them with its trunk. I think about that elephant a lot because some of the best photography is done in the same way. I don't think photography is like writing a sentence or a paragraph where you are encouraged to use correct grammer and punctuation, and if you don't, then somebody who is smarter than you are can tell you how to correct it, add to it, or delete it altogether -- not snap shots, not street photoraphy or photojournalism, and not fine art photography (if there is even a distinction between ANY of those). I think photoraphy is like this: If I take a wide paint brush, dip it in a bucket of paint, and go make some slashes, marks, splatters and splotches and shapes, or even straight lines, squares, or whatever, on a white wall somewhere and if I like what I see, I might show it to you. You can then tell me what it does for you, whether it's positive or negative, or maybe even what message it conveys to you. Maybe we can talk for hours about what it reminds us of, or maybe you'll take one look at it, decide it looks terrible, and never give it a second look. It's hard to say that this mark or that splatter is misplaced or you used the wrong color here, or.... the crop is all wrong. I'm babbling. Off to the Submit button.
|
|
|
|
Tony Rowlett
(K=1575) - Comment Date 4/11/2000
|
In music, no matter which key you're in, the I, IV, and V chords always sound good together. When I learned that I was surprised. An unbreakable rule. I don't think there's one of those in photography.
|
|
|
|
Jeff Spirer
(K=1973) - Comment Date 4/11/2000
|
Whether a judge or critic shares my enthusiasm for a given subject, though, is beside the point and shouldn't unduly affect their view of the work.
This is an interesting comment. I frequently have this problem. I recently had someone say that they didn't like a photograph of mine because it showed a woman smoking, and although it was a good photograph, they didn't like the fact that the woman was smoking. To me, the photograph was about attitude, and smoking was part of that. It wasn't like it was a glamor shot.
I would also make the point that maybe all shots that show war, poverty, injustice of any kind would disappear if these critics had their way, and we could replace photography with pictures of big-eyed kids and dogs.
|
|
|
|
Mark Rovetta
(K=592) - Comment Date 4/11/2000
|
As an amateur photographer who has posted pictures on photo.net and in the critique forum . . .
What I hope for when I request a critique is an opinion from a photographer I respect. In a web forum, respect is determined by a persons past responses to threads and by the examples of their own photographs they have contributed. The person giving the critique may be a much better photographer than me or a peer. However, if the person giving the opinion is unknown to me, or this person never shares any of their photographs, the value of the critique to me is substantially reduced.
That doesnt mean the critique isnt valid it just means its harder to interpret.
The value of getting a respected opinion is that it can start one thinking outside of oneself and understand better how our pictures appear to others. I think photographs are meant to be looked at by people besides the originating photographer. The only way I know of how to determine what other people see when they look at one of my pictures is to ask them. They might as well be photographers themselves.
I think that, in general, asking solely for comments about a photos subject, composition, or technical aspects is an unreasonable request to impose upon a reviewer. We view a photograph in total, and I think it is usually what we are not seeing in our own photographs ourselves that needs to be pointed out to us. Ive find expressions of first impressions of a photograph, from someone whose judgment I respect, useful because it can make me think differently. Thinking differently is close to thinking creatively.
Corporations pay management gurus big bucks on how to provide negative feedback. Its a good skill to know. Sometimes it seems the ones giving out the critiques end up taking more fire than the subject. It seems like common sense that if you are prepared to ask for an opinion, you also need to be prepared to take it (or leave it) graciously. If the truth is truly unpleasant, its better to hear it first here than from a client.
|
|
|
|
Pete Andrews
(K=835) - Comment Date 4/12/2000
|
The best critic of Art is Time.
|
|
|
|
Struan Gray
(K=1802) - Comment Date 4/12/2000
|
The critics I value are those that explain their point of view rather than merely state it. The more they depend on their reputation, their qualifications or their talent for inventive vitriol, the less I care what they think.
With online forums like photo.net I think it's futile to demand or expect anyone's time or thought. It's simpler to accept the gems with gratitude and step lightly over the pebbles and sand. If someone is too nice to be useful it may be worth prodding them a bit to see if you can wake them up, but in the end it's their choice.
