|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/06/2012 03:27:26 PM · #51 |
I take photos because I can't help it and deserve all the punishment I can get.
But I wish people wouldn't say they are SORRY when they don't like a photo. What is that supposed to mean, really?
|
|
|
|
02/06/2012 03:46:14 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by MarioPierre:
aesthetics is dependent on the same rules that most artists consciously or unconsciously apply in their work such as the principles of art, which are movement, unity, harmony, variety, balance, emphasis, contrast, proportion, and pattern. Being familiar with these and how to apply them correctly in photography will definitely benefit anyone. |
First of all, I commend you for defending intellectualism. It's easy to spout dismissive anti-intellectual arguments when someone dares to start a thread on aesthetics and criticism.
However, now that we are in the intellectual realm, I have to question your notion of "principles of art." Art criticism is not a science. Critics do not propose hypotheses about art which are then rigorously tested and peer-approved before becoming accepted theories (that stand until they are disproven). What we have instead is a branch of philosophy, which is a series of independent thinkers who are varyingly influenced by each other.
Therefore, I find it more useful to think historically about it. In other words, you can't have an *informed* art criticism without knowing art history. After all, any "principles of art" are *reactive*, in other words, somebody looked at something pretty and tried to explain why. The artist is not required to know these principles to create art, or else there would never have been art to begin with.
An artist learning "principles" will make some strides toward mediocrity, but will ultimately become lost. An artist learning history will have worlds of possibility open up to him/her. |
I was just revising this two weeks ago. My girlfriend has a minor in philosophy and aesthetics as well as the history of aesthetics were topics which she studied and which we discussed for hours on end.
While on the subject...
I agree that artists don't have to be familiar with these principles and while the terminology could being completely foreign to them, they could still create works of art but understanding these will greatly benefit any artist. Any musician can write a song but having knowledge of chords can definitely be an asset, understanding the relation between degrees of a scale will greatly reduce the amount of time required to achieve the desired mood or melodies, and understand complex advanced theory will benefit the songwriter by allowing the artist to empower the song by quickly adding rich fill ins and alternate richer colored chords.
Of course tons of great musicians have wrote songs by ear without any formal knowledge but that doesn't mean they didn't understand all these complex theories at all. For example, most modern commercial rock songwriters will have a deep understanding of the pentatonic and blues scale, which are the epitome of rock music, while punk rock songwriters will have a tendency to understand and use the natural minor scale. One doesn't have to study music in order to use these, they come naturally by listening to such genres. The problem arises when such artists tries to crossover to other genres, the lack of understanding of such theories will make it that much harder to learn a new style because they are wired a certain way and limited to what they know, but of course they might be able to do this better than anyone else.
This applies to art throughout history, from cave paintings to all the pictures uploaded on this website. People understand the beauty of photography simply by looking at them. The golden ratio has been applied well before it's mathematical understanding in all forms of art. In music the pentatonic scale has always sounded aesthetically pleasing to the ear and in visual arts the rule of thirds has always felt aesthetically pleasing to the eye.
So I think we should agree on the last paragraph. Now what I'm getting at is that criticism allows artists to unlock their potential, the same that is eventually discovered by experimentation and appreciation. Nothing can make up for familiarity and experience but theory isn't as cold as it sounds, it's the science of beauty, the study and exploration of what arouses emotions from deep within us. I know that many people disprove of this and are adamant about their convictions that art is purely subjective, and perhaps it is, but science has offered us formulas for beauty, if people want to ignore this, that's all fine but the numbers don't lie.
Beauty = φ (phi)
Message edited by author 2012-02-06 15:48:56. |
|
|
|
02/06/2012 04:37:12 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by Giles_uk:
i was the first comment on that picture of the girl in teh garden and i stand by it, bvy and blindjustie criticising other commentors is even more unhelpful than the comments right or wrong
but you should note the photographer checked them all that he found them helpfull, shall i run all my comments past the now self elected comment police of bvv and blindjustice from now on to check they fit with your own opinion. |
I find your comment interesting.
When commenting you do exactly what I do. Trying to imagine the intent of the photographer and judge how well that was executed.
