|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/16/2006 10:18:54 AM · #126 |
Originally posted by dallasdux:
From what I've seen, I just need to post my specific picture on the forum and it will receive some form of critique. |
That seems to work best most of the time. Your chance of getting a critique club comment varies. There are a lot of members in the critique club, but they rarely get to all of the photos. There are a lot of photos in the queue usually.
|
|
|
|
10/16/2006 01:45:36 PM · #127 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
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. |
I have no issue with your approach to learning and teaching. Personally, I lean toward empathy rather than sympathy, as the straightest way to Rome. I'd guard against potentially leading influences, against being nudged, even if it isn't straight down a garden path. I am wary of this, because if the photographer is serious about his art, and if a student of the medium is sincere about his work, they work with reverence. A critic can honour the process (do it justice) only by attempting to achieve a premise as sovereign and objective as is possible in a medium plagued by all kinds of conjecture and sortilege.
What I am advocating is a critical practice which adheres as closely as possible to the scientific process. A scientist examines physical evidence alone by comparing, say, one slide of a given specimen with another. An art critic needs to also consider psychological. emotional facts. He cannot accomplish this, if he is given tainted samples.
So, if you choose to solicit explanatory notes from those who have requested a critique, you are, in my view, inviting jeopardy to the critical process, despite your intentions, which I, know full-well, are not without sincere (com-)passion to the same aim.
I am all for being casual about the individual ways we choose to communicate with one another. Your contribution, here, was largely unprompted and has been, as, I'm sure many among us will agree, exemplary, not because you conformed but, as is your way, you opposed and followed your convictions. That alone 's worth more than any convoluted dissections I could unleash on an unsuspecting public.
Despite and because of this, I need to be equally clear:
You are not, via your stance toward the issue, giving people what they want, when they request a critique. You are giving a kind of classroom, which is fair enough, but not the same.
Either we write critiques or we don't. If we choose to deliver critiques, we should, in my view, also adhere to the spirit and rigours of the discipline, as these are inherently necessary and vital for a measure of work that cannot otherwise be effectively cultivated.
A good critique can make the best popular. We have, in my view, too little of this here. What we have instead, is a culture which shows off the popular, as if it were the best.
Everyone and the kitchen sink (yes, I'm opinionated s.o.b. here) is concerned with fixing pictures who are beyond fixing, yet little attention is given to the very models of seeing. How can we move forward, if we don't know where to go and look for the force that creates the kind of photograph that doesn't need correction?
This, it seems to me, should be the first order of business.
Message edited by author 2006-10-16 14:19:22.
|
|
|
|
10/16/2006 02:06:03 PM · #128 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Everyone and the kitchen sink (yes, I'm opinionated s.o.b. here) is concerned with fixing pictures who are beyond fixing, yet little attention is given to the very models of seeing. How can we move forward, if we don't know where to go and look for the force that creates the kind of photograph that doesn't need correction? |
This is my mode, and I didn't even realize it. Thank you for defining it for me. I was feeling retarded amidst the emphasis on improving the shot. I might have to put this in my profile... |
|
|
|
10/16/2006 03:59:09 PM · #129 |
that about covers it for me, zeuszen.
|
|
|
|
10/16/2006 04:06:18 PM · #130 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Everyone and the kitchen sink (yes, I'm opinionated s.o.b. here) is concerned with fixing pictures who are beyond fixing, yet little attention is given to the very models of seeing. How can we move forward, if we don't know where to go and look for the force that creates the kind of photograph that doesn't need correction?
This, it seems to me, should be the first order of business. |
Thanks for the response. I'm with you on these things. I think I can try to look at things from this perspective now. I also particularly like the question you pose here. I know the answer, or I should say, I know MY answer. I hope some others will look at this question and think about it as well.
Thanks :)
John Setzler
|
|
|
|
10/16/2006 04:32:10 PM · #131 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
A good critique can make the best popular. We have, in my view, too little of this here. What we have instead, is a culture which shows off the popular, as if it were the best.
Everyone and the kitchen sink (yes, I'm opinionated s.o.b. here) is concerned with fixing pictures who are beyond fixing, yet little attention is given to the very models of seeing. How can we move forward, if we don't know where to go and look for the force that creates the kind of photograph that doesn't need correction?
This, it seems to me, should be the first order of business. |
And so everything is perfectly summed up. For me anyway. |
|
|
|
10/16/2006 04:42:41 PM · #132 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
A good critique can make the best popular. We have, in my view, too little of this here. What we have instead, is a culture which shows off the popular, as if it were the best.
Everyone and the kitchen sink (yes, I'm opinionated s.o.b. here) is concerned with fixing pictures who are beyond fixing, yet little attention is given to the very models of seeing. How can we move forward, if we don't know where to go and look for the force that creates the kind of photograph that doesn't need correction?
This, it seems to me, should be the first order of business. |
I agree with the vast majority of what you have said in this thread. I think our debate is one over a smaller difference of opinion on methodology rather than a chasm between schols of thought. |
|
|
|
10/16/2006 04:54:37 PM · #133 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by zeuszen:
A good critique can make the best popular. We have, in my view, too little of this here. What we have instead, is a culture which shows off the popular, as if it were the best.