There are a depressing number of threads in photo.net where someone asks for criticism, gets it, and promptly throws a tantrum. Even if the critic doesn't care that they've upset someone, they have effectively wasted the time spent constructing the critique. This is a big incentive not to post true critiques, at least not of the work of strangers.
This question partly relates to the Experience or Education thread. Once you get beyond basic truths, learning becomes a balancing act between challenging accepted wisdom and using it as a shortcut in the aquisition of a deeper knowledge base. The ability to assess the worth or reliability of sources, authorities and critics is an essential skill. Sadly, it's one that mainstream education systems generally overlook until far too late.
|
|
|
|
Sean yates
(K=1240) - Comment Date 4/14/2000
|
Pete - "The best critic of Art is Time"
What about Life and Nat. Geo?
|
|
|
|
Trib
(K=2701) - Comment Date 4/14/2000
|
ok wait just a damned minute here...I thought Life was dead...the end of Time for Life? woof..no.. maybe? awwww hell!..Life is art and Time is nationally geographic? whose the critic? hey abbot!
|
|
|
|
Trib
(K=2701) - Comment Date 4/14/2000
|
that's the critic's name! Whose! who's the critic? Whose! that's what I'm asking ya!
|
|
|
|
jim megargee
(K=165) - Comment Date 4/15/2000
|
Alan - kudos to you for spending so much time offering your suggestions in the mentioned thread. And I can't say I don't agree with most of what you had to offer. I have also been rather suprised at the gentle nature almost all "critiques" offered on not just this forum but any that I have visited. These types of critiques IMHO, do little to advance the work of the person asking for suggestions. And in most cases the person receives opinions rather than an actual critique. I have always believed that a "good" critique should be based around the simple question.......how well does the image communicate the photographers intention. I mean - what else is there besides that ? It's not to know what lens, camera, film, printing technique, etc. has been used to communicate the idea. Only if the combination of these things enhance the intention and are successful in clairfying the idea.
|
|
|
|
Trib
(K=2701) - Comment Date 4/17/2000
|
and the larger question "how well does any inanimate chunk of art communicate anything?" or "has anyone viewing your "art" recieved your "message/intent" clearly or accurately?" and then the inevitable "Should we even try"? blech......cuuaaaack..spppatooey...ahem, pardon me!
|
|
|
|
alan
(K=1843) - Comment Date 4/18/2000
|
trib, three months ago I would have thought your response (above) was irreverent nonsense. Now I'm not so sure. There is no doubt in my mind, however, that the things I have to say about other people's work are worth listening to and I do enjoy looking at work and talking about it -- not necessarily in the usual art school "how does this make you feel" or "what is the potential meaning of these images when viewed through the gloss of a marxist dialectic..." nor in the amateur photo society manner of "Even tho you shot it at 1/500th you should have used a tripod, but not just any tripod but a Gitzo --- and a B&W Polarizer, of course, every good picture is better if you use a tripod, a pro I once annoyed told me that... and some of that EKTAR film..." --- no. I think pictures should be discussed seriously.
|
|
|
|
Jack McVicker
(K=1704) - Comment Date 5/7/2000
|
constructive comment, without rancour or prejudice, both lucid and ,possible, amusing.
Bah, Humbug,
Regards
Jack.
|
|
|
|
Mike Troxell
(K=242) - Comment Date 5/16/2000
|
First, I'm not talking about the beginner "can you tell me if this exposure is alright, ect" forums. I'm talking about the forums where experienced photographers are expected to post their work and have complete strangers tell them how they did'nt take the photograph as it should have been taken. I tried posting photos for critique on some of the critique forumsand, as you can probably tell from the above paragraph, with a few constructive exceptions, I was pretty disappointed in the results. It did'nt work and I don't think it ever really does. Critiques by people who don't know you or who are not sitting in front of you, talking to you about why your photograph in a two way discussion CAN'T work. Why? Because a photograph is taken because that is what you saw at one instance of your existance. For someone to look at a photograph they have never seen before by a photographer they have never met or even heard of before and to tell them why that photograph should or should not have been taken a certain way is ridiculous. They can tell you why they like or dislike the photograph or even how they would have taken it, but to try to tell someone else how that person should have taken the photograph is nonsense.
|
|
|
|
Steven M. Anthony
(K=1408) - Comment Date 7/18/2000
|
Mike: If you tell people your intended message for your work, we can give you meaningful comments related to whether we "get" the message--if so, what works to support the message; if not, what gets in the way.
