Are you prepared to say you don't like someone's pictures?

[Roger Hicks]

Compelling photography very rarely consists of photos in isolation. Unity of vision, sequencing, narrative are all equal in importance to the aesthetic of any given photo.

Internet critiques often involve single images or groups of images without any coherent structure. Usually because the photographer hasn't yet learned the importance of coherence of a body of work. Critique on this level is basically futile.

What I see here are usually images presented in isolation. People who post want some acknowledgment that their pictures are "nice" ie. aesthetically pleasing. Nothing wrong with that, but it's such a limited understanding of the medium and its what ultimately you need to transcend in order to discover your own way of seeing things. And discovering your own way of seeing things, paradoxically, is often retarded by considering what others think.

This is an intriguing thought. Even great single images from people like HCB and Ronis are part of a body of work, an individual way of seeing -- but as they don't have to appear with that body of work, I suspect they can be critiqued in isolation. But pictures can't be critiqued in the company of other unrelated pictures. From http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/ps critique.html

HAVE A THEME

...Or two. Or at most three. Don't show a random selection of your best pictures: a portrait, a flower study, a couple of sports shots, five landscapes, two still lifes and three reportage shots. A single theme is usually best but if (for example) you want some guidance on the direction you should be taking, then two or even three themes can be all right. But it is impossible to form any sort of judgement on a mish-mash of different pictures.

I'm not arguing with you: merely thanking you for giving me something to think about in a way I'd not considered it before.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Jamie123]

This is an intriguing thought. Even great single images from people like HCB and Ronis are part of a body of work, an individual way of seeing -- but as they don't have to appear with that body of work, I suspect they can be critiqued in isolation. But pictures can't be critiqued in the company of other unrelated pictures. From http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/ps critique.html

HAVE A THEME

...Or two. Or at most three. Don't show a random selection of your best pictures: a portrait, a flower study, a couple of sports shots, five landscapes, two still lifes and three reportage shots. A single theme is usually best but if (for example) you want some guidance on the direction you should be taking, then two or even three themes can be all right. But it is impossible to form any sort of judgement on a mish-mash of different pictures.

I'm not arguing with you: merely thanking you for giving me something to think about in a way I'd not considered it before.

Cheers,

R.

I do agree to some extent with Teuthida on the importance of sequence and narrative in photography especially since this relates to my preferred photographic medium (photo books) but I would be very wary of making any generalisations on the basis of my own preferences.

The kind of photographic work that is among the most highly regarded on the art market these days, i.e. work such as that of Gursky, is all about the single picture.
Also, while you're right one can probably critique pictures by HCB singularly whithout looking at other images in the sequence, this is not something one should generalise. It's understandeable that 'decisive moment' photography produces images that can stand on their own but not all photography works like this. One of my favourite recent photo books, Ron Jude's 'Lick Creek Line', starts out with five consequitive images of water splashing in a river. None of the images is remarkable by itself but that sequence, IMO, is a powerful way to set the stage and the water is almost audible.
Your 'Have a theme' point is certainly important but, again, I would be wary of saying that a mish-mash of different pictures cannot work. Roe Ethridge's recent book 'Le Luxe' is a wonderful mish-mash of all sorts of pictures and while this kind of ecclectic 'all-over-the-place-ness' is probably the most difficult thing to pull off, I think he did it. I can't say it's my favourite book of last year but it's certainly very interesting.

 

[Teuthida]

This is an intriguing thought. Even great single images from people like HCB and Ronis are part of a body of work, an individual way of seeing --

HCB is really the exception to the rule, I think. His images are so densely packed with information and aesthetic cues that they stand on their own. I also think his fame is a function of his historical moment. He is celebrated, rightly so, as someone who invented photography as pregnant moment. He "discovered" a certain use for small, handheld cameras and developed an aesthetic around that use. I would argue that the aesthetic itself was his theme. Given past history and the ongoing ubiquity of instant photography, that "theme" is closed to us.

 

[Jamie123]

Given past history and the ongoing ubiquity of instant photography, that "theme" is closed to us.

