back alley
IMAGES
do you think that photographers critique photo images harder/harsher than other forms of art?
SteveM_NJ
Well-known
depends on what side of the door you are on,
(if you are on the giving end , you'll probabley say not harsh,
if you are in the receiving end you may be prone to say it is harsh)
both are just a perception anyway.
my perception is - not any more harsh than for other forms of artistic expression.
(if you are on the giving end , you'll probabley say not harsh,
if you are in the receiving end you may be prone to say it is harsh)
both are just a perception anyway.
my perception is - not any more harsh than for other forms of artistic expression.
danielsterno
making soup from mud
I think that every painter is a tuff critic of other painters. Film directors on other directors work (everybody is a film critic these days). Fashion designers- ruthless on other designers works. Chefs are very competitive and so secretive of their process,…. etc, etc. Last, I believe that most artist are usually the toughest critic of their own work…
daveleo
what?
I think so too. And the best of them are brutal editors of their own stuff (I think).
Sejanus.Aelianus
Veteran
I've long felt that "art criticsm" is, fundamentally, an excercise in ego enhancement. I do appreciate that may seem horrid to many readers but I cannot see how it can be anything else.
When all is said and done, I believe that the only thing one can state about any art is "I like it" or " I don't like it". I know that "critics" dress this all up in fancy clothes but that cannot, I think, alter the fact of like or dislike.
So "harsh" criticsism is only an excuse, as I see it, to be unpleasant to someone because the critic does not like the art, the artist or both.
When all is said and done, I believe that the only thing one can state about any art is "I like it" or " I don't like it". I know that "critics" dress this all up in fancy clothes but that cannot, I think, alter the fact of like or dislike.
So "harsh" criticsism is only an excuse, as I see it, to be unpleasant to someone because the critic does not like the art, the artist or both.
Darthfeeble
But you can call me Steve
It seems to me that the less qualified to critique, the more so they are. But then that's a catty critique in itself....... S
Sparrow
Veteran
... most criticise rather than analyse ... a proper analysed critique is too time consuming for most folk
Cold
Established
To answer the question as simply as possible: yes.
To dig a little deeper, there's two things to consider:
First, there's a worthwhile distinction to be made between critiquing the technical merits of a photo vs. the artistic merits. Most replies seem to be with an artistic critique in mind, but as a somewhat more technical pursuit than many other art forms, I think it's important to remember that there is a technical component that can certainly stand up to harsher, more objectively appropriate (or inappropriate) critique. Things like camera shake, poor framing, over/under exposure, missed focus, etc. Within the realm of art critique, it's certainly all subjective, but there's enough of an established sort of canon for critiques harsh and mild to assert themselves based against those guidelines.
Second, I feel that it's only natural for one to make harsher (perhaps 'more thorough' would be just as accurate without the negative connotation?) critiques within a context with which one has familiarity and experience. This extends out from art to other things such as cooking, athletics, software development, beer/wine/spirits, etc.
Why just last night I was out with a friend enjoying a fine cigar and a craft beer while having a similar discussion. I always ask for his expertise in choosing a cigar because I know very little about them, and can really only react to the smoking experience with a vague "I like this one" or "I don't like this one". Beer, on the other hand, I'm far more familiar with, and because of that, my 'critique' of a beer almost never even includes such a subjective as "I liked/disliked it". Rather, because I have the familiarity with the context, I'm going to talk about the malt bill, hop profile, mouthfeel, appearance, and how this sample stacks up against the standard established for its style (similar to some photo critiques based on adherence to standard artistic aesthetics). It's just the ability to better describe something you know.
To dig a little deeper, there's two things to consider:
First, there's a worthwhile distinction to be made between critiquing the technical merits of a photo vs. the artistic merits. Most replies seem to be with an artistic critique in mind, but as a somewhat more technical pursuit than many other art forms, I think it's important to remember that there is a technical component that can certainly stand up to harsher, more objectively appropriate (or inappropriate) critique. Things like camera shake, poor framing, over/under exposure, missed focus, etc. Within the realm of art critique, it's certainly all subjective, but there's enough of an established sort of canon for critiques harsh and mild to assert themselves based against those guidelines.
