Does the philosphy of criticism still apply?

Chesterton, a heavy-hitter in the arts and letters at the turn of

the century(19th-20th) wrote:"The function of criticism, if it has a

legitimate function at all, can only be one function---that of

dealing with the subconscious part of the author's mind which only

the critic can express, and not with the conscious part of the

author's mind, which the author himself can express. Either

criticism is no good at all(a very defensible position) or else

criticism means saying about an author the very things that would

have made him jump out of his boots." -----from Appreciations and

Criticisms of the Works of Charles Dickens

 

I am wondering if these words could just as well be applied to

criticism in the visual arts(LF photography in particular.) I was

surfing the images posted on Photo.net and this came to my mind in

response to much of the criticism that was being offered, which

seemed to lack some uniform direction or, at least, purpose. I

thought I'd run this by the forum and see what y'all thought.----

Cheers!

"...dealing with the subconscious part of the author's mind which only the critic can express, and not with the conscious part of the author's mind, which the author himself can express..."

 

An interesting view, considering he wrote it about the era of Freud and The Interpretation of Dreams. I am not certain if the critic is qualified to treat such matters as the subconscious mind based upon the examination of a single or a portfolio of images, nor am I certain if the artist can know all there is about his/her conscious mind.Certainly the stream of consciousness writers--Joyce, Proust, Faulkner might have different thoughts about that.

 

Question? To what extent should the critic focus on the art-object (the photograph) and try to explain/decribe what seems to be going on,interpret what's going on by relating the specific photograph to such contexts as the artist's previous work, stated intent, the genre--street, landscape, postmodern, figure, portrait, etc., and then at some point evaluate the photograph. How well did the artist do in this work? The critic can use the contexts mentioned above--and also can evaluate the image in terms of formal matters like compostion, print quality, and can I guess judge it based on subjective standards--morality, PC ness, etc. The latter I think is inappropraite, but that's just me. I never figured the critic of any visual art wore a Roman collar and if he did that his moral judgment was any better than anybody else's.

 

Any/most of these approaches allows the critic to focus on the work, not on the artist's life, loves, technique--does he use Ebony, Deardorff, Linhof or Wisner, what films, what soups, etc.

My prejudice is for the critic to focus on the work--that seems to me to be the horse that pulls all the other stuff.

Bob Moulton

First, in my view, you must define "criticism" beyond its function or intent. Is it enough to just say "I like it," or, "Not bad," or "This stinks," etc, or to simply review a work?Is a critic a judge or a commentator? Are criticisms carved in stone, or merely opinions? And just who empowers critics, and from where do they acquire their credentials?

It is interesting...if we limit criticsm to the physical object, perhaps how good of a job of spotting the photographer(or is it his/her printer?) did, or maybe one's skill at photoshop. How attractive the proportions of the mat or complimentary frame is or isn't, kind of gets washed out of the jpeg when viewed on my monitor. Perhaps the physical endowement of a the model(or snowcap of a mountain peak) could be subject of criticsm? I've read some pretty bizarre criticism, but thankfully nothing yet like "Why couldn't you shoot a prettier model?" or why did you shoot that mountain when the mountains in the(insert favorite mountain range here) are more beautiful?"

 

I think there has got to be something more to it than that. Often a critic will say an image moves him/her in a special way, maybe it reminds a viewer of something or speaks on a subconcious level---theres that subconcious word---so if there is something subconcious going on, there has got to be(maybe) more than the physical print. An Artist I knew(funny you mentioned "roman collar" becaue he recently became a priest) felt strongly that a work of art must stand on its own merits and that the only thing that would exist that accompany the piece are the artist's signature and the title of the work. Anything else being speculation.

 

So, what meaningful criticism can be had from the critic who dosen't have a grasp of the artist's subconcious intent?---aside from something like a bad job of spotting, which isn't criticismas much as it is suggestion---after all, maybe the photographer actually likes spots. Incidently, I'm not trying to start a fight, I'm just curious---:-) What do you make of it?

