A Level Playing field - for Critique

[Ed Sutton]

I think you will always have people who think photography (there own or others) is Art and people who don't really view it in that way.

The difficulty is that photography can be both art and not-art at the same time in different viewers' eyes, and that can change over time. How photographs are perceived, no matter what the intentions of the photographer, is always controlled by the audience.

 

[simon ess]

I often see it mentioned in threads like this that people sometimes respond to crit by saying something along the lines of, "well it's art".

How often does that actually happen?

 

[Steve Smith]

I find that it is possible to like things which are artistically or technically awful and to not like things yet still acknowledge that they are good.

There is a lot of music which I don't like but that's no reason to think of it as being no good. Equally, there is a lot of music I like which is simplistic cr*p!


Steve.

 

[MickSturbs]

perhaps we could just have this installed as one of the emoticons...

 

[Steve Smith]

I often see it mentioned in threads like this that people sometimes respond to crit by saying something along the lines of, "well it's art".

Often there is a complaint such as "that's not art". Well it is, but it could just be very bad art.


Steve.

 

[Pookeyhead]

I often see it mentioned in threads like this that people sometimes respond to crit by saying something along the lines of, "well it's art".

How often does that actually happen?

Because they know sod all about art.

[edit].. sorry, misread that as how does it happen. How often?... to be honest, I've never actually seen it personally. I'm just trusting these good people and assuming it does.

 

[big soft moose]

I've just given feedback to a set of images that gave the following advice

"Fabulous images. You got more? A great commentary on the reliance upon and influence of the automobile in US culture.
None of the little technical gripes you'll no doubt receive are important. Listen to them, learn from them, but essentially these images' raw, honest ability to communicate far outstrips such petty concern. Well curated and edited too. I don't mean PP... I mean the sense of unity and uniformity in feel, shape, crop etc. They're a set.. they're the beginnings of a body of work."

I stand by that. However, that's not to say that all "art" should ignore technicalities at all.. hence my comments on Burtinsky further up, and why I make a point in saying that he should listen and learn from technical crit, but in this instance, the images would have been somehow neutered... numbed by applying the that level of precision to them.

See Ive just looked at that thread and I wouldn't have taken that meaning from them - to my mind if that kind of explanation was given by the OP I'd see it as arty farty balderdash being used to cloak poor technique - a shot of a house with no real focal point , an incredibly grainy and soft shot of some traffic, and a third shot of a multi story car park , doesnt for me have any clear narrative , or a sense of uniformity of style (apart from being in black and white). I'm not sure what you think they are communicating, but for me advising him to ignore the technical pointers is poor advice, as the only worthwhile shot in the set, the second one would be imessurably 'better' if it were less soft and less grainy

for me art doesnt have to be black and white and grainy , nor does it being art excuse poor technique - however that thread is a classic example of the sort of thing where i wouldn't bother giving technical advice , because theres a high chance (higher still after your post) that it wouldn't be welcomed or listened to.

 

[Stevie-]

I've just given feedback to a set of images that gave the following advice

I know. I saw



I'm not implying anything about you. I'm just saying that it IS the typical response, and TYPICALLY it is said because the person doesn't understand art. I am surprised however that someone with an art education is of the opinion that art is either good, or bad based on nothing more than whether you like it or not. You like it or not based on whether you liek it or not, yeah But that's not a measure of whether it's art. I like Top Gear, but it's not art. I like cheesy trance music, but that's not art either. It is a creative endeavour, and has it's own merits, but it' not art. I think you're right... the word "art" is not something you can just use in this context. It's too broad, and seems to segregate. However, it usually does distil down to this level when you have a wide range of experience and opinion in such a thread.

I don't think I said Art is either good or bad, did I? If I implied that I didnt mean it. Who Am I to decide that (who are you? who is anyone!?) But in reality and in terms of this forum the vast majority of images you either like or don't like Its not really an art critics forum.

There is ART I will never understand. There is Art I like but don't get. The reverse is also true.

There was an art student and dundee who for here final, dunno what the term is, thing. Had produced as series, I forget if it was films or stills, of herself masturbating. She received a 1st. Is that art? of course it is. If one persons somewhere thinks its art then thats what it is. All art is not inherently 'good'.