Second, I feel that it's only natural for one to make harsher (perhaps 'more thorough' would be just as accurate without the negative connotation?) critiques within a context with which one has familiarity and experience. This extends out from art to other things such as cooking, athletics, software development, beer/wine/spirits, etc.
Why just last night I was out with a friend enjoying a fine cigar and a craft beer while having a similar discussion. I always ask for his expertise in choosing a cigar because I know very little about them, and can really only react to the smoking experience with a vague "I like this one" or "I don't like this one". Beer, on the other hand, I'm far more familiar with, and because of that, my 'critique' of a beer almost never even includes such a subjective as "I liked/disliked it". Rather, because I have the familiarity with the context, I'm going to talk about the malt bill, hop profile, mouthfeel, appearance, and how this sample stacks up against the standard established for its style (similar to some photo critiques based on adherence to standard artistic aesthetics). It's just the ability to better describe something you know.
Sparrow
Veteran
... my dad always said there were just two types of beer ... there was beer, and than there was good beer
Sejanus.Aelianus
Veteran
...and then, there's cider!
mfogiel
Veteran
As long as there is the critique, you are being kept alert. It becomes worse, when there is too much accolade. Critique is more informative.
Photo_Smith
Well-known
I think with the best critique comes evaluation and advice. If it's just sniping the latter constructive part is often missing.
It's easy to criticise but it takes real in depth knowledge to be constructive.
Add to that all criticism is just judgemental and some are better judges than others.
It's easy to criticise but it takes real in depth knowledge to be constructive.
Add to that all criticism is just judgemental and some are better judges than others.
Duane Pandorf
Well-known
I just don't ask my wife for her opinions on my "art" (8~)
back alley
IMAGES
Photography and critique on photography when it is on a forum like this is basically "amateurs against other amateurs" just a pastime...
i have seen this here lately and it is getting more intense all the time…
what is worse is amateur against pro/artist/energetic aspiring amateur…a real throwing to the lions affair at times!
daveleo
what?
Sejanus.Aelianus
Veteran
It can be. Mind you, it's sometimes difficult to tell the lions from the christians when that kicks off!
Sparrow
Veteran
...and then, there's cider!
... true, there is clearly also things that are not beer at all
Godfrey
somewhat colored
No.
My experience is that many people providing critique on photographs are inexperienced at providing useful critique. This lack of experience in articulating a criticism makes the critique sound hard/harsh.
Also, many photographers don't actually critique photographs as "art", they criticize photographs on the relatively simplistic technical grounds of sharpness, contrast, etc, missing the larger and more important scopes of message, story, etc.
G
back alley
IMAGES
i agree with that last part especially…we might need a forum section that teaches us how to critique an image...
Bob Michaels
nobody special
We must keep in mind that many photographers believe they have some level of expertise because they have taken 100,000 photos. Now the fact that they have taken the same basic 100 photos over 1,000 times each, never having critically reviewed any of them escapes them. So our number of self designated "experts" who feel justified in passing judgement on others has increased exponentially.
Simultaneously, two other factors have entered:
1) the internet has provided the opportunity for everyone to communicate. Factor in that some much of this is anonymous. Communications are no longer with the person you meet face to face but now with "ILeicaDude" whose location is "way out there" so is very possible to speak without responsibility.
2) an emphasis on technical detail from current technology implying infinite levels of precision resulting from digital measurement technology. No longer is the merit of photos based by many on communication ability or visual impact but now on ability to render highlight or shadow detail or boken.
I wish no ill will on those who solicit opinion from strangers that they know nothing about. I only wish they would give consideration to the source.
Simultaneously, two other factors have entered:
1) the internet has provided the opportunity for everyone to communicate. Factor in that some much of this is anonymous. Communications are no longer with the person you meet face to face but now with "ILeicaDude" whose location is "way out there" so is very possible to speak without responsibility.
2) an emphasis on technical detail from current technology implying infinite levels of precision resulting from digital measurement technology. No longer is the merit of photos based by many on communication ability or visual impact but now on ability to render highlight or shadow detail or boken.
I wish no ill will on those who solicit opinion from strangers that they know nothing about. I only wish they would give consideration to the source.