How does the critic or the viewer--also a critic of sorts--uncover the artist's subconscious intent? Maybe I am too ardent a viewr of Gil Grissom and CSI, but it seems that the "evidence" of intent has to be related to the image that is before the viewer.If you see the image only on the monitor then you may be limited to the quality of the jpegs and thmonitor, WWW hokup, etc.I feel uneasy when I critic discusses the qulaity or the meaning of the work based on what the artist said or what the critic intuits from it. I want some analysis of the work itself.

 

Critic's qualifications is another big area.Used to be the newsies assigned almost anyone to be the art critic. you graduated with atheatre minor--ok you be the art critic! Roger Ebert,Chicago Sun Times, has written about films for about 3 decades. Mike Wilmington,Chicago Tribune, for less time. I don't always agree with either, but I read either or both when I can to get a handle on a movie before or after I see it. For some people like me the critic provides a context--like the guy at the water fountain with whom you monday morning quarterback last weekend's game. except that Ebert/Wilmington does this stuff professionally. I look for a critic with some track record. And when I come across a critic whose is new to me I try to find out someting about him/her.

 

Part of where I come from is the New Criticism/ Structural criticism view of literature--admittedly out of fashion in revisionist deconstructionist times. It is the object that is important. In a hundred years if anyone views the work of weston, Adams, Sexton, Klett, Smith( anyone of the famous Smiths) it'll be the images and their place in the pantheon of photographic visual arts that make them last; I don't think Ansel's technique or Sexton's use of TMax RS or Michael Smith's mastery of SuperXX and Azo will matter much except to tecxhnique historians. Not too many peopl think Manet/Monet/Leonardo, Shakespeare, Cervantes, etc. endure because of their technique. It is their work--what they said that speaks so eloquently to us now.

 

Anyway, it is subjects like this that people enter into discussions about that make this the best of the photo boards on the web.

Bob

How does the critic or the viewer--also a critic of sorts--uncover the artist's subconscious intent? Maybe I am too ardent a viewr of Gil Grissom and CSI, but it seems that the "evidence" of intent has to be related to the image that is before the viewer.If you see the image only on the monitor then you may be limited to the quality of the jpegs and thmonitor, WWW hokup, etc.I feel uneasy when I critic discusses the qulaity or the meaning of the work based on what the artist said or what the critic intuits from it. I want some analysis of the work itself.

 

Critic's qualifications is another big area.Used to be the newsies assigned almost anyone to be the art critic. you graduated with atheatre minor--ok you be the art critic! Roger Ebert,Chicago Sun Times, has written about films for about 3 decades. Mike Wilmington,Chicago Tribune, for less time. I don't always agree with either, but I read either or both when I can to get a handle on a movie before or after I see it. For some people like me the critic provides a context--like the guy at the water fountain with whom you monday morning quarterback last weekend's game. except that Ebert/Wilmington does this stuff professionally. I look for a critic with some track record. And when I come across a critic whose is new to me I try to find out someting about him/her.

 

Part of where I come from is the New Criticism/ Structural criticism view of literature--admittedly out of fashion in revisionist deconstructionist times. It is the object that is important. In a hundred years if anyone views the work of weston, Adams, Sexton, Klett, Smith( anyone of the famous Smiths) it'll be the images and their place in the pantheon of photographic visual arts that make them last; I don't think Ansel's technique or Sexton's use of TMax RS or Michael Smith's mastery of SuperXX and Azo will matter much except to tecxhnique historians. Not too many peopl think Manet/Monet/Leonardo, Shakespeare, Cervantes, etc. endure because of their technique. It is their work--what they said that speaks so eloquently to us now.

 

Anyway, it is subjects like this that people enter into discussions about that make this the best of the photo boards on the web.

Bob

Which critics do you like? Susan Sontag comes to mind but she is not really a critic of photographs. John Szarkowski is good but I really

have enjoyed Janet Malcolm (Diana and Nikon). An older writer whom

I enjoy is Sadakichi Hartmann.

