| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/18/2006 03:02:34 PM · #151 |
Y know, every now and then
I think you might like to see art from me
Nice and fine
But theres just one thing
You see I never ever do nothing
Nice and fine
I always do it nice and rough
So I'm gonna take the beginning of this photo
And do it fine
Then I'm gonna do the finish rough
This is the way I do photography
|
|
|
|
10/18/2006 03:04:19 PM · #152 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Fine Art certainly is a genre of photography though. |
perhaps, but it shouldn't be.
jmho |
Well, there are plenty who use this site who would argue that photography isn't art at all, so you can see how they might struggle with a critique that assumed that it was at least possible, just as a starting point.
Maybe the CC box needs two categories, or as John initially wanted, some more feedback from the photographer than just 'yes/ no'
For example, are you interested in an emotional critique, or purely technical consideration and advice. Do you want to know how your work makes me feel or just which knobs I think you should have tweaked differently. Where's your comfort and skill levels at, both artistically and technically. Did you mean to do that ? etc.
Without any of these, it feels quixotic to even bother writing critiques. There are plenty of other windmills out there to fight. |
|
|
|
10/18/2006 03:10:19 PM · #153 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
..Perhaps this isn't a fight possible or worth winning ? |
Sure, it is possible and necessary as breathing is for some of us, but since it's ongoing, it cannot be won. And why should it? If it were about winning, we'd be kept prisoners in a corked vase or some other closed form, no?
|
|
|
|
10/18/2006 03:13:56 PM · #154 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Originally posted by Gordon:
..Perhaps this isn't a fight possible or worth winning ? |
Sure, it is possible and necessary as breathing is for some of us, but since it's ongoing, it cannot be won. And why should it? If it were about winning, we'd be kept prisoners in a corked vase or some other closed form, no? |
I was more thinking that there are appropriate venues for that sort of battle, is all.
I'll take corked in a Klein bottle, if that's where we are going. |
|
|
|
10/18/2006 03:31:48 PM · #155 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
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. |
Literary Critic hat on again: don't you mean "affectation"? (grin)
However, to the substance of your rebuttal, I actually was taken by surprise, did some research, and you are correct: confusingly enough, the word "carat" can refer to two entirely different things for a UK jeweler/gemologist. I'd say the American k-vs-c approach makes oodles more sense, but nevermind that :-) You are correct, sir.
R. |
|
|
|
10/18/2006 03:36:08 PM · #156 |
I can't speak for all of the Critique Club members, but I certainly don't have what it takes to give the kind of critique Mr Zen has eloquently elaborated. I can say what I like or don't like, what it says to me or doesn't, and whether or not the technical aspects cement or detract from any of the above. I don't know whether knowing what the photographer wants as far as a critique would enable me to do any more than that.
In fact, I feel inadequate about offering critiques of any kind, but I'm pretty sure that won't stop me. |
|
|
|
10/18/2006 03:44:25 PM · #157 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
However, to the substance of your rebuttal, I actually was taken by surprise, did some research, and you are correct: confusingly enough, the word "carat" can refer to two entirely different things for a UK jeweler/gemologist. I'd say the American k-vs-c approach makes oodles more sense, but nevermind that :-) You are correct, sir.
R. |
I've never seen a piece of jewelry marked as being made of "14c Gold" ... though I've never shopped for any overseas, either. |
|
|
|
10/18/2006 03:47:46 PM · #158 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
However, to the substance of your rebuttal, I actually was taken by surprise, did some research, and you are correct: confusingly enough, the word "carat" can refer to two entirely different things for a UK jeweler/gemologist. I'd say the American k-vs-c approach makes oodles more sense, but nevermind that :-) You are correct, sir.
R. |
I've never seen a piece of jewelry marked as being made of "14c Gold" ... though I've never shopped for any overseas, either. |
Well, me neither, but I did check the web and it IS a fact they spell it differently over there. Damned confusing if you ask me, but I am a gracious person so I tipped my hat :-)
R. |
|
|
|
10/18/2006 03:50:21 PM · #159 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
However, to the substance of your rebuttal, I actually was taken by surprise, did some research, and you are correct: confusingly enough, the word "carat" can refer to two entirely different things for a UK jeweler/gemologist. I'd say the American k-vs-c approach makes oodles more sense, but nevermind that :-) You are correct, sir.
R. |
I've never seen a piece of jewelry marked as being made of "14c Gold" ... though I've never shopped for any overseas, either. |
About 2 seconds of googling brought me to this. More common to see it as ct not c, i.e., 18ct
Message edited by author 2006-10-18 15:52:05. |
|
|
|
10/18/2006 03:51:56 PM · #160 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
For example, are you interested in an emotional critique, or purely technical consideration and advice. |
You are trying to consign critique to emotion and technical advice to objectivity. But there is no separation. You cannot give technical advice if you have not critiqued the photo, because without the critique you don't know what the photo is trying to achieve.
|
|
|
|
10/18/2006 03:53:27 PM · #161 |
Ah, thanks.