 

[Pookeyhead]

See Ive just looked at that thread and I wouldn't have taken that meaning from them - to my mind if that kind of explanation was given by the OP I'd see it as arty farty balderdash being used to cloak poor technique - a shot of a house with no real focal point , an incredibly grainy and soft shot of some traffic, and a third shot of a multi story car park , doesnt for me have any clear narrative , or a sense of uniformity of style (apart from being in black and white). I'm not sure what you think they are communicating, but for me advising him to ignore the technical pointers is poor advice, as the only worthwhile shot in the set, the second one would be imessurably 'better' if it were less soft and less grainy

for me art doesnt have to be black and white and grainy , nor does it being art excuse poor technique - however that thread is a classic example of the sort of thing where i wouldn't bother giving technical advice , because theres a high chance (higher still after your post) that it wouldn't be welcomed or listened to.

But I'm not telling him to ignore them. I told him quite explicitly to listen and learn from them.

A) It's not a house, it's a MOtel.
B) the isolated, scared, harassed looking figure in a sea of automobiles.
C) the rack upon rack of neatly stacked cars

You're really not seeing how this is a commentary on US car culture and it's impact?

 

[big soft moose]

You're really not seeing how this is a commentary on US car culture and it's impact?

It could be, put like that - but those three pictures on their own don't give that narrative - I wouldn't say the figure looks particularly harrased or scared either , its just a guy crossing the street ...

theres also nothing in the OP of that thread to suggest that the poster intended that to be the case - he doesnt even present them as a set he just says " a few pics from my trip to the US" - and asks for ideas for improvement.

I

 

[Stevie-]

I disagree. I think it's much more interesting to consider and to read opinions on what people think the point of an individual image is. The technical stuff you can pretty much work out for yourself. It's necessary for beginners and there's always stuff to learn, but it's a fairly formulaic business.

Considering WHY you or someone else chose to make an image gets to the very heart of what photography is all about. You are creating things for people to look at, so it's fundamental - more fundamental than technical mastery - to think about why those people should bother looking.

Taken slightly out of context or I haven't explained it well enough. Critiquing the technical aspects of the medium used in the piece 'Art' (especially to the artist) is irrelevant (unless asked for specifically) I believe.

If people want to talk about the whys/hows/whatever's. The feelings it makes them feel etc then that is all well and good and many people enjoy that.

 

[Pookeyhead]

It could be, put like that - but those three pictures on their own don't give that narrative - I wouldn't say the figure looks particularly harrased or scared either , its just a guy crossing the street ...

Which is why I asked if he had more, and finished with saying this is the BEGINNINGS of a body of work.

 

[big soft moose]

Which is why I asked if he had more, and finished with saying this is the BEGINNINGS of a body of work.

But the idea that its a hard hitting documentary indictment of the US automobile culture , seems to have sprung pretty much from your imagination . If that had been the brief I still wouldnt have rated these pictures particularly well in delivering it, but theres no indication that they actually were

which leads back to another point about crit - ie if someone is asking for crit its a good idea to give some background on what the idea behind he set was , so that people can comment on whether it delivers

 

[Pookeyhead]

I never said it was a "hard hitting documentary indictment". I said it's a great commentary on...


Images say what they say. Sometimes that's not what you intended them to say. That's also part of the learning involved.

 

[simon ess]

But the idea that its a hard hitting documentary indictment of the US automobile culture , seems to have sprung pretty much from your imagination . If that had been the brief I still wouldnt have rated these pictures particularly well in delivering it, but theres no indication that they actually were

I personally, find it very useful when someone points out that I might be onto something. I might take a set of images with a vague idea of a theme that I can't quite put my finger on. A suggestion like that from Pookeyhead might well focus me to explore the theme further, or it might set my thinking in a different direction altogether.

The point is, it's input. And input, done in the right way, is all good IMO.

 

[Yv]

But the idea that its a hard hitting documentary indictment of the US automobile culture , seems to have sprung pretty much from your imagination . If that had been the brief I still wouldnt have rated these pictures particularly well in delivering it, but theres no indication that they actually were

which leads back to another point about crit - ie if someone is asking for crit its a good idea to give some background on what the idea behind he set was , so that people can comment on whether it delivers

You have hit the nail on the head in many ways there - the thoughts inspired in one person by a photo or set of photos, will be completely different to those inspired in another. Neither person is wrong, or right, just different and arguing the point is almost moot for that reason. However, I do think if people want proper critque, no point system or anything else like that is going to improve matters but what will, or at least might based on past evidence, is an explanation from the photographer [in this, a forum environment with abilities from across the whole scale] what they were trying to achieve in the first place. What was the thinking, was there a plan, or idea or even just a lose concept, especially in those cases where perhaps it is something different to a simple 'record' shot [I use that term quite loosely, because there are some fabulous photos of, for example, birds, but the challenge is in getting the image and composition done well, rather than necessarily 'art' in the 'arty' sense of the word]. I draw your attention to a thread by David from yesterday, his Fylde coastline set, the initial description explained fully what the concept and idea was without giving any technical information on how that was achieved. It was pretty much a perfect introduction imo and allowed viewers to form opinion and offer it with some insight in to how the photographer was thinking.

