A question to you David and others that have been in photography or art generally amongst peers a long time and looked at the history of individuals, because as you can imagine, this is a topic that crops up in the staff room a LOT! Usually because someone has offered no nonsense critique [technical or artistic] and someone else feels offended by it, sometimes the OP, more often someone else, which really galls, the whole being offended on someone else's behalf
LOL... yep... people rush to the aid of someone else... usually not through altruism or empathy, but because they see an opportunity to gain succour and support against someone they don't like. Either that, or people get upset if you also offer crit on an image that disagrees with theirs, then start arguing with you in someone else's thread. Just politics Yvonne. The OP often gets upset... yes, but sometimes upset and confrontational.
. How much of the nice shot effect and fear of discussing your own work critically is a recent thing, how much is a flickr/facebook generational thing, or has it always been the case?
I think it's worse, because it's online and easier to be confrontational, but I think it's mainly because people get so many useless "Wow.. awesome" comments from the general public, they really do get a distorted opinion of their own work, and get used to the same meaningless, but supportive comments. When they get someone questioning it, they assume you're wrong. Weird behaviour if you ask me: If I get told by all my mates that my headaches are nothing to worry about, but one person who happens to be a doctor tells me I really need to worry and should go for a scan, I wouldn't argue.. would you? That's what happens in here... not only that, but then you get accused of being arrogant just for being a Doctor... like I should be humble, show humility and not mention that I'm a doctor. In real life.. that would be weird right? Someone falls over..."Make way.. let me through, I'm a Doctor"... you wouldn't say in reply.."Oh really? Who do you think you are, coming in here, being arrogant, letting everyone know you're a doctor". However... "I know a thing or two about this, as this is what I do for a living" is pretty much read as "LOOK AT ME I@M BRILLIANT" by people.
Amateur photography, to many, is just a competitive sport and such behaviour is seen as a chellenge, and they are fiercely competitive in return. Even the armchair photographers get competitive regarding how much they know. I must admit I've trolled a few threads just to see how far they'll go in order to "win". Not proud of it... but consider it research
I've noticed a great increase in people who don't actually care about the work, so long as they get the positive feedback. Deny them the positive feedback and they won't thank you for pointing out how the work can be improved. If you're the only person criticising in a thread full of "Great shot" feedback, you're clearly wrong. Not that I ever think I'm right, but the point of crit is to present your opinion and thoughts, and then let the OP decide from the feedback given what makes sense and what does not. What happens though, is that person A) gives a reading, then person B) says "Not sure I agree with that... I think what person A suggested would result in [insert alternative opinion here], only to have person A then retaliate against person B because person A feels undermined, and from then on the OP is forgotten entirely and it becomes a competition between A and B rather than a forum to give differing opinions for the OP's benefit.
The next problem is that, in my opinion
[yes.. we all need to say this too... it indemnifies us against being called arrogant LOL] many don't know how to crit. Like @phill V said further up the thread, this is why you get this "Nice shot", or "Lovely and sharp"... or "Focus is a bit off" stuff going on. I's as if nothing else matters: Do you like it, and is it sharp. There's a genuine disbelief that critical matters such as what the image is saying, and how it says it is not important, and to discuss such things is snobbish, or worse still, arty-farty b******s. Best example is a while back now. Some shot of a woman in a leather mini-skirt and fishnets in a "grungy" urban setting. When I asked whether having her look like a prostitute was intention or not, I get accused of being rude, and the usual suspects come out with "Is this how you treat your students".. LOL You mean would I question whether your fashion shot looks like a cheap glamour shot that objectifies women, and was that your intention? Damned right I would, because if that person had published that anywhere else he'd be at best laughed at, or at worst, labelled a misogynistic, sexist knob... it was in HIS interest to hear that crit. What happened though, is that the usual anti-art crowd steamed in, reassured him that his lads mag soft porn was in fact brilliant (which it was TECHNICALLY), and basically edged me out of the picture with the usual "great attitude for a teacher"... as if all teachers have to do is hold your hand and say nice things. At the end of the day, if he actually wanted the shot to be a cheap, titillating glamour shot, all he had to do was say so. Because it was technically good though, that's all that mattered to most and my crit was seen as arty b******s.
This is what happens when you reduce photography to a mere technical exercise, and only judge it by how good it is technically. It's dangerous.
In photographic terms, the digital age has seen an explosion of images available to wide audience, so is it simply the same as it ever was just in greater overall numbers but with roughly the same level of fear, or has that fear increased dramatically [as a ratio, percentage, whatever] with the access to a wider audience?
It's changed in many ways. Photography has been democratised by the internet and social media, and now everyone is a photographer. With that comes the main source of feedback is the public, and the feedback is solely based on whether they "like" it or not, and this is now the measure of whether something is good or not. It causes a dissonance between what they thought was crit and what they finally receive when the work is in front of an experienced photographer who realises that whether you LIKE it or not is almost irrelevant. They suddenly feel very out of their comfort zone, and this does cause fear and anxiety yes.. it's suddenly quite fearful as it's new. Some react well to this, seeing it as a fresh exciting way of improving their work... some see it as a thread to the constant stream of "likes" they've got used to receiving.
None of this happens face to face in a crit session. First.. I think if someone has paid for the privileged to to go uni, or has paid to go to a professional portfolio review given by a professional of standing, then they are more open to the idea that the person in front of them actually knows what they're on about. Online... anyone who challenges anything with any sense of authority is treated very badly.
Crit should be dispassionate, matter of fact. It should stick to the facts. It should be balanced where possible, and any comments should be explained. So.. nothing wrong with saying you like it, but you have to say WHY you like it, and that explanation should be critical and make sense to the OP... there has to be an outcome.. something the OP can go away and consider or practice, or at least think about seriously.
I'm not particularly interested in any critique of my pictures. I shoot for my own enjoyment and I care what my family and friends think and if some random bloke on line doesn't like a shot I'm not going to collapse in tears but others may care more and I personally see no reason to risk offending or upsetting needlessly.
Then why are you interested in giving crit on the work of others if you've no interest in receiving it yourself?
What constitutes "offending or upsetting" in your book?
Disclaimer: This is how I see it based on experience of comparing face to face crit with online crit, and comparing amateur crit with professional crit. No egos have been harmed in the making of this post.