BTW: you probably mean e.g. (exempli gratia -- "for example") there at the end, not i.e. (id est -- "that is")
; )
Message edited by author 2006-10-18 15:56:28. |
|
|
|
10/18/2006 03:54:44 PM · #162 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Literary Critic hat on again: don't you mean "affectation"? (grin) |
Touche - though I am quite fond of the place, nonetheless. |
|
|
|
10/18/2006 03:56:05 PM · #163 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I've never seen a piece of jewelry marked as being made of "14c Gold" ... though I've never shopped for any overseas, either. |
Though thinking about it, you would be more likely to find jewellery marked that way ;) This could go on for a while... |
|
|
|
10/18/2006 03:59:42 PM · #164 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by Gordon:
For example, are you interested in an emotional critique, or purely technical consideration and advice. |
You are trying to consign critique to emotion and technical advice to objectivity. But there is no separation. You cannot give technical advice if you have not critiqued the photo, because without the critique you don't know what the photo is trying to achieve. |
Actually I'm not - but there is a higher and lower form of critique - one purely from a technical stand point, which tends to give rule based and rote suggestions for improvements (sharp focus, use power points, rule of thirds, don't put the subject in the middle, ever, etc) and a more indepth evaluation of what the photographer was actually trying to achieve.
And these different levels are entirely appropriate, depending on the skill levels of the photographer and their development (as well as that of the person providing the critique)
In much the same way that we don't start 5 year olds reading Dickens or Shakespeare, you have to learn to walk before you can run. Different audiences require and should get appropriate critiques. |
|
|
|
10/18/2006 04:04:42 PM · #165 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Fine Art certainly is a genre of photography though. |
perhaps, but it shouldn't be.
jmho |
...Maybe the CC box needs two categories, or as John initially wanted, some more feedback from the photographer than just 'yes/ no'
For example, are you interested in an emotional critique, or purely technical consideration and advice. Do you want to know how your work makes me feel or just which knobs I think you should have tweaked differently. Where's your comfort and skill levels at, both artistically and technically. Did you mean to do that ? ... |
[Omissions mine]
As a critic, I wouldn't know how your work makes you feel. I can only know how it makes me feel. If I have had a little experience, I might have some notion of how it affects a particular group of people who share that experience. Knobbing and tweaking are getting enough attention as it is, here. Comfort too doesn't move any mountains. Skill (presence or absence) ought to be apparent in your work.
The only things that should (opinion) have bearing on what we say in a critique are the facts of the image itself, not only its parts also the whole shebang, the gists and piths of it, whatever the temperament or form.
The second category (you suggest for the CC to consider), although entirely appropriate and perfectly useful, already exists. It not only exists but flourishes. We already burst at the seams with it.
The only reason I don't advocate it is because it doesn't need an advocate.
I have, instead, advocated something which, I believe, can pull the cart as opposed to pushing it all the the time, up Cumber Hill, Tweaksville in Knobland.
Forgive the pun, in this weather.
Message edited by author 2006-10-18 16:06:36.
|
|
|
|
10/18/2006 04:08:40 PM · #166 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by Gordon:
For example, are you interested in an emotional critique, or purely technical consideration and advice. |
You are trying to consign critique to emotion and technical advice to objectivity. But there is no separation. You cannot give technical advice if you have not critiqued the photo, because without the critique you don't know what the photo is trying to achieve. |
!
|
|
|
|
10/18/2006 04:11:00 PM · #167 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Actually I'm not |
Actually, I think you are... as evidenced here:
Originally posted by Gordon:
- but there is a higher and lower form of critique - one purely from a technical stand point, which tends to give rule based and rote suggestions for improvements (sharp focus, use power points, rule of thirds, don't put the subject in the middle, ever, etc) and a more indepth evaluation of what the photographer was actually trying to achieve.
And these different levels are entirely appropriate, depending on the skill levels of the photographer and their development (as well as that of the person providing the critique) |
This "lower" form of critique (I appreciate the gesture of making it "lower" ;) is not appropriate by itself, ever. Those rules don't make any sense without considering the photo in front of you. This "consideration" is the "higher" form of critique. I see this often in poetry forums as well. People say "show don't tell" and "use fewer modifiers" without considering what the poem needs. Such critique is worse than useless.
(edited to fix typos because I am growing duller with age)
Message edited by author 2006-10-18 16:13:41. |
|
|
|
10/18/2006 04:15:22 PM · #168 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Such critique is worse than useless. |
You make it sound like I disagree. You might not think it appropriate, but it is vastly in the majority of online 'critique' A good critique would encompass all of these areas in one (hence why I don't believe I'm trying to separate them) however, given that a majority of users don't even believe photography is an art form - why would they even be interested in a critique that implied that it was ?