 

[MWHCVT]

You can look for an find art in pretty much anything, hell I have a friend who studies at the Royal College of Art...I'll be honest I don't really get the concept of his work but I'm very much a traditionalist I know what I like and I know what I don't like an to be honest no amount of knowledge of the stuff I don't like is going to change if I like it or not

I do think that the whole "Art" is a bit of a red herring when it comes offering critique...as is saying of while rules are meant to be broken...it seems some threat this as a carte Blanche to say to hell with what anyone says they just don't understand me/it

Often my work is done purely for my own enjoyment with no particular story to tell...that doesn't mean that people don't find stories hell only in the last couple of days I received a lovely comment on a photos where it was described as

"I like this image for the simple fun it projects... it tells me a story... the pumpkin in Cinderella at the exact moment the magic transforms it into a Coach."

Now I'd have never seen that in my own image

 

[Pookeyhead]

You have hit the nail on the head in many ways there - the thoughts inspired in one person by a photo or set of photos, will be completely different to those inspired in another. .

You also have to remember, we don't KNOW what the guy in that thread intended his images to mean. However, we can hazard a guess. I've no idea where in the US they were taken, but let's assume for argument's sake it's New York. There's no shots of yellow taxis, no shots of the Flatiron building, no shots of the Empire State etc. Now.. it may not be NY, but there are none of that TYPE of shot either.. no landmarks, no iconic buildings, no tourist shots.. nothing. He went all that way, shot... and what he chose to show us are these three images. You saying he only took three images? Nope... I bet he took loads, but he chose these three, edited them in a very unified way, and chose an image with a lone figure, hunched over looking isolated in a sea of car... a shot of a motel... and then a shot of a full, multi-story car park.... Hmmmm.... let's see... what could this mean

Clearly he had a vision of what he wanted, and a clearly formed idea of what he was after. Whether it was a commentary on US car culture or not, only he can say. Shall we invite him to comment? I'm struggling to think of what else the images are meant to portray, as that's all that's in them. He may not have given it such critical thought, but they've been given thought - these are not random images. If they were, he's have not gone to such efforts to crop them all so uniformly, or ensured al three had the same feel. He's onto SOMETHING, and his treatment of the images clearly shows focused intent beyond merely recording his trip to the US.. He's MAKING images now... he wants them to say something. He's well on his road to being a photographer. Who cares is the building is crooked. I bet he even knows that already.

The fact is, despite your best efforts, images can sometimes have a meaning you have not considered, which is exactly why you should encourage crit that goes deeper and starts to examine the meanings of imagery.

 

[Pookeyhead]

Often my work is done purely for my own enjoyment with no particular story to tell.

But at least you're prepared to accept that others see meanings you had not considered, and you're not arguing with them over it. You see it, and accept it.... and furthermore, you probably learned something about your own work.

 

[MWHCVT]

I do know one thing about that thread, the he that keeps being referred to is actually a she minor detail I know but still

 

[posiview]

Dive in, give crit. The forum dies without it.

I'd agree. Post and be damned. You should get polite and balanced crit. You could be sitting on some gems. Get them posted

And give crit, your opinion matters and the more you crit the better your photography will get.

Cheers.

 

[Pookeyhead]

I do know one thing about that thread, the he that keeps being referred to is actually a she minor detail I know but still

I hate it when that happens. Make me look sexist

 

[big soft moose]

Images say what they say. Sometimes that's not what you intended them to say. That's also part of the learning involved.

this is true - but they say different things to different people - and sometimes they don't say anything in particular to anyone , so although crit and suggestions on interpretation can be useful they are always only going to be a matter of artistic interpretation, and thus may be inherently less useful than technical crit in terms of improving unless the OP says "I was trying to say X have i suceeded ?"

 

[The23rdman]

I only have one criteria for art. It must stop me in my tracks.