When reading your comment, by which you stand by, you seem also to do something else I often do. Completely misunderstanding the intent of the photographer and the means he used to pursue it, and therefore leaving a comment about how he should have illustrated something else, rather than his concept.
You note that that the shutter speed was not slow enough to suggest movement. That was not the the intent of the photographer. I suspect shutter speed was probably enough to freeze a speeding hawk, actually, but that's not movement blur, it's OOF.
In that sun he would have probably needed an EV on for trying what you think he was trying, but he wasn't.
You also note that the boy is not in sharp focus and that the fence should not be there. However the image subject is clearly stated in the title. 'The coop', or 'the coops', to make it really clear, which the photographer probably didn't wish to, as it takes the fun away (not from him, from me the viewer).
That's not the only way, but quite ordinarily you put your focus where your subjects are, 'the coops', not the children.
First thing my wife said when I showed her the image was "well, the boy looks like a chick and then there the place is fenced'. Good thing that the fence is there.
Had the title been 'jumping happily in the sun' or something to that effect, yep, one might wonder about the focus.
This is not a criticism, as I said I do that a lot to. But when commenting on other people images it's easy to end up playing the part of an X-files fan criticizing an Agatha Christie's novel.
Hey, this doesn't work, what's this story about the butler? You forgot to mention aliens and UFOs?
What can a writer get from a comment like that? Perhaps that part of her audience only get and like SF, not crime stories.
It doesn't help much in improving her way of telling their story, but it might still be useful. He marked your comment as such. I do that a lot myself.
As for blindjustice and others' comments, they are a 'well done', not criticism I think.
If you hear a good joke you are likely to say "good one", "is crap", "good joke but you can't tell it", "crap joke, I only laughed because the way you told it".
Not, 'woah, good joke, so she fell into a tomb while peeing, and her hubby thought she betrayed him because of the "we'll never forget you! the guys at the fire station" ribbon stuck to her bum'.
If I learned one single thing here on DPC, it's that if somebody submits something to a challenge, chances are that the image is somewhat spot-on on the theme.
And there is nothing wrong in dissenting from the concept, not liking conceptual photography, or simply not getting it. But people do things for a reason.
|
|
|
|
02/06/2012 04:59:54 PM · #54 |
I never said "don't comment." All I said was, perhaps it is possible to have an unexpressed criticism at times, especially if You don't really know what you're talking about. That being said, I usually put my first impression down, try to see the good in things-( some people think its their duty come at it from the "how I would have done this better perspective-all the time and in rude and negative ways- admittedly I have been known to leave a rude comment here or there, unintentionally) yeah I am guilty of the occasional "well done."(probably because most times I don't know What I am talking about) Perhaps others should try restraint as well...
Message edited by author 2012-02-06 17:03:49. |
|
|
|
02/06/2012 05:22:14 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by Giles_uk:
i was the first comment on that picture of the girl in teh garden and i stand by it, bvy and blindjustie criticising other commentors is even more unhelpful than the comments right or wrong
but you should note the photographer checked them all that he found them helpfull, shall i run all my comments past the now self elected comment police of bvv and blindjustice from now on to check they fit with your own opinion. |
My message to Ray was congratulations, not criticism. And I didn't self elect myself to anything. Nor did bvv. |
|
|
|
02/06/2012 05:24:47 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by ubique:
A quote from writer Neil Gaiman:
Remember: when people tell you something’s wrong or doesn’t work for them, they are almost always right. When they tell you exactly what they think is wrong and how to fix it, they are almost always wrong.
He was referring to literary criticism, but I think the same is true of photographic criticism. Ultimately, a comment of "This doesn't work for me" is of more practical use to you than another comment detailing all of the many ways the commenter would have made the photograph better.
Unless, of course, you wish to learn how to take someone else's photographs. |
I was reading this blog
How to give and take criticism
Something in that reminds me of what you say, one should never assume to really know the intent of the photographer or suggest how to an image should have been taken practically .
However, he's talking about carefully choosing a knowledgeable person and ask them , for free or for a fee, to criticize your work. And then, he says, the next step is to do as they say, to really pay heed to their advice, otherwise there is no point in asking. Hence, choosing the wrong person could be quite catastrophic.
