|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/14/2006 09:53:56 PM · #101 |
| Lestat or Spike? I'm thinking more like Spike... |
|
|
|
10/14/2006 09:58:57 PM · #102 |
Spike hates duckies. Now stop making me hijack my favorite thread... :P
|
|
|
|
10/14/2006 10:06:45 PM · #103 |
Originally posted by American_Horse:
I like spam.
I hate brussels sprouts. |
Oh Look!!! A good photographer AND a food critic!!! ;-) |
|
|
|
10/14/2006 10:26:27 PM · #104 |
OK, I'll stop now. Heck, I may even go do a critique. ;P (But how in the heck do you know Spike hates duckies??)
But to get the track back on thread (or vice versa), have you had any reaction to the Reaction critique idea? |
|
|
|
10/14/2006 10:42:53 PM · #105 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
OK, I'll stop now. Heck, I may even go do a critique. ;P (But how in the heck do you know Spike hates duckies??)
But to get the track back on thread (or vice versa), have you had any reaction to the Reaction critique idea? |
um... well... no. where were you?
|
|
|
|
10/14/2006 11:12:16 PM · #106 |
Originally posted by ambaker:
As a member of the Critique Club I have a wish list too...
If I see a photo with no photographer's comments, how can I respond to what (s)he meant to say. A quick not about what you are trying to communicate would help a lot... |
Some of the best pitchers r esoteric documents which r motivated only by a compulsion to study it further. Others r made objects in themselves as opposed to pictures of objects or with a (-n external) subject. Many of these r the result of a conscious effort to remove the author from the image.
And what, really, should the photographer tell us about a picture for which he has gone out of his way to have it stand on its own? Why do some critics insist on information external to the subject of critique?
Message edited by author 2006-10-14 23:12:56.
|
|
|
|
10/15/2006 12:21:11 AM · #107 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Originally posted by ambaker:
As a member of the Critique Club I have a wish list too...
If I see a photo with no photographer's comments, how can I respond to what (s)he meant to say. A quick not about what you are trying to communicate would help a lot... |
Some of the best pitchers r esoteric documents which r motivated only by a compulsion to study it further. Others r made objects in themselves as opposed to pictures of objects or with a (-n external) subject. Many of these r the result of a conscious effort to remove the author from the image.
And what, really, should the photographer tell us about a picture for which he has gone out of his way to have it stand on its own? Why do some critics insist on information external to the subject of critique? |
The photographer is ostensibly trying to say something meaningful with their work, to communicate. As someone who critiques the image, I can easily come up wih my own message that I feel the photographer is attempting to convey to the viewer. However, in no way can I assess how effectively they portrayed their intended message, or provide insight into ways they may improve the delivery of that message, unless I have some understanding of their original intent. |
|
|
|
10/15/2006 12:35:36 AM · #108 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Originally posted by ambaker:
As a member of the Critique Club I have a wish list too...
If I see a photo with no photographer's comments, how can I respond to what (s)he meant to say. A quick not about what you are trying to communicate would help a lot... |
Some of the best pitchers r esoteric documents which r motivated only by a compulsion to study it further. Others r made objects in themselves as opposed to pictures of objects or with a (-n external) subject. Many of these r the result of a conscious effort to remove the author from the image.
And what, really, should the photographer tell us about a picture for which he has gone out of his way to have it stand on its own? Why do some critics insist on information external to the subject of critique? |
The photographer is ostensibly trying to say something meaningful with their work, to communicate. As someone who critiques the image, I can easily come up wih my own message that I feel the photographer is attempting to convey to the viewer. However, in no way can I assess how effectively they portrayed their intended message, or provide insight into ways they may improve the delivery of that message, unless I have some understanding of their original intent. |
My take is quite different:
The photographer is not the image. The image is the message. The poor photographer is just that, a photographer, perhaps a medium too, but no sage who provides us meaning. His original intent is not an element of the image before us.
|
|
|
|
10/15/2006 12:41:13 AM · #109 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Originally posted by ambaker:
As a member of the Critique Club I have a wish list too...