Steve
P.S. I'm new here. Maybe you do as I've mentioned above and it still doesn't work.
|
|
|
|
Mats Flemstrom
(K=105) - Comment Date 10/18/2000
|
This is an interesting topic that I have thought a bit about. First of all, I assume we are using the word "crtique" to mean comments that you get from on-line forums (as opposed to an evaluation of your work from say a teacher of a professional with credentials). When I first dicovered these types of forums a few years ago, I found it really interesting to get reactions from other photographers all over the world. I discovered all kinds of things about showing images that I had never thought of by myself. It didn't take very long, however, to find out the huge rift between those posting snapshots and those who were "serious" about their craft. The rancour between these to sides makes for really tedious and very personal arguments. So, if you want an answer to the question "What is the reaction of a mixed group of people with access to a computer to a particular image ?" then, these forums will give you a good idea. Just don't expect a reasoned "critique" of your work.
|
|
|
|
Nigel Smith
(K=93) - Comment Date 10/18/2000
|
Very true Mats!
As you know I have posted plenty and have learned to filter what comments and advice I get. The majority I ignore for the very reasons Mike state's.
|
|
|
|
Tony Rowlett
(K=1575) - Comment Date 10/19/2000
|
What credentials would those be? Do we take pictures to please teachers or professionals? Should I care what a teacher or a professional (whom I may not know or trust) thinks about a photograph I did? What makes a person unqualified to critique photography other than being blind? If a person has access to the internet, what else does the person need to offer a valuable evaluation of online photography? If I show what I think is a good photograph to 10 unqualified people, and they all think it sucks, is it still a good photograph? If I take a lousey photograph and show it .... I just have absolutely no idea what the previous two posts actually mean.
|
|
|
|
Nigel Smith
(K=93) - Comment Date 10/19/2000
|
Tony, I just get sick of all the people who tell you how they would have taken the picture, not critique what's been presented to them. I read what people have suggested (I'm being kind using this wording) and evaluate the bits that I haven't already thought about. An example would be cropping... do they think I've just posted the full frame image and not thought about such a basic element... I have had one pic that a suggested crop was a worth while suggestion even though it completely changed the picture. As far as their 'credentials' are concerned, no they don't have to have images online, but they have to think about what they are saying, that doesn't happen that often, well not to my pics anyway! Maybe my pics are just too damm boring. I've gone back to the camera club recently and have had pics that I've posted on the net that attracted minimal comments, if any, critiqued in monthly competitions and have learnt more in the few minutes that the 'judge' spends on each image. Listening to them talk about everyone else's image's is also good. No one wants to type as much as you can say in 1 or 2 minutes, although they can sit and think about it much longer than any camera club judge has.
Anyway, I'm rambling... :)
|
|
|
|
Mats Flemstrom
(K=105) - Comment Date 10/19/2000
|
I thought my point about what can be expected from on-line forums was fairly clear; nevertheless, I'll try to answer the questions raised by Tony:
1)"What credentials would those be?" I meant creditials derived from say being recognized as a master of the craft or simply someone whose opinion you value base on their work.
2)"Do we take pictures to please teachers or professionals?" No, not usually; you take them usually to please yourself; the question of critique only arises when you seek someone else's opinion.
3)" Should I care what a teacher or a professional (whom I may not know or trust) thinks about a photograph I did?" That surely is up to you to decide.
4)"What makes a person unqualified to critique photography other than being blind?" I think the main stumbling block would be an inability to express reactions or feelings in words.