 

As far as this forum goes it's really mostly about equipment and how to use it. I used to meet with a small group of about 5 photographers who would look critically at individual photos spending considerable time with each one. Probably what each photographer needs is a personal muse. Michael and Paula seem to have each other. Weston had

Charis as well as Mather and Modotti as well as the Newhalls. My wife

is my best critic - she has a great eye...

It kind of makes me wonder if any standards for criticism, valid criticism for literature might not apply to the visual and perormiing arts as well. (incidentally, Chesterton was an art school graduate who got his start in journalism as an art critic) on the other hand there are too mmany similarities between the mediums to ignore. A good critic has to know what the piece is about, be it music, a play, or a painting. It may be enjoyable or not to an audience and a "critic" can either pan it or praise it, but is that the real intent of criticism? To be an influence on the Artist's pocketbook? If so, where does that put those who a drawn to critique the works of Artists long gone to pushing up petunias? Certainly the dead would have no interest in the financial success of thier works. The best criticism I've read does seem to get into the subconscious life of the Artist. I don't deny that any critic exploring someone else's subconscious is treading on shakey ground, but being a good critic shouldn't be either easy or for the faint hearted juniior college theatre minor. I think for most of us, if a critic sticks to known facts, inferences can be carefully drawn about his/her subconscious motives for producing a piece of art. Then again, I could be full of beans!

 

The question could well be raised, not what Critics do you enjoy, but what kind of Critics do you appreciate criticizing your work? Those that point out your lousy technique(which may or may not be lousy, or maybe you made things fuzzy on purpose and the Bloke whose the critic comparing you to A.A.) or the Critic who can point out something that rings a subconscious bell, and tells you something about yourself and your motives you weren't overtly aware of? Admittedly, those kinds of Critics are in short supply, but they would make most of the current class of Critics seem pretty insignificant and petty. Just my thoughts of course, I'd love to hear yours! By the way, the local Greek Festival is tonight---Oopa!

...actually my current thoughts may seem contrary to a past, rather heated discussion on art criticism, but not really. I am truly ignorant on the subject and am posting this to in order to learn what others, especially artists, think about the issue, not to solve a worldwide art critic crisis or anything ;-)

I don't know, John, but perhaps criticism tells more about the critic's subconscious mind than it does about the author's (or, photographer's, as applied here). But then, who are we to say what evil lurks in the minds of critics? ;-)

Wow. This is all pretty esoteric to me. I think of criticism in terms of what I need to hear about my pictures. In that vein, I think the most valuable criticism has been from those who can see trends and patterns from a body of work that I might miss, and offer suggestions about where I might be going, or might want to explore, based on what they see.

 

I have had two really good critiques like this in the past year, and they have been invaluable. One good friend and phabulous photographer did this for me based on prints from a trip we had taken to Maine. Another three photographers did this as part of a jury based on a group of prints submitted for review. All had good things and constructive things to say, but more importantly were able to give good suggestions on where I should go from there. Those ideas were the most valuable, and taught me a lot about receiving, and giving, useful critiques.

The only "type" of critic that I even begin to pay attention to is one that can put

whatever work they are speaking to within the context of the mediums history.

This at least shows that they have some depth of understanding of the

medium. What I seem to see these days (in publications that even bother to

employ a specific photo critic) are writers with a rather shallow understanding

of what has come before. Most appear to be able to only reference back as far

as yesterdays "photo pop star". As a result we are given many over

intellectualized versions of "...I like it..." rather than being offered any real

insight into the value of the work in relationship to the medium as a whole.

Interesting thread. My two cents is that art criticism is separate from art appreciation. The critic is attempting to understand the artist in relation to other artists, place in history, originality, impact on art and society, etc. In other words it is much broader and more scholarly task to undertake than simply describing why you like a picture. Obviously, this sort of thing is best done by someone who has studied these things and has seen a lot of art. I also think art criticism does not involve the critics personal feelings about a piece as much as seeing the bigger picture. Criticism may include an analysis of what the critic thinks were the motivations and influences of the artist to do certain things.