I'd be careful with such assessments that rely on a teleological concept of art history. None of us knows what the future holds and just because something is 'over' for the moment doesn't mean it's never coming back. Granted, I pesonally cannot imagine how this particular kind of work could be done in an intersting way today but then again, the world is not limited by my lack of imagination.

 

[Sparrow]

It seems blindingly obvious that the appreciation of any photo is conditional. If the person viewing an image is unaware of its provenance or are seeing it out of context they will offer a different opinion on it than they would if they knew the artist or the story surrounding it.

In the summer of 2010 my daughter and I did lots of galleries as a preparation for her first term at art-college. Her views on what she saw were really interesting, I don't think she would hold those same views now because for better or worse she will be conforming to the consensus of her peer group. Just look how silly that Flickr delete-me criticism group looked when judging HCB's photo of that cyclist by normal criteria

 

[Jack Conrad]

Beyond a few technical details, it's my very important opinion that criticism primarily teaches criticism, which inevitably leads to an authoritarian state filled with technocratic managers and homeowners associations.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I do agree to some extent with Teuthida on the importance of sequence and narrative in photography especially since this relates to my preferred photographic medium (photo books) but I would be very wary of making any generalisations on the basis of my own preferences.

The kind of photographic work that is among the most highly regarded on the art market these days, i.e. work such as that of Gursky, is all about the single picture.
Also, while you're right one can probably critique pictures by HCB singularly whithout looking at other images in the sequence, this is not something one should generalise. It's understandeable that 'decisive moment' photography produces images that can stand on their own but not all photography works like this. One of my favourite recent photo books, Ron Jude's 'Lick Creek Line', starts out with five consequitive images of water splashing in a river. None of the images is remarkable by itself but that sequence, IMO, is a powerful way to set the stage and the water is almost audible.
Your 'Have a theme' point is certainly important but, again, I would be wary of saying that a mish-mash of different pictures cannot work. Roe Ethridge's recent book 'Le Luxe' is a wonderful mish-mash of all sorts of pictures and while this kind of ecclectic 'all-over-the-place-ness' is probably the most difficult thing to pull off, I think he did it. I can't say it's my favourite book of last year but it's certainly very interesting.

Highlight 1: But do Gursky's tableau pictures exist outside the context of his body of work? Is he not, to be brutal, a fashionable artist? Think of the rise and fall and return of Alma-Tadema.

Highlight 2: My argument was solely in the form of 'what to do if you want a critique of your pictures' and I think I'd stick with it from that particular viewpoint. I completely agree with everything else.

Cheers,

R.

 

[ruby.monkey]

Yes if a) the poster has asked for critique and b) I can provide a more constructive response than "it's crap and I hate it!"; otherwise, no.

 

[Jamie123]

Highlight 1: But do Gursky's tableau pictures exist outside the context of his body of work? Is he not, to be brutal, a fashionable artist? Think of the rise and fall and return of Alma-Tadema.

Highlight 2: My argument was solely in the form of 'what to do if you want a critique of your pictures' and I think I'd stick with it from that particular viewpoint. I completely agree with everything else.

Cheers,

R.

Yes, but what I meant was that a Gursky picture is not a fragment of a larger art work. One picture is a single art work and you can look at all the art works he makes and then form a judgement on his merit as an artist but the point of a single picture does not rely on that of another (for the most part). In a book that's constructed narratively, however, the pictures are often meant to take you from one point to another in a specific sequence. The book is the art work and it's made up of a bunch of images. Judging an image individually would be akin to picking out one sentence from a story. It might be a great sentence or it might be a boring one but neither judgement says much about whether or not the story is good.

Anyways, I'm just making examples here and I'm simplifying a bit but the main point I'm trying to make is that 'it's all about the sequence' is just as wrong as saying 'it's all about the single image'. It can be either one or a mix of both, there's not one 'essential' way to do photography.