Everyone and the kitchen sink (yes, I'm opinionated s.o.b. here) is concerned with fixing pictures who are beyond fixing, yet little attention is given to the very models of seeing. How can we move forward, if we don't know where to go and look for the force that creates the kind of photograph that doesn't need correction?
This, it seems to me, should be the first order of business. |
I agree with the vast majority of what you have said in this thread. I think our debate is one over a smaller difference of opinion on methodology rather than a chasm between schols of thought. |
Yes, vive la difference.
|
|
|
|
10/16/2006 05:33:48 PM · #134 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
A good critique can make the best popular. We have, in my view, too little of this here. What we have instead, is a culture which shows off the popular, as if it were the best. |
Astoundingly insightful.
|
|
|
|
10/17/2006 03:25:01 PM · #135 |
Bump.
1) Because amazingly I missed this and thought others may have also.
2) Because it's an interesting read.
:D
edit - crud, I just realized I had 'The Critique Club' forum threads hidden in my preferences. Grrrr.
Message edited by author 2006-10-17 15:46:32. |
|
|
|
10/18/2006 10:11:54 AM · #136 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
A good critique can make the best popular. We have, in my view, too little of this here. What we have instead, is a culture which shows off the popular, as if it were the best.
|
Certainly a lyrical quote. It succinctly captures the nature of DPC and maybe alludes to a better way. But I think that's probably where it falls down - DPC just is a culture of the popular. It isn't going to be something different, or swayed to be non-populist by good critique. Acceptance of that is the way to win ribbons and win peace within the contests.
Good art, by its very nature, isn't populist. It may well be popular and wildly praised within the niche of those who like it, but it'll never be universally popular or praised.
You have to state an opinion, strike a pose, stake out some ground to make interesting and engaging art, that might hope to be considered the best of photography. Once you do that, you've separated in to likes and dislikes, haves and have nots, those who get it and those who don't.
Popular and best are two different things. They, by implicit definition, would never be one and the same. You can't strive for the best and hope or expect to bring everyone or the majority with you.
Artmaking, podcasting, popularity and being true to yourself
|
|
|
|
10/18/2006 12:53:53 PM · #137 |
[Omissions mine]
I think you're absolutely right about this. We cannot expect much, quantitatively, but we can, and, I believe, should try to do the right thing after having considered what the right thing is.
In the end, the success (or failure) of such an applied stance toward the matter cannot be measured by counting heads (or the lack of these), neither can it be expressed by statistics or demographics. A critic, especially one with some integrity, by the very nature of his purpose, will never be popular. It's also highly unlikely that he'll fill galleries and concert halls with housewives and accountants. He is, after all, only a critic, not a marketing specialist. His job consists of examining works of art in contexts slightly larger than art and to report his findings accurately and without prejudice. His job is to bite that which glitters to test it and, if it passes the test, to indicate a number of karats. It is also the job to discard the dregs.
When he does not do his job, when he falsifies his findings, whatever the cause, he fails not only himself but also those who have, diligently and, perhaps, by the skin of their teeth. Newspapers and magazines publish critical reviews not to sell more papers but as a courtesy to those who have an interest that goes beyond the obvious and the mundane.
To me, this is a qualitative issue, most of all. And if we must deliver it to any kind of social scrutiny, I'd say that the critical process (as much as the artistic motivation and accomplishment it responds to) is proportionate to its opposition.
As a photographer, I'd like to say, that the light is defined by the darkness that surrounds it.
(corrected spelling of carats to karats -courtesy BearMusic).
Message edited by author 2006-10-18 16:22:24.
|
|
|
|
10/18/2006 01:43:57 PM · #138 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
His job is to bite that which glitters to test it and, if it passes the test, to indicate a number of carats. It is also the job to discard the dregs. |
Then, as a literary critic I am compelled by my integrity to point out that that a "carat" is a unit of weight used to describe gemstones, while a "karat" is a measure of purity used to describe the percentage of gold in an alloy, with 24-karat being 99.999% pure.
That said, I'm very much enjoying your posts to this topic, ZZ :-)
R. |
|
|
|
10/18/2006 01:56:34 PM · #139 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
We cannot expect much, quantitatively, but we can, and, I believe, should try to do the right thing after having considered what the right thing is. |
I suspect though, that this is the crux of the issue. The right thing - is it advice on how to make the image better in a more popular way ? That's the advice that leads to ribbons, stock photography contracts, sales and successful DPC-growth; or is it advice on how to make the image better in a way that I think you belive 'better' to mean - expressing personal vision, creativity, artistic growth?
For many, popular is best, successful, accepted - for others, popular means mediocre, watered down, compromised, pandering.
It's the line between fine art & stock; or commercial and personal vision. It certainly isn't an absolute black and white line, but there is not a lot of overlap in genre. DPC is clearly in one side. Arguably best from how I imply you define it, is in another. Perhaps this isn't a fight possible or worth winning ? |
|
|
|
10/18/2006 01:58:19 PM · #140 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by zeuszen:
His job is to bite that which glitters to test it and, if it passes the test, to indicate a number of carats. It is also the job to discard the dregs. |
Then, as a literary critic I am compelled by my integrity to point out that that a "carat" is a unit of weight used to describe gemstones, while a "karat" is a measure of purity used to describe the percentage of gold in an alloy, with 24-karat being 99.999% pure.