If I see a photo with no photographer's comments, how can I respond to what (s)he meant to say. A quick not about what you are trying to communicate would help a lot... |
Some of the best pitchers r esoteric documents which r motivated only by a compulsion to study it further. Others r made objects in themselves as opposed to pictures of objects or with a (-n external) subject. Many of these r the result of a conscious effort to remove the author from the image.
And what, really, should the photographer tell us about a picture for which he has gone out of his way to have it stand on its own? Why do some critics insist on information external to the subject of critique? |
The photographer is ostensibly trying to say something meaningful with their work, to communicate. As someone who critiques the image, I can easily come up wih my own message that I feel the photographer is attempting to convey to the viewer. However, in no way can I assess how effectively they portrayed their intended message, or provide insight into ways they may improve the delivery of that message, unless I have some understanding of their original intent. |
unless you somehow pick up on what they were trying to say by looking at their shot, then you can say they have failed...and that can only be conveyed by not being directed or swayed as to what to think or how to react...aside from the shot and the title...now if someone wants to add info, or poetry, or some form of structure..that is up to them...I consider this to be an artistic choice...
I love when someone comes up with their own message..
Message edited by author 2006-10-15 00:41:58. |
|
|
|
10/15/2006 12:50:05 AM · #110 |
Spazmo and ZZ, your perspectives are like a half a glass of water.
Either it is half full, or half empty, but it is still a half a glass of water.
The key to a good critique is if it creates an emotional responce. That responce along with details of the image itself brings forth a good critique.
A good artist no matter if it is a digital camera, oil on canvas, a bronze....hell even a toothpick statue, knows how to bring forth an emotional value to their work so the viewer can respond appropriately.
Message edited by author 2006-10-15 00:51:33.
|
|
|
|
10/15/2006 03:13:58 PM · #111 |
After much thought, I've decided to add a "reaction" section to my reviews as well.
If the photographer leaves information in the comments, then I will respond to the comments as best I can. If there are no comments, then I will talk a bit about what I see and give them the opportunity to PM me, if they want to add any info. If they do, I'll revisit the photo and edit the review and appropriate. If not, then we are done.
At the end of the day, this is supposed to be an enjoyable experience for everyone.
|
|
|
|
10/15/2006 04:02:30 PM · #112 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
My take is quite different:
The photographer is not the image. The image is the message. The poor photographer is just that, a photographer, perhaps a medium too, but no sage who provides us meaning. His original intent is not an element of the image before us. |
His original intent caused the image to come into existence, without it the image would not exist. This original intent, the intention to communicate, is all there is to the image -- without the intention, the image is just a bunch of dots.
Yes, the goal is to have the image 'stand on it's own', to communicate without explaination, but what if that goal isn't accomplished?
Even if the communication is nothing more than 'this is interesting, take a look', it is not so different than telling a friend a just head joke, 'this is funny, you'll like it'. But, even this requires some basics -- basics such as getting the attention of the one receiving the communication and communicating in a way they can understand. Without the basics of communication the intention can not be successful. To proceed as if it was, with a substituted intention (one the viewer puts into the image, instead of the photographer) is to invite confusion and resentment.
Originally posted by American_Horse:
... A good artist no matter if it is a digital camera, oil on canvas, a bronze....hell even a toothpick statue, knows how to bring forth an emotional value to their work so the viewer can respond appropriately. |
True.
Writing a critique of an accomplished artist that effortlessly communicates their original intention thru their work is easy. But that is not what prompted the events leading to this thread.
This is not a gallery of images created by accomplished artists needing nothing more than adulation and acceptance. We are talking about images submitted to a website by individuals still trying to learn the skills needed to 'bring forth an emotional value'. There will be mistakes in execution in the vast majority of them, which lead to a miscommunition of the original intention.
To approach the images and proceed with a critique as if every element of the image were exactly placed and serves the purpose it was intended to serve is, IMO, missing the original intention of this site, the challenges and the CC.