As for your second point, I do agree that if you want a critique of your pictures you should have an idea of what you're trying to achieve with the pictures other than showing that you can make pretty pictures. But I think making any kind of limitation in relation to suject matter (i.e. variety thereof) or style is too narrow a view. Of course the more you move away from structural, topical and aesthetic unity (does that make sense??), the harder it is for the viewer to 'read' the work but I wouldn't say it's impossible.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Yes, but what I meant was that a Gursky picture is not a fragment of a larger art work. One picture is a single art work and you can look at all the art works he makes and then form a judgement on his merit as an artist but the point of a single picture does not rely on that of another (for the most part). In a book that's constructed narratively, however, the pictures are often meant to take you from one point to another in a specific sequence. The book is the art work and it's made up of a bunch of images. Judging an image individually would be akin to picking out one sentence from a story. It might be a great sentence or it might be a boring one but neither judgement says much about whether or not the story is good.

Anyways, I'm just making examples here and I'm simplifying a bit but the main point I'm trying to make is that 'it's all about the sequence' is just as wrong as saying 'it's all about the single image'. It can be either one or a mix of both, there's not one 'essential' way to do photography.

As for your second point, I do agree that if you want a critique of your pictures you should have an idea of what you're trying to achieve with the pictures other than showing that you can make pretty pictures. But I think making any kind of limitation in relation to subject matter (i.e. variety thereof) or style is too narrow a view. Of course the more you move away from structural, topical and aesthetic unity (does that make sense??), the harder it is for the viewer to 'read' the work but I wouldn't say it's impossible.

Highlight: Sure. What intrigued me is the question of how far, in fact, we normally do judge a picture in the context of a body of work. Some pictures transcend a body of work; others are heavily dependent on a body of work (fashion).

Second para: I think we are saying pretty much the same thing, with the qualification that without some form of unity, there's rarely much the critic can say.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Bill Clark]

I always took in the process that included helpful suggestions my mentor & friend Monte Zucker, who would gently give me his thoughts with photographs I asked for his advice. A photographer who is a member of our TCPPA is very good at giving both the positives and constructive advice for improvement. Very few can do that.

Ultimately, I find the best critique occurs when, as Dean Collins said, "beauty is in the eye of the checkbook holder!"

 

[ChipMcD]

I have seen very little constructive criticism of other's work here. Generally, what is offered as criticism is a transparent attempt to focus attention on the poster's alleged erudition, connection to the "art" world or "professional" photography skills. Generally, poster's offer few, if any suggestions on how the photograph could have been improved.

If you want to see what is, in my view, more helpful criticism, check out 1x.com's offering in this area. It's very tough, but I think someone willing to seek criticism there will likely come away with some suggestions on how to improve.

 

[Jamie123]

Highlight: Sure. What intrigued me is the question of how far, in fact, we normally do judge a picture in the context of a body of work. Some pictures transcend a body of work; others are heavily dependent on a body of work (fashion).

I think what I'm trying to say is that there are two senses of context at play here that we shouldn't necessarily get mixed up. One is the context of an image in the artists oevre and the other is the context of an image in a specific project/series.
You can have a somewhat boring picture in a specific series that's really good because it's exactly the right image at the right place. It might just be the case that a boring picture is needed in the sequence. In that case it's a good picture just not necessarily good on it's own. The context makes the picture good in that sequence.
However, there is also the case where an artist (e.g. Gursky) produces various works, some of which are better than others, but even the bad ones sell for high prices because they are made by that artist. I this case the context does not make the (presumably bad) pictures good but it might make them historically significant (or fashionable).

 

[Roger Hicks]

I think what I'm trying to say is that there are two senses of context at play here that we shouldn't necessarily get mixed up. One is the context of an image in the artists oevre and the other is the context of an image in a specific project/series.
You can have a somewhat boring picture in a specific series that's really good because it's exactly the right image at the right place. It might just be the case that a boring picture is needed in the sequence. In that case it's a good picture just not necessarily good on it's own. The context makes the picture good in that sequence.
However, there is also the case where an artist (e.g. Gursky) produces various works, some of which are better than others, but even the bad ones sell for high prices because they are made by that artist. I this case the context does not make the (presumably bad) pictures good but it might make them historically significant (or fashionable).