 

[big soft moose]

these three, edited them in a very unified way, .

see this is a classic example of different strokes/diffeent folks as i wouldn't even say those three were editted in a unified way - unless you count being B&W soft and grainy as a style of proccesing - It could be a narrative as you suggest, or it could be 'heres three pictures from my american trip what do you think"

or if we were looking for a narrative there are other possibilities - may be its about architecture and how its changed , heres an old motel , here's a street scene, heres a juxtaposition of old and new.

Unless the Op tells people what if anything he intended the picture to say , guessing is a fairly hopeless excercise

 

[MWHCVT]

But at least you're prepared to accept that others see meanings you had not considered, and you're not arguing with them over it. You see it, and accept it.... and furthermore, you probably learned something about your own work.

The thing is though that's not where the issues arise from...it's when that artist is not prepared to accept that someone doesn't see their vision in an image...I'm happy for anyone to see anything in my work, while I reserve the right to not always see it myself

I hate it when that happens. Make me look sexist

Worse when I happens down the pub though

 

[Pookeyhead]

The thing is though that's not where the issues arise from...it's when that artist is not prepared to accept that someone doesn't see their vision in an image...I'm happy for anyone to see anything in my work, while I reserve the right to not always see it myself

I'm always fascinated to hear opinions on something I took with a definite plan or purpose. For me the reaction to work is almost as fascinating as it's creation. The day I stop learning is the day I jack this in and do something else.

 

[Steve Smith]

I only have one criteria for art. It must stop me in my tracks.

But that's not a criteria to decide if it's art or not, just if you personally like it.


Steve.

 

[big soft moose]

If we take another example, If I post this for crit

And you tell me that it's clear that i was intending to evoke the tranquility of the scottish wildernes, and that the juxtaposition of the light house is clear symbolism of mans isolation in the wilderness, or some such

Then that helps me not at all (especially as the principal motivation was "oh thats a pretty view, may be i'll be able to sell it as a print")

If you tell me that ive over cooked the processing, blocked the blacks, should have used a grad filter to retain detail in the foreground , that there's cack on the sensor , and the sillohouttes arent quite sharp due to the tripod not being as steady as it should have been - and that generally its not very good , and it could have been done better by doing x,y, z - then thats actually helpful and worthwhile.... and accurate

(btw before anyone starts with 'if thats the best you can do' type comments, this was shot in 2007 with my first DSLR - I'm only using it as an example because it was the first suitable shot that came to hand.)

 

[The23rdman]

But that's not a criteria to decide if it's art or not, just if you personally like it.


Steve.

I didn't for a second say it is. That is simply how I determine what I consider to be "good" art. What determines whether something is art? I would say intent. The artist should have a vision, even if that is only to produce something that makes them happy. The best art, IMO, should stop the internal dialogue because it contains so much new information that it requires looking at the world in a new way to process it.

 

[MWHCVT]

I'm always fascinated to hear opinions on something I took with a definite plan or purpose. For me the reaction to work is almost as fascinating as it's creation. The day I stop learning is the day I jack this in and do something else.

While its not my primary driver I do enjoy others interpretation of my images, the primary driver for me on the whole though is to create a pretty picture and I suspect it's the same for a lot of people I see nothing wrong with that personally

 

[big soft moose]

I didn't for a second say it is. That is simply how I determine what I consider to be "good" art. What determines whether something is art? I would say intent. The artist should have a vision, even if that is only to produce something that makes them happy. The best art, IMO, should stop the internal dialogue because it contains so much new information that it requires looking at the world in a new way to process it.

It also depends on what you mean by art - it could be interpreted as pictures that get hung on the wall - by that definiton my shot above would qualify (well it would have done had i not cocked it up) - but i didnt have a particular vision beyond mercenary.

similarly if someone did a water colour of the same view - would that be art , or would it only be art if they really intended to say something

and if we take the latter definition where does that leave things like Turner's haywain - are we saying that he wasn't an artist because he just recorded pastoral scenes without a motivation of making a comment ?

 

[The23rdman]

It also depends on what you mean by art - it could be interpreted as pictures that get hung on the wall - by that definiton my shot above would qualify (well it would have done had i not cocked it up) - but i didnt have a particular vision beyond mercenary.

similarly if someone did a water colour of the same view - would that be art , or would it only be art if they really intended to say something

and if we take the latter definition where does that leave things like Turner's haywain - are we saying that he wasn't an artist because he just recorded pastoral scenes without a motivation of making a comment ?