 

I am definitey not a critic of photography, even though I have done photography for over 30 years. I can tell you what I like and why, but that doesn't qualify me for critic status.

Wow, lots of very good points! I'm thinking that maybe the criticism Chesterton refers to can best be accomplished if the Critic knows and has a profound understanding of the Artist either in person or through a body of work. Additionally a good Critic would have some inea, for example, why "X" works in, say B+W rather than color, why "X" is drawn to photograph old barns or circus midgets. "X's" Artist's statement gives us the answer"How." the Critic should have enough insite to attempt to add "Why X?" before the Critic can hazard an opinion on if the work is significant or not. Does that make any sense? I can't tell---too much ouzo & greek dancing last night!

Love this type of thread. This type of discussion is where learning really takes place.

 

This link was posted on the Site Feedback forum the other day. Its an analysis of behaviors observed in judging photographs at various camera clubs over a period of a couple years.

 

http://freespace.virgin.net/eddy.sethna/thoughts_on_judging.htm

 

Although the article deals with judging camera club competitions, I think the basic behaviors can be generically applied to critics. Just substitute "critic" for "judge". There are those (probably the majority) who apply their own personnal bias to the criticism and those that truly try to stay objective and have the credentials of success and achievement to back it up. Anyway, I thought it was a worthwhile read and applicable to this discussion.

Great thread!

 

Critics maybe should be distinguished from reviewers. They describe, interpret and judge often for a largish maybe rather non specialized audience. Critics maybe have an audience more like all of us, people somehwat knowledgable in the arts--maybe obsesssed by a specific art, who consult the critic for his/her perspective on the works in question. Those folks can use their understanding of the medium to do all the reviewercan do, but maybe you trust them more 'cause of their background.

 

Critic as muse--That might be the person that you or I share our work with. In workshops I think the best are those who are positive but armed with a really low powered stun gun. They may tell you what you know and ould like to hear about your work, but then they also inspire you to do further, move from the comfortable box, work harder to refine your vision, technique, read and look at the work of others, etc. For me these critics are the ones I recall a year. a decade after I attended the workshop. And when I think of ditching it all and buying a point/shoot digital I remember something this person said--a John sexton, Ray McSavaney, Michael Johnson, etc. and think no I can improve this and/or reshoot it and/or concede this was a dumb idea .

 

Bob Moulton

Excellent comments. Maybe a Critic's duty is not so much to the Artist---especially if the Artist is already dead---as it is to the people who read criticism: students, grumpy people, admirers, collectors, younameit. If that is the case, maybe the Artist's subconscious(or the Critic's attempt to understand the Artist's subconcious) is more relevant. The "Why" is equally as important as the "How" when experienceing the work. Perhaps its like a Donegal Tweed sportcoat, in that a coat stands on its own as a garment. It either does what a coat does or dosen't. The Critic isn't needed because just about anyone can tell if a coat will keep them warm and dry or not. A Critic at best might remark:" The buttons are sewn on well, but they are plastic and leather butons look better. Also the lining should be blue and not gray"---one level of critisicm leading to a mixed appreciation of the coat in question. Add the equivalent of an Artist's statement, something like "I made this coat because I love making coats, it gives me great satisfaction to know I am keeping people warm and dry, I use plastic buttons so more peoople can afford my coats and I think gray linings go better with Donegal tweed, and I can support my family with my earnings"---How the Coat Maker validates herself and her product(or Art) leads to a greater appreciation and understanding of the coat in question. To this, a Critic of the Chesterton school might add: "Peggy makes just enough money to scrape bye on, her husband was lost at sea ten years ago and she's been the sole supporter of her family during these past years, and her eyesight is failing her and she won't be making coats much longer. She's scared..." perhaps leads to the greatest appreciation and understanding of that coat. Could the same apply to Art---especially LF Photography?