But I feel DPC is a different kettle entirely. It's up to the photographers to filter what's relevant to them and what's not. And fair enough, many well meant people will try to figure out the intent (what's the point in looking at a photo, otherwise) and perhaps suggest improvements.
And it's about them, how they perceive your work.
This is a very flawed image, by what I meant to portray:
I was immensely lucky to find one commenter spotting my intent very well, commenting accordingly and then accepting to help me out figuring out what worked and what didn't, as I planned to give it another try.
This was just great and so very helpful to me, and particularly appreciated as people are generally wary of saying what they really feel and perhaps stomping on your toes in the process (not my toes though, if ask for help I mean it, thanks  marfun, that was precious!)
This would have never happened if his comments had been just in terms of "it doesn't work with me."
So, I certainly agree that my intent should stay mine, if I am not to become a mere implementer of somebody's else ideas, but my perception of how clear my concept will be for the viewer is not necessarily clear. Other approaches might work better, and they might not be incompatible with what I am and what I wish to use. The trade-off is mine to determine, if even there is a trade-off of some kind.
Then, that's an half staged image, which I don't do often.
I certainly agree that with your photos I feel more inclined just saying "I like it", "I don't" , while perhaps deliriously elaborating on what they make me think of.
But you have a pretty defined style and approach.
|
|
|
|
02/06/2012 05:25:48 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by MarioPierre:
This applies to art throughout history, from cave paintings to all the pictures uploaded on this website. People understand the beauty of photography simply by looking at them. The golden ratio has been applied well before it's mathematical understanding in all forms of art. In music the pentatonic scale has always sounded aesthetically pleasing to the ear and in visual arts the rule of thirds has always felt aesthetically pleasing to the eye. |
The pentatonic scale is only used by a fraction of music. The rest of music ignores it completely.
What is the corollary to "scales" in visual art? I don't think there is one. Songs and even instruments are specifically engineered to certain scales. Scales, even though they are invented and arbitrary, are not "reactive" the same way "golden ratio" and "rule of thirds" and those other visual "rules" are, if only because they are so powerfully accepted by the musical community.
The visual arts (and poetry) are in a kind of ghetto of lawlessness these days. In either of these genres, you need to know some history in order to interact effectively with their "rules." |
|
|
|
02/06/2012 05:28:28 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by mcaldo:
Originally posted by Giles_uk:
i was the first comment on that picture of the girl in teh garden and i stand by it, bvy and blindjustie criticising other commentors is even more unhelpful than the comments right or wrong but you should note the photographer checked them all that he found them helpfull, shall i run all my comments past the now self elected comment police of bvv and blindjustice from now on to check they fit with your own opinion. |
I find your comment interesting......
..... If I learned one single thing here on DPC, it's that if somebody submits something to a challenge, chances are that the image is somewhat spot-on on the theme.
And there is nothing wrong in dissenting from the concept, not liking conceptual photography, or simply not getting it. But people do things for a reason. |
Aldo's whole post (which I have shortened only to save a tree) is marvelous and ought to be automatically posted about once a week on the DPC front page. Then we might not have to suffer so many people competing to produce exactly the same vacuous bloody picture, over and over again.
The digital revolution ought to have liberated and democratized photography, and indeed it has - for the people using simple compacts and smartphones. They are the people who are doing nearly all of the innovating, and producing nearly all of the thrilling new points of view in photography. But the 'serious' photographers, those with the gigapixel DSLRs and the big lists of 'glass', are for the most part producing boring replicas of the same old stodge. And the better they get at doing it, the more boring and irrelevant it becomes. Adhering as a default position to the recognized 'principles' or 'rules' is the Highway to Hell. Which is the point that Neil Gaiman was making in the OP quote. |
|
|
|
02/06/2012 06:02:54 PM · #59 |
I think focus is at least roughly analogous to scales. Sharp focus/in-tune. motion blur/dissonance. Or whatever. I think there's something in that.
But there's only one in-focus visually. Musically, there are many keys.