All indisputably true.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Giving an honest and --to exponentially make the job harder-- constructive feedback is actually a skill that most don't have. Some do not understand the difference between attacking and critiquing (either giving it and/or taking it), which pigeonholes their reaction into only one category.

Many times, even if it is constructive, it may be plagued with personal (mis)judgement calls or give an insight as to whether they understand what they're looking at or not.

Some people are practical (i.e. commercial photographers) and do not understand photos that don't have --as they see it-- a purpose or point. Some are very biased against being practical, and do not understand photos that have what they see as a very specific (some call it "clinical" or "academic") point.

Judging a photo is like judging "exotic" cuisine: if you only think that mother's is the only one worth in the world, then that's that. Although sometimes rotten milk is rotten milk (or is it somebody else's prized buttermilk?)

It also goes for saying that you like a photo: just saying "it's good" is as deep as saying "it's bad" all by itself. Context and reasoning helps far more than an unidimensional pat in the back or kick in the groin.

 

[I Love Film]

When I was working at a magazine around 1975, I had no idea who Diane Arbus was, but I remember picking out a bunch of her photos from somewhere and telling the other editors I liked them. I then learned that she was well-known and recently deceased.

One afternoon, some guy that did other work for us came up and had SEVERAL of her boxed sets of photos. (Box of Ten) in some sort of plastic box. I don't know where he got them, but they were the real McCoy.

He wanted $2500 for one set. I flipped through them, and would have liked to buy one, but the price for me at the time was very steep. $2500 was a lot more money in 1975.

He then dropped his price to $2000, finally to $1500, but I told him no, I didn't have the money.

This turned out to have been a poor decision on my part.

 

[Bill Clark]

In Toastmasters, as an evaluator, we always start the process by finding at least one good item that the speaker did. I've seen a few get up to speak, walk to the lectern and that's all they do. They're so nervous they forget what they're going to talk about! In that case we compliment them by saying something like, "you were brave enough to walk up to the lectern! We are here to help you make a speech the next time."

Then the evaluator will make one or two suggestions to help the speaker improve the next time! Not criticize but recommendation(s) to help improve for the next time.

We will end on a high note and again find some item(s) that will help build enthusiasm for the speaker to entice them to want to present another time. Then another. And another.

Why can't photographers treat people the same way? Don't you want to help them? Does being cruel really help? Is the judge building a path for the photographer to submit again? And again? And again?

What does the judge want to accomplish?

If you are the judge, it's in your hands and what you say and how you say it can mean the difference between success and failure for the photographer.

It's your choice.

Will you help?

 

[Bill Clark]

Interesting read (Dedication part):

http://books.google.com/books?id=iA...illips photographing women dedication&f=false

 

[I Love Film]

When people want a critique, they are usually asking for "artistic" criticism. This is usually when they are told they have a tin eye and they have an existential crisis.

Below, you are talking about a technical critique. This is completely a horse of a different color and is something most people tolerate well.

You can do that at any art school. We had critiques at IU that were very merciless.

If someone asks me what I think of a photo, or asks what I think could be done to improve it, I tell them honestly what I think. That doesn't mean being a dick about it.

There's a difference between "Your work sucks, you have no talent, give up and go work at Walmart" and "The image looks like it was printed from an underexposed negative, that's why the dark areas are grainy and lacking detail. When you shoot snow scenes, give a couple stops more exposure than the camera's meter indicates. Cameras meters are fooled by images with large amounts of white, and will give underexposure."

The first critique is just meanspirited, while the second tells them what is wrong AND how to fix it.

 

[Doug]

....If you are the judge, it's in your hands and what you say and how you say it can mean the difference between success and failure for the photographer.

It's your choice.

Will you help?

Bill, I think this sets a good tone for learning and enjoyment; finding a positive way to “criticize”. I remember that method from my time in Toastmasters, until the group disbanded. Many years prior, as I came out of the military with a new photo hobby, my uncle offered guidance of a similar kind, greatly appreciated. I still accentuate the positive; eliminate the negative... as the song goes. 🙂