David
|
|
|
|
10/15/2006 07:37:51 PM · #113 |
Originally posted by David.C:
Originally posted by zeuszen:
My take is quite different:
The photographer is not the image. The image is the message. The poor photographer is just that, a photographer, perhaps a medium too, but no sage who provides us meaning. His original intent is not an element of the image before us. |
His original intent caused the image to come into existence, without it the image would not exist. This original intent, the intention to communicate, is all there is to the image -- without the intention, the image is just a bunch of dots.
Yes, the goal is to have the image 'stand on it's own', to communicate without explaination, but what if that goal isn't accomplished?
Even if the communication is nothing more than 'this is interesting, take a look', it is not so different than telling a friend a just head joke, 'this is funny, you'll like it'. But, even this requires some basics -- basics such as getting the attention of the one receiving the communication and communicating in a way they can understand. Without the basics of communication the intention can not be successful. To proceed as if it was, with a substituted intention (one the viewer puts into the image, instead of the photographer) is to invite confusion and resentment.
Originally posted by American_Horse:
... A good artist no matter if it is a digital camera, oil on canvas, a bronze....hell even a toothpick statue, knows how to bring forth an emotional value to their work so the viewer can respond appropriately. |
True.
Writing a critique of an accomplished artist that effortlessly communicates their original intention thru their work is easy. But that is not what prompted the events leading to this thread.
This is not a gallery of images created by accomplished artists needing nothing more than adulation and acceptance. We are talking about images submitted to a website by individuals still trying to learn the skills needed to 'bring forth an emotional value'. There will be mistakes in execution in the vast majority of them, which lead to a miscommunition of the original intention.
To approach the images and proceed with a critique as if every element of the image were exactly placed and serves the purpose it was intended to serve is, IMO, missing the original intention of this site, the challenges and the CC.
David |
In the context of my post (below) some of the best pitchers... the photographers original intent may have been to leave the house, the photograph, however, was communicated (to use ur terminology) to him by what is and not by a photographer's self-conscious preconception. In other words, it was inspired (literally: "animated", "given breath").
In the context I provided, there is no goal, no intent. It cannot be, because (as I have tried to point out already), the photographer, in this case, has gone through pains to eliminate his ego from the process. To blankly insist this is not so, without showing why it isn't, cannot change the facts nor can it help the discussion.
Neither, in my book, is it necessary (or even possible) to understand an image, much less its meaning. I enjoy Rauschenberg's work. I enjoyed his paintings so much, it has had a bearing on the quality of my life. Do I understand any of them? No. Did he? No. Who, in his right mind, would expect anyone to understand a tree or a chair?
Much of XXth century and contemporary art is about making an art which, itself, is object. A good critic considering such works, would do well to acquaint himself with a process and stance which works from reverence as opposed to the baroque practice to superimpose a human creator.
He (the good critic) should therefore keep his eyes on the ball (the matter before him) instead of treating an author as if he was an oracle.
What would it hurt, if one attempted to treat any image as if it was art, and if it isn't to acknowledge that it isn't by simply commenting on it and helping a photographer who has made no claims.
A critique, however, is a critique of work(s), not of matters external to the facts of a piece.
Message edited by author 2006-10-15 19:43:26.
|
|
|
|
10/15/2006 08:33:44 PM · #114 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Originally posted by ambaker:
As a member of the Critique Club I have a wish list too...
If I see a photo with no photographer's comments, how can I respond to what (s)he meant to say. A quick not about what you are trying to communicate would help a lot... |
Some of the best pitchers r esoteric documents which r motivated only by a compulsion to study it further. Others r made objects in themselves as opposed to pictures of objects or with a (-n external) subject. Many of these r the result of a conscious effort to remove the author from the image.