Maybe contrast is a better analogy to scales. |
|
|
|
02/06/2012 06:06:00 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by MarioPierre:
This applies to art throughout history, from cave paintings to all the pictures uploaded on this website. People understand the beauty of photography simply by looking at them. The golden ratio has been applied well before it's mathematical understanding in all forms of art. In music the pentatonic scale has always sounded aesthetically pleasing to the ear and in visual arts the rule of thirds has always felt aesthetically pleasing to the eye. |
The pentatonic scale is only used by a fraction of music. The rest of music ignores it completely.
What is the corollary to "scales" in visual art? I don't think there is one. Songs and even instruments are specifically engineered to certain scales. Scales, even though they are invented and arbitrary, are not "reactive" the same way "golden ratio" and "rule of thirds" and those other visual "rules" are, if only because they are so powerfully accepted by the musical community.
The visual arts (and poetry) are in a kind of ghetto of lawlessness these days. In either of these genres, you need to know some history in order to interact effectively with their "rules." |
The pentatonic scale is made entirely of consonant intervals, it's the most widely used scale in all of music and all of the world. The pentatonic scale is found in most modern modes. The blues scale is simply a pentatonic minor with a #4th added, again, one of the most popular scale in rock music and the scale that makes up 99.9% of blues.
Also, the golden ratio is an expression of 3:2, you can see this on the black keys of a piano and playing those interval plays what scale? The Pentatonic. It all relates to the same equation. And yes, we invented that scale, we named it and everything but we didn't event the frequency at which the sound travels through the air, that just exists. We only created a system to explain and use it.
So I'm not applying scales to visual arts, I'm marking a comparison between the golden ratio in all forms of art. Visual arts is no different than music since musician break rules just as much as photographers and painters do, Jazz is mostly about breaking the rules but the difference is in knowing how to break the rules in order to turn chaos into a form of expression.
Breaking the rules is something that can be taught and something which has to be understood. A 6 month old baby taking a picture or splattering paint on a canvas with his fingers isn't creating art and his work cannot be criticized. When I first heard dead kennedys the tape was broken, I tried to fix it to no avail, a few years later it all made sense to me. |
|
|
|
02/06/2012 06:18:45 PM · #61 |
| the golden ratio is a little more subtle than three to two. I suggest that Mario google it, for it is a lovely thing, and has a nice bit of history behind it too. when I get in my next harvest of weed I may attempt to see it on the black keys of my piano and so forth. |
|
|
|
02/06/2012 06:20:03 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by ubique:
Aldo's whole post (which I have shortened only to save a tree)
|
Thanks, I would have found it painful having to scroll through that myself, bloody me :D
Originally posted by ubique:
is marvelous and ought to be automatically posted about once a week on the DPC front page. Then we might not have to suffer so many people competing to produce exactly the same vacuous bloody picture, over and over again. |
As you know, personally I am not necessarily that draconian, :)
But I like your commitment to that position and, yes, a more widespread 'not guilty until proved otherwise' attitude would be nice.
I made myself guilty of that sin so many times, here and elsewhere. And still will, I fear, I am too curious of what people really meant to say not to give it a stab, my only extenuating circumstance that I never score too low.
[/quote] |
|
|
|
02/06/2012 06:23:00 PM · #63 |
I've been studying music for 18 years. I bought my first acoustic guitar in 1993.
Every kind of art has something in common with the other arts, at least inspiration that is a link for arts in general. I don't think focus is the equivalent of scales. Focus stands for a perfect execution, what marks for example classical music (and not only). An artistically blurry image can be compared to Jimi Hendrix when he used to creat strange sounds with his Stratocaster.
For me there's beauty in both things. I'm not a fan of the conceptual visions when they don't have a real meaning. A black and white blurry, abstract image is not always a work of art. On the contrary many beautiful perfect lit images are empty and even through their formal perfection they don't convey any message but their lack of heart.
It will always be an open field for discussions :) |
|
|
|
02/06/2012 06:31:34 PM · #64 |
| With all this music discussion, I can't wait to see all your submissions for Music II. :) |
|
|
|
02/06/2012 06:32:02 PM · #65 |
who said focus is the equivalent of scales?
