Beginner How to start reading photos to make good critiques?

Merlin5 said:
Admittedly not the best example I could have posted given that most of the people posting in this discussion don't even practise or care that much for street photography.
Click to expand...
IDK about most, or others... while I generally choose not to do street photography due to a lack of interest, that's not to say I don't ever do it, or can't.

Indian Dancer (street art fair)


Two Men Reading (Harrisburg PA)


A Perplexing Problem (China)


The Morning After (New Orleans)
 
Last edited:
Thought this clip from a recent video from Sean Tucker was interesting:-

 
sk66 said:
Yes, for me it doesn't say much... it's mostly just a bunch of people standing around.
If I try I can envision the spinning ball is a globe and impart some meaning to that and the other's relationship to "the spinning world"... but I'm really stretching.

The fact that he's a recognized artist and they are asking a lot of money for a print doesn't change anything IMO... a picture of a potato sold for $1M; that doesn't make it great art as far as I'm concerned.

I admitted way back that I don't necessarily get "art." And when it comes to "art" there really is no debate/argument, and there really cannot be any critique. My not liking it or not getting it is irrelevant. As is someone fawning over it seeing this or that meaning in it... That's irrelevant as well; because it's not (necessarily) what someone else will get/see, and it's not (necessarily) what the artist intended and meant to say/communicate.
Click to expand...

Steven, that's all fair comment. And I must admit, I can never understand why some art gets sold for millions or becomes popular and famous, such as Tracy Emins 'Unmade Bed' or the 'Pile Of Bricks' that I think was at the Tate. To me it's pretentious nonsense. On the other hand there might be something I just don't understand about that art. I'd like to see the picture of the million dollar spud. That seems utterly crazy!

Going back to Alex Webb, I think you might enjoy this 10 minute video. It's an analysis of the design to one of his photos. I'm not linking it for any reason other than I believe you like the technical side of photography. It was you that helped me enormously a few years ago when I was trying to get to grips with long exposures, f-stops and ISO. I still have all that information documented in my notes on my phone.

So you might (or might not) find this fascinating. There was an analysis video I saw months ago of the Alex Webb photo I posted but unfortunately I can't find it. However, this is about a similarly layered photo of his.

View: https://youtu.be/MLkIIdJ3MXM?si=jucmPpgKNsXHNesi
 
sk66 said:
Yes, for me it doesn't say much... it's mostly just a bunch of people standing around.
If I try I can envision the spinning ball is a globe and impart some meaning to that and the other's relationship to "the spinning world"... but I'm really stretching.

The fact that he's a recognized artist and they are asking a lot of money for a print doesn't change anything IMO... a picture of a potato sold for $1M; that doesn't make it great art as far as I'm concerned.

I admitted way back that I don't necessarily get "art." And when it comes to "art" there really is no debate/argument, and there really cannot be any critique. My not liking it or not getting it is irrelevant. As is someone fawning over it seeing this or that meaning in it... That's irrelevant as well; because it's not (necessarily) what someone else will get/see, and it's not (necessarily) what the artist intended and meant to say/communicate.
Click to expand...
That Webb shot 'works' as an arrangement of shapes, colours and tone in a harmonious way. It also captures an instant in ordinary life that has something of the extraordinary about it. It's gone beyond being a photograph and become a picture.

If this means nothing to you it's evidence of the lack of respect there is for education in the visual arts. Which I think is sad.

Now...

This photograph could fit in 'street' photography context, it could fit in an editorial context as an illustration about visiting Tehuantepec, it could slot in to a documentary series about Mexico, it could stand alone in a frame in an art gallery, it's already an historical document as almost forty years have passed since it was taken..

This is a strange quality that photographs have. They're never just one thing.
 
Well, if we're going down that particular rabbit hole then you should read this:

en.wikipedia.org

Rhein II - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

I've seen it in the pigment, and it's kind of interesting with the writeup and reasons, but without that few would look twice. But don't worry about that - people will pay what they'll pay and it has nothing to do with the value of something.


It's probably worth saying in the light of Dave's comment:
If this means nothing to you it's evidence of the lack of respect there is for education in the visual arts.
Click to expand...

We recognise different things in photos as having interest. I like strong graphics, shapes, light and dark, reflections and symmetry. I have almost zero interest in ordinary people or animals unless they're doing quite extraordinary things, though sometimes a wildlife or people picture will chime for me. So it is perfectly OK not to recognise instinctively the visual value in something that makes other people jump about with excitement. There's more to this than simple education.
 
Last edited:
hands up all those educated in the visual arts - I got grade 3 for my GCE Art back in 1963 at Grammar School ........... dose that count?
 