And what, really, should the photographer tell us about a picture for which he has gone out of his way to have it stand on its own? Why do some critics insist on information external to the subject of critique? |
The photographer is ostensibly trying to say something meaningful with their work, to communicate. As someone who critiques the image, I can easily come up wih my own message that I feel the photographer is attempting to convey to the viewer. However, in no way can I assess how effectively they portrayed their intended message, or provide insight into ways they may improve the delivery of that message, unless I have some understanding of their original intent. |
My take is quite different:
The photographer is not the image. The image is the message. The poor photographer is just that, a photographer, perhaps a medium too, but no sage who provides us meaning. His original intent is not an element of the image before us. |
The normal viewer may never know the artist's intent, nor should they necessarily expect such. However, as someone who is trying to help the photographer by providing a critique, it would make my task easier to know if they are trying to say "broccoli" when I am getting "curried chicken". |
|
|
|
10/15/2006 08:53:24 PM · #115 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
The normal viewer may never know the artist's intent, nor should they necessarily expect such. However, as someone who is trying to help the photographer by providing a critique, it would make my task easier to know if they are trying to say "broccoli" when I am getting "curried chicken". |
I'm going to be wishy washy and agree with both you and Mr Zen. In your example, if you're getting "curried chicken" and the artist was trying to say "broccoli", is that really a problem, particularly if you happen to like curried chicken? I know that I had one heckuva time with certain professors in literature classes because *my* take was "why do I have to get out of it what you say I should?" As a photography-related example, I'm always delighted rather than chagrined when someone sees something in one of my pictures that I didn't intend nor even notice before they mentioned it. It all relates back to an individual's collection of experiences - that collection provides the framework for their interpretations. |
|
|
|
10/15/2006 09:05:39 PM · #116 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
The normal viewer may never know the artist's intent, nor should they necessarily expect such. However, as someone who is trying to help the photographer by providing a critique, it would make my task easier to know if they are trying to say "broccoli" when I am getting "curried chicken". |
I'm going to be wishy washy and agree with both you and Mr Zen. In your example, if you're getting "curried chicken" and the artist was trying to say "broccoli", is that really a problem, particularly if you happen to like curried chicken? I know that I had one heckuva time with certain professors in literature classes because *my* take was "why do I have to get out of it what you say I should?" As a photography-related example, I'm always delighted rather than chagrined when someone sees something in one of my pictures that I didn't intend nor even notice before they mentioned it. It all relates back to an individual's collection of experiences - that collection provides the framework for their interpretations. |
As a normal viewer, it doesn't matter.
As someone providing feedback to the photographer on how effectively his work communicates the photographer's intended message, it matters a great deal. |
|
|
|
10/15/2006 09:19:06 PM · #117 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
The normal viewer may never know the artist's intent, nor should they necessarily expect such. However, as someone who is trying to help the photographer by providing a critique, it would make my task easier to know if they are trying to say "broccoli" when I am getting "curried chicken". |
Well, I'll see your curried chicken and raise you the broccoli. (orf something to that effect, sounds good and it's dinnertime).
If the photograph under review messages curried chicken that's something the maker needs to know. This is not necessarily a bad thing. "This is what I see when I look at your picture" gives a strong message to the maker, no matter what the maker intended to convey originally. And I think our people are smart enough to make the connection if we see something they didn't intend for us to see. And learn/gain information from it. |
|
|
|
10/15/2006 09:24:07 PM · #118 |
Originally posted by sfalice:
...If the photograph under review messages curried chicken that's something the maker needs to know. ... |
I will never forget one of my advisers in my third year looking at a painting of mine. just in passing. it was one of a very serious series, in depth and personal. he paused in front of the 8 foot high canvas and said 'I see a dancing blue frog'. well, that was it, that's all i could ever see in it again. i cursed him then, but it was a good thing - that's probably all anyone would have seen, and i would have shown this giant blue dancing frog instead of a serious painting of a larynx.
i got over all that seriousness pretty quickly too...
|
|
|
|
10/15/2006 09:40:25 PM · #119 |
| The thing is, I do like to read the photographer's comments - the "how I got the shot" part. But if someone tells me what I should be seeing, how am I free to see "curried chicken" if my brain is at that point expecting "broccoli"? |
|
|
|
10/15/2006 09:47:23 PM · #120 |
> Spaz,
While I see your dilemma and emphasize, I believe curried chicken is better than broccoli.
As a restaurant critic, would you review what you've tasted or what's not available?
As a teacher, would you review an essay a student handed in or his intent to write like Villon?
As a student, would you not profit more from a sincere interest in what you do than in what you 'intend' to do?