That said, I'm very much enjoying your posts to this topic, ZZ :-)
R. |
As a resident alien, I'm compelled by my ancestry to point out that that is mostly an American affection. |
|
|
|
10/18/2006 02:06:33 PM · #141 |
Why fight? Why not allow a minority within DPC state and pursue their goals? Why concede everything to the supposed "commercial side" just because they win more ribbons? zeuszen has won a ribbon. e301 has won many ribbons.
And another thing, "art" is not a genre. It is possible to apply it to any genre, any pursuit that is not inherently corrupt. Or to phrase it for the commercial side:
ART IS NOT A GENRE
ART IS NOT A GENRE
ART IS NOT A GENRE
ART IS NOT A GENRE
edited to add: (insert obligatory Art ROFLMAO joke here)
Message edited by author 2006-10-18 14:07:19. |
|
|
|
10/18/2006 02:21:10 PM · #142 |
| <note to self: Do not play Scrabble® with Zeus> |
|
|
|
10/18/2006 02:25:08 PM · #143 |
Originally posted by BradP:
<note to self: Do not play Scrabble® with Zeus> |
Shoot, I'd keep my distance from the last several posters myself (posthumous, Gordon, Bear, and Zeus)! That would be a fun Scrabble® matchup to watch. :D |
|
|
|
10/18/2006 02:38:22 PM · #144 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Then, as a literary critic I am compelled by my integrity to point out that that a "carat" is a unit of weight used to describe gemstones, while a "karat" is a measure of purity used to describe the percentage of gold in an alloy, with 24-karat being 99.999% pure.
That said, I'm very much enjoying your posts to this topic, ZZ :-)
R. |
Don't forget that a caret (or circumflex) ˆ is a punctuation mark, and that a carrot is a vegetable  |
|
|
|
10/18/2006 02:44:03 PM · #145 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Don't forget that a caret (or circumflex) ˆ is a punctuation mark, and that a carrot is a vegetable |
i thought a circumflex was the little squiggly thing, a nd the caret a pointy thing showing insertion, either above or below the line of text.
while i may have eschewed the use of capitals in sheer laziness when typing in forums, i still enjoy being a pedant. that said, if i'm wrong, i'm wrong.
|
|
|
|
10/18/2006 02:50:49 PM · #146 |
Yes, a caret is also the pointy thing used as a proof-reader's mark to indicate an insertion; the same shape over a letter as an accent mark is (now, anyway) called a circumflex. The squiggly thing ~ (usually seen as an ñ in Spanish) is a tilde.
Look at the Character Map (PC) or Keycaps (Mac) utilities for all kinds of cool accent marks (and their names). |
|
|
|
10/18/2006 02:52:44 PM · #147 |
Originally posted by xianart:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Don't forget that a caret (or circumflex) ˆ is a punctuation mark, and that a carrot is a vegetable |
i thought a circumflex was the little squiggly thing, a nd the caret a pointy thing showing insertion, either above or below the line of text.
while i may have eschewed the use of capitals in sheer laziness when typing in forums, i still enjoy being a pedant. that said, if i'm wrong, i'm wrong. |
The squiggly thing (~) is a tilde. The carat (^) when over a letter, is a circumflex (e.g., in French) |
|
|
|
10/18/2006 02:55:38 PM · #148 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Why fight? Why not allow a minority within DPC state and pursue their goals? Why concede everything to the supposed "commercial side" just because they win more ribbons? zeuszen has won a ribbon. e301 has won many ribbons.
And another thing, "art" is not a genre. It is possible to apply it to any genre, any pursuit that is not inherently corrupt. Or to phrase it for the commercial side:
ART IS NOT A GENRE
ART IS NOT A GENRE
ART IS NOT A GENRE
ART IS NOT A GENRE
edited to add: (insert obligatory Art ROFLMAO joke here) |
Nobody said it was. Fine Art certainly is a genre of photography though. Particularly from a commercial standpoint.
As to fighting, nobody is that I can see - but there is a tension between the genres (that do undoubtably exist). When someone checks the 'I want a critique' box, it would be helpful to know where their biases and preferences lie, to be able to provide a useful critique to a, hopefully, receptive audience.
Message edited by author 2006-10-18 14:55:54. |
|
|
|
10/18/2006 02:57:03 PM · #149 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by BradP:
<note to self: Do not play Scrabble® with Zeus> |
Shoot, I'd keep my distance from the last several posters myself (posthumous, Gordon, Bear, and Zeus)! That would be a fun Scrabble® matchup to watch. :D |
I still try to live by the motto, eschew obfuscation. Or at least live in the same postal district as it. |
|
|
|
10/18/2006 02:57:18 PM · #150 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Fine Art certainly is a genre of photography though. |
perhaps, but it shouldn't be.
jmho |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/05/2025 06:41:51 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 06:41:51 AM EDT.
|