Reading skills in forums are somewhat similar to listening skills in person. |
|
|
|
02/06/2012 06:34:49 PM · #66 |
Originally posted by deeby:
who said focus is the equivalent of scales?
Reading skills in forums are somewhat similar to listening skills in person. |
Originally posted by deeby:
I think focus is at least roughly analogous to scales. |
Thank you for being so nice... |
|
|
|
02/06/2012 06:37:15 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by MarioPierre:
Jazz is mostly about breaking the rules but the difference is in knowing how to break the rules in order to turn chaos into a form of expression
|
Jazz is more about creating new rules, not breaking them. Most jazz has very distinct chord progressions (the map), and how you put them together is where the rules on how to get from the beginning to the end take shape...
Originally posted by posthumous:
Songs and even instruments are specifically engineered to certain scales.
|
That is not true for fretless string instruments, the trombone, and the kazoo. ;-)
|
|
|
|
02/06/2012 06:38:28 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by Alexkc:
Originally posted by deeby:
who said focus is the equivalent of scales?
Reading skills in forums are somewhat similar to listening skills in person. |
Originally posted by deeby:
I think focus is at least roughly analogous to scales. |
Thank you for being so nice... |
You're welcome harhar
But jimi is closer to lens flare... ;) |
|
|
|
02/06/2012 06:43:55 PM · #69 |
Some notes compliment each other, different notes set different moods; I.E. Root + 3rd makes for a happy sounding chord while root + minor 3rd makes for a sad sounding chord. Seems that the same can be said of colors which is why that if I was to compare a musical scale to anything, I'd compare it to the colors which make up a piece.
Maybe it also has to do with the fact that these two things have to do with wavelengths and human perception but that's just an opinion, not a scientific theory that I know of. :P
Originally posted by bassbone:
Jazz is more about creating new rules, not breaking them. Most jazz has very distinct chord progressions (the map), and how you put them together is where the rules on how to get from the beginning to the end take shape...
|
I definitely agree with that.
Message edited by author 2012-02-06 18:47:05. |
|
|
|
02/06/2012 06:46:50 PM · #70 |
Originally posted by MarioPierre:
Some notes compliment each other, different notes set different moods; I.E. Root + 3rd makes for a happy sounding chord while root + minor 3rd makes for a sad sounding chord. Seems that the same can be said of colors which is why that if I was to compare a musical scale to anything, I'd compare it to the colors which make up a piece.
Maybe it also has to do with the fact that these two things have to do with wavelengths and human perception but that's just an opinion, not a scientific theory that I know of. :P |
I was thinking that as well. Colour palette. Contrast and focus might have more to do with the quality of the sound |
|
|
|
02/06/2012 06:56:20 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
The pentatonic scale is only used by a fraction of music. The rest of music ignores it completely.
What is the corollary to "scales" in visual art? I don't think there is one. Songs and even instruments are specifically engineered to certain scales. Scales, even though they are invented and arbitrary, are not "reactive" the same way "golden ratio" and "rule of thirds" and those other visual "rules" are, if only because they are so powerfully accepted by the musical community.
The visual arts (and poetry) are in a kind of ghetto of lawlessness these days. In either of these genres, you need to know some history in order to interact effectively with their "rules." |
Well, the pentatonic scale as choice of only five notes is perhaps not that uncommon over the world and the history of humanity. It's certainly true that a great many musical traditions which have shaped western music used the pentatonic scales as a device rather than the rule.
I am really intrigued by what you say about the reactivity potential of certain approaches in music and visual art. Just, I am a bit confused by the term 'corollary', had you said 'equivalent' I would have understood what follows quite clearly, now I am not that sure. Sorry, I am dumb at times.
It's true that musical instruments are engineered around certain tonalities, and certain timbres and dynamics also, however most also allows to break free of that, and personally I feel that this is what allows for 'new' things to come up.
Sorry, its awful banal. This 'knows the rules and then break them" thingy might be as true as "if your photography is not good enough, you are not close enough", but they both are a preach repeated so often and insistently that they taste of ash in my mouth.
