harsh critic?

[Sparrow]

Yes, I consider leaving people in need of that in their nice belief of being perfect...

That is probably just a language thing, but it is not an answer to the question I asked

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

IMO, there is such a thing as responsible and informed criticism. Whether that criticism is elitist depends a lot on the critic's attitude. Dismissing criticism and insisting on "you either have the photographer's gift or you don't" can be it's own form of elitism (since those making such a claim typically believe that they posses the gift.)

On the first point, we'll just have to agree to differ.

On the second point, I agree that the intention of those involved is germain.

The third point, however, is the exact opposite of what I both intended and wrote, so I am unable to comment on it.

 

[mdarnton]

Whether that criticism is elitist depends a lot on the critic's attitude.

That's funny. More often I see it that the claim of elitism is a reflection of the attitude of the person who chooses to make that claim, and it's invariably used to try to bring down someone else to the accuser's level.

 

[Samouraï]

do you think that photographers critique photo images harder/harsher than other forms of art?

Than other forms of art? Absolutely not (in any way, shape, or form).

Or are you asking if photographers, specifically, judge photography more harshly than they might judge a painting? Anyone with expertise in any specific field is automatically more critical of something in that specific field. That's when you can see past the cliche. You won't be the pleb singing the praises of cliched or mainstream work when you know there is much more depth to be found in much greater works.

 

[emraphoto]

Of course you are welcome to disagree with me. What a boring world it would be, if we all shared the same views. :angel:

However, I simply can't buy into the idea that there is such a thing as a "good" picture or a "bad" picture, nor that there are "rules" that define such things. Just accept that all such elitist attitudes annoy me and add me to your ignore list, if you so wish.

definitely no need for the 'ignore list'

unfortunately there are rules that govern 2 dimensional composition and design that unless you have been through some sort of specific schooling or have an thirst for such knowledge, most overlook. from the colour wheel down through such banal ideas like Gestalt, the core logic exists and through that logic, an individual can certainly designate a photograph as either 'good' or 'bad'. there are few, if any, great photographers (past or present) that ignore this core language.

at some point the idea that 'art' is entirely subjective falls short. primarily this happens due to an ignorance of these theories and their historical development.

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

More often I see it that the claim of elitism is a reflection of the attitude of the person who chooses to make that claim, and it's invariably used to try to bring down someone else to the accuser's level.

I rather believe that statement sums up the real world definition of elitism: "you disagree with me so you're beneath me".

You won't be the pleb singing the praises of cliched or mainstream work when you know there is much more depth to be found in much greater works.

I will agree with that statement, just as soon as someone proves to me that there is such a thing as "much greater works". In the meantime, I will continue to support the idea that everyone is entitled to their opinion.

at some point the idea that 'art' is entirely subjective falls short. primarily this happens due to an ignorance of these theories and their historical development.

I don't take my viewpoint from "ignorance of these theories", quite the opposite, in fact. I simply gave up believing that they held any merit, based on my observation that every theory had several alternatives, each predicated on the prejudice and agenda of a particular "expert".

 

[Sparrow]

definitely no need for the 'ignore list'

unfortunately there are rules that govern 2 dimensional composition and design that unless you have been through some sort of specific schooling or have an thirst for such knowledge, most overlook. from the colour wheel down through such banal ideas like Gestalt, the core logic exists and through that logic, an individual can certainly designate a photograph as either 'good' or 'bad'. there are few, if any, great photographers (past or present) that ignore this core language.

at some point the idea that 'art' is entirely subjective falls short. primarily this happens due to an ignorance of these theories and their historical development.

... Gestalt, banal? ... I'd have said it was the basis of appreciating much two-demential art, what else is there but human perception?