Turner does nothing for me though and that is the point about defining art. It is, whatever anyone says and however many stuffy academics try to tie it down, subjective. It depends on so many entirely self-referential things that we have to define it for ourselves.

Hey, that's language for you though and why it can only ever point to the thing rather than being it.

 

[simon ess]

Small point of order - The Haywain is by Constable.

Turner was different kettle of fish altogether.

 

[Pookeyhead]

If we take another example, If I post this for crit

And you tell me that it's clear that i was intending to evoke the tranquility of the scottish wildernes, and that the juxtaposition of the light house is clear symbolism of mans isolation in the wilderness, or some such

Then that helps me not at all (especially as the principal motivation was "oh thats a pretty view, may be i'll be able to sell it as a print")

I could have said that, but in all honesty, I didn't. Not much tranquil going on there. Sunset maybe, but the landscape looks fairly hard, sharp and foreboding. The heavy darkness of it alone make me feel that it's inhospitable. What you're doing is making assumptions about my assumptions. Where will this end?

If you tell me that ive over cooked the processing, blocked the blacks, should have used a grad filter to retain detail in the foreground , that there's cack on the sensor , and the sillohouttes arent quite sharp due to the tripod not being as steady as it should have been - and that generally its not very good , and it could have been done better by doing x,y, z - then thats actually helpful and worthwhile.... and accurate

But that would have been a part of my crit. I wouldn't have commented upon is the darkness of the hills themselves, as I would have assumed that was intentional given how unlikely it would have been to get both sky and hills well exposed without it looking like a dog's dinner anyway. Id have mentioned sensor dust needed retouching. I don't think it's over processed, so that wouldn't have been part of the feedback either. At the size you posted it it's not clear how sharp it is either.


However... this TYPE of image does rely on it also being technically competent, as this TYPE of image only ever relies on that to differentiate it from the shot on a phone by the bloke who could have been stood next to you at the time.

Tranquillity is the last thing I get from this image however.

also.. I can't even see a lighthouse

 

[big soft moose]

also.. I can't even see a lighthouse

ah but its tiny insignificance really says somehing to us about mans insignificance .. its art dammit

Its the tiny square building on the point of land that juts out behind the hill on the mid left - the picture probably would have been improved by getting a shot of it lit up, but at the time i didn't have the technical skills to get it in shot ... next time I go back to skye (this is right at the top beyond dunvegan looking towards harris) i'll probably reshoot it - although i now have a wife and a dog so my appetite for sitting on a hill for hours trying to get the perfect sunset has been dulled

 

[big soft moose]

Small point of order - The Haywain is by Constable.

Turner was different kettle of fish altogether.

good point well made :bang:

 

[The23rdman]

good point well made :bang:

Well whoever painted all that stuff does nothing for me!

 

[Pookeyhead]

similarly if someone did a water colour of the same view - would that be art ,

No. Of course not. Why do people just assume that a painting is art. If it's done with only craft skills and technique as the motivation, it will be as sh1t as a photograph taken with the same motivation.

or would it only be art if they really intended to say something

Not necessarily "say", but capture some feeling, or something that resonates, yes. You incorrectly quoted Turner as the author the Haywain, but taking turner as an example, he creates work to show the sublime. Constable's haywain was popular because it resonated with the recently displaced rural population who moved to cities during the industrial revolution - it reminded them of simpler times, and that still is it's appeal today. Those same people would be VERY unlikely to hang a Turner on their walls. Without seeming snobbish... you are more likely to find a print of the Haywain on the walls of those who don't really understand art. It's simple. Olde Worlde England and all that. It's pretty.

 

[big soft moose]

No. Of course not. Why do people just assume that a painting is art. If it's done with only craft skills and technique as the motivation, it will be as sh1t as a photograph taken with the same motivation.

so everything thats not art is sh1t - I best go tell most of the proffesional photographers in the world not to bother then

Not necessarily "say", but capture some feeling, or something that resonates, yes. You incorrectly quoted Turner as the author the Haywain, but taking turner as an example, he creates work to show the sublime. Constable's haywain was popular because it resonated with the recently displaced rural population who moved to cities during the industrial revolution - it reminded them of simpler times, and that still is it's appeal today. Those same people would be VERY unlikely to hang a Turner on their walls.

I'm sory but thatds just daft - how could any of those people have afforded to buy , or inded even view art - they weren't the auidence he was painting for - those people would have been very unlikely to hang constable, turner or indeed any artist on their walls as spending money on food and clothing their children would have been a higher priority