In a sense instruments are like the rules themselves, they are fitting descriptions of what works. Somebody will strive to follow up her own voice beyond the engineered easy way, and perhaps something ad hoc will follow, an instrument, a concept.
And, perhaps again banally, I feel one of many equivalents in visual art not of a scale, which is a mere box and device, but of a tonality, is restricting oneself to a choice of, well, tones.
But I am ignorant, so that's based only on what I have randomly gathered on the way.
Knowing what came before is so very effective. I find it interesting that many people will feel that traditional blues is after all a very intuitive music. It is, for sure, but it's also the result of a very long time generations spent refining something.
African music is indeed much more varied than what travelled away to become blues and the root of many other things, but all that effort in refining, if not the knowledge involved, travelled with it.
|
|
|
|
02/06/2012 07:07:37 PM · #72 |
Originally posted by MarioPierre:
Some notes compliment each other, different notes set different moods; I.E. Root + 3rd makes for a happy sounding chord while root + minor 3rd makes for a sad sounding chord.
Seems that the same can be said of colors which is why that if I was to compare a musical scale to anything, I'd compare it to the colors which make up a piece.
|
I agree with that. But also feel that both colours and sounds associations do generate an emotive response very influenced by the culture.
So, the 3rd min/maj association with sadness/happiness is less true in other contexts. We are very used to it and to exploit it, along with other things, to create tension or not, but our brain is kind of trained to get that association immediately.
If you think of the blues, the 3rd is originally really shifting up and down with a somewhat different function, emotionally, I feel. Than, the use in a modern context has made the association you mention much more strong even in blues. |
|
|
|
02/06/2012 07:14:27 PM · #73 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by MarioPierre:
This applies to art throughout history, from cave paintings to all the pictures uploaded on this website. People understand the beauty of photography simply by looking at them. The golden ratio has been applied well before it's mathematical understanding in all forms of art. In music the pentatonic scale has always sounded aesthetically pleasing to the ear and in visual arts the rule of thirds has always felt aesthetically pleasing to the eye. |
The pentatonic scale is only used by a fraction of music. The rest of music ignores it completely.
What is the corollary to "scales" in visual art? I don't think there is one. Songs and even instruments are specifically engineered to certain scales. Scales, even though they are invented and arbitrary, are not "reactive" the same way "golden ratio" and "rule of thirds" and those other visual "rules" are, if only because they are so powerfully accepted by the musical community.
The visual arts (and poetry) are in a kind of ghetto of lawlessness these days. In either of these genres, you need to know some history in order to interact effectively with their "rules." |
What's the visual corollary to scales? Quantity.
Groups of 1, 2, 3, or 5 are perceived as more pleasant/natural than groups of 4 and 6.
Or Color!
Using complimentary or analogous colors... using triads. Etc. Notice how movies these days play orange and blue off of each other. Some movies look like they're shot entirely in orange and blue hues.
Both concepts seem rather similar to scales, IMO. |
|
|
|
02/06/2012 07:15:39 PM · #74 |
Originally posted by mcaldo:
..they taste of ash in my mouth. |
Have you read The Road by Cormac McArthy? All that dialog and not one quotation mark in the whole book... |
|
|
|
02/06/2012 07:26:23 PM · #75 |
But back to the OP...
If you don't like certain criticism, don't listen to it. While there's a clear line between the statements "I don't like this" and "this is objectively bad", getting upset when a commenter doesn't express or understand the difference is pointless. Not everyone cares to think of things on that level, and they may be completely content to keep it at the personal. Trying to change them is a losing battle. They just don't care.
Complaining about feedback of any sort on a site designed to encourage cross-pollination between people of different levels of experience and approaches to photography? Silly.
Just like there is no 'wrong' art... there is no 'wrong' way to critique. There are critiques that mean something to you, and there are critiques that leave you cold. Look at them the same way you look at other people's photographs. You must extract your own benefit from them for them to be useful, no matter where they come from, what they contain, or how they're worded.
|
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 07/18/2025 06:32:44 AM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 07/18/2025 06:32:44 AM EDT.
|