5)"If a person has access to the internet, what else does the person need to offer a valuable evaluation of online photography?" Same answer as 4) above
6)" If I show what I think is a good photograph to 10 unqualified people, and they all think it sucks, is it still a good photograph?" Well, this question sort of answers itself - if these hypothetical 10 people are "unqualified" (like blind for example) - it could very well still be a good photograph.
|
|
|
|
Tony Rowlett
(K=1575) - Comment Date 10/19/2000
|
My point: I don't know what "unqualified or without credentials" means when seeking a "reasoned critique," and I wouldn't automatically trust the opinion of a "recognized master of the craft" any sooner than I would the opinion of a lesser known or lesser skilled photographer or even one who produces "snapshots" (whatever those are). Anyone elses opinion is secondary to my own opinion of my photography, of course, because I am an amateur.
Both the critique AND the product are remarked upon here:
"So, if you want an answer to the question 'What is the reaction of a mixed group of people with access to a computer to a particular image ?' then, these forums will give you a good idea. Just don't expect a reasoned 'critique' of your work."
"It didn't take very long, however, to find out the huge rift between those posting snapshots and those who were 'serious' about their craft."
I don't see a difference between the reaction of a mixed group of people who have access to the internet and a reasoned critique. I believe that if somebody is interested enough to not only view a photograph but to add comment to it, that alone makes the viewer perfectly qualified to offer comment or a reasoned critique. The enjoyment of photography isn't just for those who have been trained in some way, it's for everybody. The problem is, we don't often agree with much of the commentary out there because it is so diverse. Like the huge rift between low work and high work. That in itself is a critique, isn't it? But there is no right or wrong critique. The bottom line is that a photographer should only worry about the opinion of one out of three possible people: 1) him or herself, 2) the art director, or 3) the bride!
|
|
|
|
Jeff Spirer
(K=1973) - Comment Date 10/19/2000
|
)"What credentials would those be?" I meant credentials derived from say being recognized as a master of the craft or simply someone whose opinion you value base on their work.
I don't understand this. We don't expect movie critics to make movies or be actors. We don't expect music critics to be great musicians.
I expect the credentials to be an appreciation of photography, an understanding of what photography can do. Many people whose work is good have really useless views on the work of others. I do know many photographers whose views I listen to, but it's because of their critiques, not their own work.
There is plenty that can be gained from other photographers viewing one's work, but that's different than critique.
|
|
|
|
steve
(K=816) - Comment Date 10/19/2000
|
Critiques are an excercise in art criticism invented for students to get them to discuss and critically analyze their work. Trying to critique something over the Internet is a joke. Let's critique Michangelo's statue of David over the Internet.
Hmmmmm....looks too small to me. I think I'd make it bigger. Oh....it's 14 feet tall? On a 12 foot pedestal? Doesn't look that big to me. And his head is way too big. Shoulders are way, way too wide. Oh, you say Mikey compensated for perspective from the viewer's level so the head wouldn't look like an apple on top of the body. ohhh...well... you know I just didn't get that from the picture you showed me.
Same thing with photos. Some photos have to be large so they "open up" and you can see the details that are hidden when they're small. Other ones have a physical "presence" that cannot be communicated over the web.
You can certainly discuss photos over the Internet, but even that has to be at a fairly superficial level.
Past a certain point, critiques are useless unless what is meant is a two-way discussion.
I sent Tribby some photos recently to look at. He said he didn't do critiques, and I said I didn't want one. I only wanted to know what gut reactions he had to the photos. And you know, without any prompting or setup, or explanations, or writing about how I made them, or why I made them, or which ones I liked - he picked up on exactly what I was doing in the photos and made some extremely insightful comments - one in fact, was shocking. This told me that I had accomplished what I was trying to do.
And I'm sure he was equally as suprised at the comments I sent back to him on my feelings about the same photos.
If you've done photography for 10, 20, 30 or more years - what does a critique accomplish? Especially ones with, "I think I'd have moved two steps to the left, and one back," (doh-si-doh, alamand left, girls get your partners, yeee..haa).
Yeah, sure you would have sport shoes...except you'd never have SEEN the photo in the first place!