Merlin5 said:
So you might (or might not) find this fascinating. There was an analysis video I saw months ago of the Alex Webb photo I posted but unfortunately I can't find it. However, this is about a similarly layered photo of his
Click to expand...
I would be much more interested in hearing from the photographer about what they were thinking/seeing and wanted to capture/convey... unfortunately that's often impossible.

There is so much crap people make up when evaluating someone else's picture. Like really, the photographer waited for those elements to all fall on all four "rule of thirds" intersections simultaneously??? For one thing, the "rule of thirds" isn't a real thing... at best it is an approximation/bastardization of the golden ratio. The whole thing is really just about "dynamic imbalance" more than anything else. Plus his drawing of the intersections aren't even in the right locations. And all of the people in the image that are looking out of frame are directing your view to the center of the image? That's a bunch of made-up nonsense...

Here's an example of some "expert" explaining how the golden ratio spiral is relevant to a picture... also complete nonsense.

Untitled-1.jpg

I'm not saying you cannot review a picture and find/explain/understand real reasons why the image may work; you certainly can... I.e. the color contrast he points out is certainly valid; although he missed the building/flow within it that I see...
 
Last edited:
Ed Sutton said:
If this means nothing to you it's evidence of the lack of respect there is for education in the visual arts. Which I think is sad.
Click to expand...
Rather presumptuous don't you think... I know more than the average about art theory (color/composition/contrast/etc/etc).
But we can agree to disagree about the quality/art/meaning of an image.
 
to me street is about "anything goes" - nothing complicated - enjoy it, think about it, take shots and have some fun, but enjoy it ........ and for once you can throw the majority of so called "technical requirements" out of the window and best of all you can use a cheap camera, (if that's all you have).
 
BillN_33 said:
hands up all those educated in the visual arts - I got grade 3 for my GCE Art back in 1963 at Grammar School ........... dose that count?
Click to expand...
OK, I think a Grade 1 at Art 'O' Level trumps that :banana: :D
 
BillN_33 said:
Was yours GCSE or GCE - mine is the much more antique GCE and therefore more valuable ..............
Click to expand...
Well, it wasn't a GCSE! How dare you :D :D :D
 
Pound Coin said:
Well, it wasn't a GCSE! How dare you :D :D :D
Click to expand...

LeeRatters said:
Mine was an A in GCSE Art.

Don't think it's worth much though.... :ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...

I was press ganged into taking Art - I was useless - I wanted to do Woodwork but the numbers were down in Art with no boys in the class, only girls - so 3 of us were "transferred" - that's my excuse - a S Yorks Grammar School in the 60's
 
Ed Sutton said:
If this means nothing to you it's evidence of the lack of respect there is for education in the visual arts. Which I think is sad.
Click to expand...
This is getting very close to "you don't like it because you don't understand it".
 
Cockney said:
This is getting very close to "you don't like it because you don't understand it".
Click to expand...
Hence the need for improved education. ;)

"I know what I like, and I like what I know;
getting better in your wardrobe, stepping one beyond your show":D
 
Last edited:
It's good that we have been able to have a full discussion on the thread - I'm sure that it's helped a lot - I think that this is maybe what the Fo
Ed Sutton said:
Hence the need for improved education. ;)

"I know what I like, and I like what I know;
getting better in your wardrobe, stepping one beyond your show":D
Click to expand...

that is a universal truth but it goes both ways and it doesen't mean that what the so called "experts" feed us is in any way authentic, correct or indeed meaningful
 
Last edited:
Ed Sutton said:
Hence the need for improved education. ;)

"I know what I like, and I like what I know;
getting better in your wardrobe, stepping one beyond your show":D
Click to expand...

Appreciation can have several meanings, but as Brian said, it's important that we separate enjoyment and the value we assign to something from our understanding. One may like and value or not like and consider worthless the Beano, but understanding is available to almost everyone. Other forms of art aren't so different apart from being less accessible and better marketed.
 
BillN_33 said:
hands up all those educated in the visual arts - I got grade 3 for my GCE Art back in 1963 at Grammar School ........... dose that count?
Click to expand...
and spelling? ;)
 
Ed Sutton said:
Hence the need for improved education. ;)

"I know what I like, and I like what I know;
getting better in your wardrobe, stepping one beyond your show":D
Click to expand...
There's a genesis of an idea there.
 
BillN_33 said:
hands up all those educated in the visual arts - I got grade 3 for my GCE Art back in 1963 at Grammar School ........... dose that count?
Click to expand...
Oddly enough, I got a grade 1, but that was the first year they allowed photography, in place of drawing, painting or whatever.

My theory is it was the first time they'd ever seen a 20x16 print! :naughty:
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
Oddly enough, I got a grade 1, but that was the first year they allowed photography, in place of drawing, painting or whatever.

My theory is it was the first time they'd ever seen a 20x16 print! :naughty:
Click to expand...

I did poster and plant, on the basis that I could make it all up - I was rubbish at "normal" stuff
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top