I say, let the student make all of the creative effort, let him freely discover.
Let the teacher look at his work and put his fist through it.
If his fist bleeds, the student is progressing well.
|
|
|
|
10/15/2006 10:19:35 PM · #121 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
> Spaz,
While I see your dilemma and emphasize, I believe curried chicken is better than broccoli.
As a restaurant critic, would you review what you've tasted or what's not available?
As a teacher, would you review an essay a student handed in or his intent to write like Villon?
As a student, would you not profit more from a sincere interest in what you do than in what you 'intend' to do?
I say, let the student make all of the creative effort, let him freely discover.
Let the teacher look at his work and put his fist through it.
If his fist bleeds, the student is progressing well. |
I don't like broccoli either.
A critic will order from the menu. The menu contains some information about the dishes that leads them to expect a certain dish. Unless you have a great deal of trust in the chef, you would not simply let the chef make whatever they wish for your meal. Even then, the waiter will describe each dish in the most delectable terms prior to serving it. If the Curried Chicken is described as flavorful and spicy, but comes out tasting flat and bland, then the critic can provide feedback to the chef regarding his version of the dish.
While imitation of a Master is a valuable exercise in some cases, it's never more than a starting point for individual work, if that.
As a student, I am both interested in what I have done and how well I have done what I tried to do. Sometimes in attempting to do one thing, the student will succeed in doing another. Sometimes they they succeed at what they attempt. Yet other times they fail altogether. Should the student remain ignorant of these instances and the insight of their teacher into ways they might achieve what they set out to accomplish regardless of how wonderful the intermediate result?
Message edited by author 2006-10-15 22:20:25. |
|
|
|
10/16/2006 12:42:57 AM · #122 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by zeuszen:
> Spaz,
While I see your dilemma and emphasize, I believe curried chicken is better than broccoli.
As a restaurant critic, would you review what you've tasted or what's not available?
As a teacher, would you review an essay a student handed in or his intent to write like Villon?
As a student, would you not profit more from a sincere interest in what you do than in what you 'intend' to do?
I say, let the student make all of the creative effort, let him freely discover.
Let the teacher look at his work and put his fist through it.
If his fist bleeds, the student is progressing well. |
I don't like broccoli either.
A critic will order from the menu. The menu contains some information about the dishes that leads them to expect a certain dish. Unless you have a great deal of trust in the chef, you would not simply let the chef make whatever they wish for your meal. Even then, the waiter will describe each dish in the most delectable terms prior to serving it. If the Curried Chicken is described as flavorful and spicy, but comes out tasting flat and bland, then the critic can provide feedback to the chef regarding his version of the dish.
While imitation of a Master is a valuable exercise in some cases, it's never more than a starting point for individual work, if that.
As a student, I am both interested in what I have done and how well I have done what I tried to do. Sometimes in attempting to do one thing, the student will succeed in doing another. Sometimes they they succeed at what they attempt. Yet other times they fail altogether. Should the student remain ignorant of these instances and the insight of their teacher into ways they might achieve what they set out to accomplish regardless of how wonderful the intermediate result? |
Yes, there are differences between restaurant critics and art critics.
Yes, the waiter will sing arias, and the critic will endure 'em, if he is polite. In the end, he'll order what he chooses for himself. And yes, the critic may include any discrepancies between the asparagus and its presentation in his critique. And 'yes' to the merits of imitation, too.
No, 'the student should not remain ignorant', of course, and chances are very good, IMO, that he won't, if we don't interfere with his learning by telling him what's what. Let him find out for himself. Let him create his own confidence.
A good teacher should ask questions of the work, not of the person behind it. Art is born from need, not intentions and ambition. A good teacher would show what it is like to be lost before any findings can be appreciated. When the student comes through, when stuff gets enough of an edge to move something or someone, then, yes, absolutely it is time to celebrate it and be passionate about it.
A good critic, however, writes critiques, and critiques do not consider broccoli when chicken is served.