So really Alan - I don't want a critique. Don't care about critiques - they're useless. If you'd like to discuss a photo at a fairly uninvolved level, we can do that but really get into them? Over the Internet? Oh, man you've GOT to be kidding.
|
|
|
|
Mats Flemstrom
(K=105) - Comment Date 10/20/2000
|
Jeff, you are right in pointing out that those who are great at photography may indeed be poor critics of other's work. I guess (almost by definition) the best crtique comes from a great critic - someone who has spent time viewing and thinking about visual arts and has the intelligence and ability to state opinions in words. I also agree that much can be gained from exchanges of views with other artists and one shouldn't call these exchanges "critiques".
|
|
|
|
james mickelson
(K=7344) - Comment Date 10/23/2000
|
Here we go again. If you shoot a picture and never show it to someone else, is it a good picture? Could it have been better? I judged an international salon last year and I was amazed that some of these photographers would put in such garbage to a salon. I would have gotten some other opinions on the quality of the work before shipping it to judges halfway around the world. I have produced images that I thought were really great but when discussed with someone I admired I realized that there was a lot more to the image than I had seen. I got feed back instead of working in a vacuum. That is what a critique is all about. You wouldn't go to a doctor who wanted to cut off your leg without getting a second opinion so why produce images without the benefit of a second or even third opinion? Maybe you think the girl is really beautiful with all that grain when in fact most people don't like it at all. You want to hold on to your opinion then that's fine but are you growing? You don't grow without some criticism. And criticism should be about the philosophy and intent of the idea behind the image. Not just crop this here or burn that down. But why the crop there and why the burn here. You don't grow if some one beats the crap out of you either. Actors are always going to acting schools. We need outside impressions if we are to realize all of our potential. Working in a vacuum is fine if all you want is to press the trigger and look at what you did. But if you want to grow then you need to expose yourself to criticism from others. You don't have to agree but that is how you grow. And you need to show your work to someone who shares your style of image. I am the last person to show street shots to. But I'll discuss still life and landscape till the cows come home. You want to share philosophical insights about street shooting then Jeff is a good bet. James
|
|
|
|
Steve Swinehart
(K=15) - Comment Date 10/26/2000
|
Uhhh James....How do you know that they didn't get critiques or opinions before "shipping the works halfway around the world"? I don't see how you could come to that conclusion just because you personally didn't find the photos satisfying. Not that the photos weren't complete dogs, I just think your conclusion is illogical and can't be supported.
" But if you want to grow then you need to expose yourself to criticism from others. You don't have to agree but that is how you grow. "
No, that is how YOU have chosen to grow or think that's what you're doing. Your postulation cannot be applied universally to everyone, because it's been proven to be not true by hundreds if not thousands of artists for hundreds of years.
"I am the last person to show street shots to." Why? Don't you trust yourself enough to know what a good photograph looks like? I don't understand why you wouldn't feel confident enough about photography in general to appreciate a street photograph.
I don't have those type of self-set limitations - I like all photography genres. The only thing I don't like are pointless, boring photographs, or copies of someone elses style/aesthetic. If you really have to take a picture of a green pepper, you better truly own the subject through your unique vision, and not make it look like an Edward Weston redux; then after producing the homage, convince yourself that you really made a great photo - know what I mean?
|
|
|
|
james mickelson
(K=7344) - Comment Date 10/27/2000
|
The prints had stamps from all the salons to which the images had been exhibited in from all over the world. Some had so many that there was very little space left to put a new one. If you produce any creation only for yourself, how do you know if you are getting better at it? How do you know your image is a good one without getting a number of diverse opinions? An opinion other than your own. If you shoot a picture of a blank wall and show it to no one then how do you know if it is a good image? If you say that "you" think it a good image than you are living within a vacuum. Most artists want some sort of feedback and by listening to this feedback it helps them expand what they are able to convey through their creations. And who are these multitudes for hundreds of years you are referring to? Children in gradeschool who just create because it's time for art class? Oh, believe me. I can tell a good image from a bad image as well as the next viewer. Just show me something. But where my likes and dislikes lay are in other styles that do not include so called street photography. I am learning to look at it through different eyes but most of the genre doesn't do much to my emotions. It just doesn't touch me like landscape or still life. Look at www.ehjohnson.com and then Jeff Spirer's work. I am slowly understanding and gaining an appreciation for the latter style but the former style really trips my trigger. I am sophisticated enough in my knowlege of photographic skills, graphic design and what I like to be able to tell what is good or bad or merely different. Meaning neither good nor bad. Just what I like. James
|
|
|
|
steve
(K=816) - Comment Date 10/31/2000
|
I'm now really confused as to the relevance of having a "salon stamp" (whatever those are) on a photo, and what relationship that has to a critique. A critique is a critical evaluation of a work of art. If a salon stamp (apparently meaning it was accepted into a show?) is a critique I'd like an explanation. If acceptance into a show is the "merit badge of honor" meaning the work was good - then I've seen a lot of garbage that meets that criteria.