Message edited by author 2006-10-18 16:18:32. |
|
|
|
10/18/2006 04:18:42 PM · #169 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by posthumous:
Such critique is worse than useless. |
You make it sound like I disagree. You might not think it appropriate, but it is vastly in the majority of online 'critique' |
Regardless of whether or not we agree, or where we disagree, you are helping me to clarify my thoughts, and I thank you for that. And yes, there is a lot of critique that is just as you say. And yes, I think it is not appropriate. See? Agreeing, agreeing, agreeing! :) |
|
|
|
10/18/2006 04:20:57 PM · #170 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
given that a majority of users don't even believe photography is an art form - why would they even be interested in a critique that implied that it was ? |
Because they don't realize the implication, perhaps. I think that the critiquer, instead of talking about art, can talk about what the photo is trying to do. That's easier to swallow. :) |
|
|
|
10/18/2006 04:24:23 PM · #171 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
As a critic, I wouldn't know how your work makes you feel. I can only know how it makes me feel. If I have had a little experience, I might have some notion of how it affects a particular group of people who share that experience. |
Here I think you got what I said backwards - I completely agree with you, so this seems somewhat redundant.
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Knobbing and tweaking are getting enough attention as it is, here. Comfort too doesn't move any mountains. Skill (presence or absence) ought to be apparent in your work.
|
But for it to be useful, that has to go both ways - critique is a different skill from creation.
Originally posted by zeuszen:
The only things that should (opinion) have bearing on what we say in a critique are the facts of the image itself, not only its parts also the whole shebang, the gists and piths of it, whatever the temperament or form.
|
The Knobing and Tweaking critiques have no interest for me at my current point in time - but they were certainly of interest at other points. I'm much more interested in developing other facets of my photography at the moment, to the point that K&T critiques frustrate me with their pointlessness. However, to others they are entirely the value of asking for a critique.
In part that's because I'm actually trying to capture or empart some level of emotion in my images. I'm aiming for something with some communication or illumination. I'm trying to put a piece of me in the images. Not everyone is - and that's also perfectly valid and valuable.
I find shots like  or  boring & trite. Soulless, uninteresting. I don't know that I could really bring myself to write an interesting critique about such images.
In contrast, I'm much more excited by images like this
or this:
But that maybe doesn't make one image better or worse, just more or less interesting to me, right now. The first couple could easily have a K&T CC - it would help in what I was trying to achieve with them. The second two, I don't know that I'd be interested at all in a K&T CC. Conversely, I'd love to hear how the second two make someone feel or what emotional connection they get from them - the first two, that wouldn't be so interesting to me.
Message edited by author 2006-10-18 17:18:33. |
|
|
|
10/18/2006 04:27:59 PM · #172 |
This is much more eloquently put than I could manage.
and an hour long response from someone who's put a lot more time and thought in to this than I have. |
|
|
|
10/18/2006 10:51:43 PM · #173 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
This is much more eloquently put than I could manage. |
the steichen crit is priceless. thanks for a late night laugh.
a good point though. in some ways, what we need is not a blurb about the photograph, or what the photograper was tryin to say with the image, but something about the skill level of the photographer.
as picasso spent most of his adult artisic life trying to recapture the purity of his childhood artmaking, perhaps that's what many professional photographers are also trying to do (eggelston, winnogrand...) they have learned the rules, have shown that they can work within them, and now have the freedom to break them. but they break the rules knowingly, not through ignorance (i do not use the word ignorance in a pejorative way)
rules must be broken in order for any art form to grow (i include the advaced sciences in this as well), for that is the only way new and exciting ideas can come about. but, that does have to happen within a framework of knowledge. for if the rules are broken unknowingly, there can be no growth, no analysis of the result, no reason to go beyond.
there's more to say, but i'm way too tired to stretch my brain further tonight.
|
|
|
|
10/19/2006 12:03:18 AM · #174 |
I've recently joined a PPA affiliated group and am now eligible, but not qualiifed :P to compete in print and album competetions.
Their fall meet is the end of the month, and they have an hour long seminar on how prints are judged and how to enter, etc
A short article on what they look for //www.ppa.com/files/public/12Elements_Hawkins.pdf
|
|
|
|
10/19/2006 08:09:26 AM · #175 |
This thread is absolutely outstanding! This is the type of interaction and feedback/discussion that I thought was in the works when I selected the "I would like an indepth critique on my submission." checkbox on my early challenge entries.
If not so much the actual verbiage, but at least the mindset and thought process. A group of individuals talking about photography in the emotional context. What does this photo say to you? Why does it speak that way? Certainly some technicals are important as well, but they do not comprise the entire essence of an image.
Obviously I'm quite the novice at photography yet and have no formal education in the arts. Perhaps that is why I find this conversation so enlightening. Thanks so much for bringing some culture to this site! :D |
|