Effective means are available to address that which is unknown. One is to use question marks as part of the punctuation, another to simply leave blanks in the writing for that which we cannot know. We should also begin to consider aesthetics as aptness to purpose, so that, hopefully, no one will confuse it with taste anymore. Comparison is another excellent tool which lends measure to both image and its critical treatment. The 'range' of an image, either psychological or otherwise, also, can be addressed...
If we incorporate these elements into our critiques, I am confident, a reasonable degree of measure can be extracted from them. And measure is so much more expedient than saying: "you should have/could have or let me show you away." It is more expedient to the creative process, because anyone can draw his own conclusion from information not beset with anyone else's practice or preference. It doesn't cramp styles.
It's funny, this thread -and I'm thinking especially with regard to John (Setzler) whom I respect a great deal, not just as a photographer but also for his sincerity. I don't remember (in a conversation with him a while back) who it was, him or I, who said: "No one's looking at pitchers anymore." What I do remember is the wonderful agreement I shared with him on the gist of doing exactly this.
|
|
|
|
10/16/2006 06:50:51 AM · #123 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
... We should also begin to consider aesthetics as aptness to purpose, so that, hopefully, no one will confuse it with taste anymore. ... |
to pick one thing from an extremely thoughtful and interesting statement. it is vital that we can critique something on its merits, not just our own taste. i don't particularly like the mona lisa, yet i can see the high quality of the work, and can thus appreciate it, even if i don't actually like it.
i may come back to more of this statement. it is very well presented and thought out, and i not only appeciate it, but agree. ;-)
Message edited by author 2006-10-16 10:07:49.
|
|
|
|
10/16/2006 10:03:37 AM · #124 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
A good critic, however, writes critiques, and critiques do not consider broccoli when chicken is served. |
I couldn't agree more.
A good teacher, however, teaches, and teachers consider broccoli when chicken is served, especially when broccoli was ordered.
I believe that people ask for critique on this site for several reasons:
1. Because they can (dominant)
2. Because they want a critique as you have so eloquently described in your previous posts.
3. Because they want to learn something... probably something in particular.
Within the context of this particular venue, I like to assume #3 when providing my critique. When I ask for photographer feedback on a photograph prior to giving my critique, I do not ask for anything specific, and I never have. Some information I like to have is why the photograhper likes the photo, why he thinks it is a good choice for the challenge, and any objectives he had when the photo was made. I do like to comment on how I believe the image could become broccoli or chicken, if the goal was one or the other. If the photographer shows me broccoli when chicken was ordered, I would love to know why if I'm unable to derive it on my own. In xianart's post, she doesn't like the Mona Lisa, but she is able to appreciate it anyway. I may be able to better appreciate what I'm shown sometimes as well. If I'm not, I may need a nudge. After all, I'm a student too. We all are. We just learn from different texts, which do not always or usually share the same syntax.
Message edited by author 2006-10-16 10:04:38.
|
|
|
|
10/16/2006 10:15:04 AM · #125 |
My question would be, what does one need to do to get a critique from someone in the critique club? as I've dones about 4-5 challenges now, each one clicking the requesting critique and have yet to receive on. Perhaps I'm not putting enough info in the image profile or perhaps I'm not getting comments because I'm scoring int he bottom 1/3 - 1/10 of the competitions. I thought the club might be a "gimmick" until I did see a couple of posts under some indepth critiques of a few of the higher scoring photos. I know based on sheer number of entries, you become a percentage (chance of being chosen for critique), but on challenges with just over a 100 entries, I figured my chances would be good, guess not. Sorry, not trying to rant too much, just stating an observation.
I'm looking for technical critique as art and subject are too "subjective" and my images will improve, IMO, with some technical help on the basics and on post-processing tips.
My understanding from the profile of the member who was relieved of his critique duties is that he wishes to focus on the art form of the photo, which is fine, but for 'me', I'm looking for a critique on the photo itself (technical on what could be better) as the voting alone tells me more of how members perceive the photo as a whole.
From what I've seen, I just need to post my specific picture on the forum and it will receive some form of critique.
|
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/05/2025 06:43:27 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: 08/05/2025 06:43:27 AM EDT.
|