My point was - you have no way of knowing whether the photographer showed the work to other people prior to your seeing it. If it was a totally new work, and the show you were associated with was the first show it was submitted into - then it couldn't have any salon stamps - but, it may have been critiqued. For whatever salon stamps are worth - are they collectable? Can I redeem them somewhere for prizes or gifts?
As to your question about the blank wall - IF I made a photo of a blank wall, it would be meaningful and your evaluation (or anyone elses) of it would be meaningless. But, you could bet it would be the best photo of a blank wall that I could make, AND it would say something, AND you would get the point. Whether you personally liked it is a totally different matter - but it would communicate.
How do I know if my work is good or not? Well......hmmmmm. Let's just say I'm very sure of what I'm doing and more importantly WHY I'm doing it. I've been involved with a variety of visual art creation and presentation including: commercial art, commercial photography, commercial video production, fine art lithography printing, and fine art photography. I've had work in museums; had work requested by museums; have work in corporate collections; have had work in shows; have won monetary prizes at shows (for whatever that means aesthetically); and last Saturday had the art consultant for a new courthouse request that I submit work for the interior of the building. Somehow, without regular "critiques" of my work, I produce things that communicate.
That's all nice, and I appreciate it, but, honestly I really don't care who likes or dislikes my work - or why. I have to be satisfied with it. Not you. Not anyone else. Just me. When it passes all of my tests, I'm satisfied. That's what counts. If someone else likes it that's O.K. Do I sell my work? Only when someone asks. Hell, I'd just as soon give it away to a good home. Does that denigrate the integrity or value of my work? Does that impact the artistic merit of the work? Answer to both questions - don't care.
I'm very critical of my own work and probably discard as many photos in a year than many people take. You might say, "well, you might have some real keepers in the ones you discarded." In fact, I might have real keepers when judged by other people's likes or dislikes. But, I wouldn't be happy with them. That's what counts.
The ones I keep are amazingly diverse - yet consistant in vision. If I show 85 photos to 20 different people, I will get 20 different opinions as to which ones they like. The ones they don't appreciate are ones other people like. So, my conclusion is, I take photos that people like or don't depending upon their personal background and visual sophistication.
Am I familiar with E.H. Johnson's work and Jeff's? Yes, I've seen both. Both are very good. Of the two, I prefer Jeff's work because I can see his individual point-of-view in it rather than relying on subject matter choice for the success of the photo. However, both have photos that I like or am under-enthusiatic about. That said, I can't think of a single photographer that I can state unequivocally that I like everything they've done.
"...meaning it's neither good or bad, it's just what I like."
EXACTLY!! And what does that type of evaluation have to do with a critique? That's not a critique it's PERSONAL OPINION. Which is OK and the basis for a sound discussion of photography but let's not confuse the two (critique / discussion).
|
|
|
|
Tom Meyer
(K=3514) - Comment Date 10/31/2000
|
Well I'm getting an idea of what "critique" isn't, but I'm still not sure what many of these contributors think it is.
It's an opinion, and it's up to the artist to determine what value it may have. Many conditions influence it's worth, and those conditions are extremely individualistic. You get what you need from where ever you can find it. I received better insight into my own work from hearing a mother explain a wall full of my images to her little girl, than I got from Ivan Karp at O.K.Harris Gallery NYC. (he liked it, but she understood it)... t
|
|
|
|
|