I don�t think Chesterton�s comment is particularly helpful. It is reductionist, reading like a debating topic (�Resolved . . . can only be one . . .�). It adheres to a view of the mind that plays better as intellectual history than as an expression of timeless psychological truth. It assumes that an observer could know what parts of a work came from the �conscious mind� and which from the �subconscious mind� of the creator (accepting the validity of that distinction), when in fact an observer could only guess, especially about the subconscious part. It suggests that whatever has been put into the work intentionally by the �conscious mind� of the creator is as clear and obvious as it ever could be, including complicated structures, literary allusions, etc.�when, in fact, explicating such things is a key function of the critic. It disregards the contextualizing function of criticism. It suggests that the actual or suspected reaction of the creator to a work of criticism matters when judging the value of the criticism.

 

The critic of a photograph would have to guess not only about which parts of the image were products of the photographer�s conscious mind (and therefore not legitimate subjects for criticism), but also, in many cases, about whether other parts of the image were products of the subconscious or just present in the world when the photograph was taken and completely unrecognized by any part of the photographer�s mind.

Oh, and don't forget, John - the most successful critics are often those who are most controversial - that is, they sell more newspapers or magazines as a result of their artfully-written criticisms/witicisms. They are also largely self-appointed. I've never seen an announcement of a critics election, nor have I voted in one. But, everyone needs a job, and becoming a critic seems as good a choice as many others. While many actually do have something worthwhile to say, all too often they also seem too-greatly influenced by the highly-political art circles (your choice of which arts). Thus, their criticisms are often the result of their view of a rather narrow segment of society, which may have little or nothing to do with the audience for which the work was actually intended. So, would critics be categorized with the artists they criticize, or with sports casters, talk-show hosts, and political pundits? ;-)

Good points! I might add this: is the purpose of the critic to educate the Artist( "its a piece of cr*p!") or the Audience(to point out what isn't obvious, like well camoflaged stuff) Criticism as entertainment seems to me to be suspect right out the gate. Bad taste seems to be where the big bucks are---take something gross and give it your gross-est review(better yet, out-gross another critic and they'll make you critic of the year!) What should a Critic get from practicing his craft? The satisfaction of discovering a greater, deeper appreciation of Art? Or the gratification of being a "bully." making the other kids on the block scared of you & being a pompous "A"? It is just this that makes me think Chesterton was right-on. OTOH, I don't feel his thoughts are given much value these day and that has a marked effect on the quality of popular criticism.

 

Consider this: There are B+W landscape photographers who are masters of the zone system and can pretty much "out-Ansel" Ansel Adams. The criticism they encounter is like "well, so what? Can't you do anything original?" Perhaps a more wortwhile criticism would be more along the lines of: "X's portfolio is overpowered by zone system technique: why? What causes or drives photographer "X" to embrace this style and genre so completely? Perhaps understanding that would be telling the photographer something about himself that would make him "...jump out of his boots." Any thoughts?

Every now and then some people enagage in what might be termed an intellectual wank and Chesterton's comment for me falls into that category. Those that can, do, those that can't, criticise. A small distortion of the original phrase but with more than a grain of truth when the activities of professional critics are examined. Perhaps the reason that criticsms of images posted on this forum seem to lack some uniform direction is due to nothing more than the lack of uniformity in the emotions experienced by the observers when observing a lack of uniformity of subject matter.

True, posting an image and hanging it out to dry in the winds of casual, off the cuff criticism by those who either like it or don't seems a harmless enough activity. Certainly the Photographer thinks enough of the image to submit it for review(actually, a LF Photographer would have to like "It" a lot, considering the effort it takes to make a single picture!) But to what purpose? To point out whats "right" about an image, stroking the ego of the Photographer? Or to get one's "digs" in for what ever reason? I am not sure either course is justifiable or healthy. Perhaps it would be better simply to express gratitude that a Poster is willing to share an image found personally satisfying, ignoring anything the Viewer dosen't like! Like I said, I don't have any answers, just obervation driven curiosity.

I believe the first job of a critic is to "see what is there." It is

surprising how many critics do not do this. Once what is there is

seen, the critic should be able to evaluate it, not only in relation

to the history of the medium, but to the entire world of art.

Evaluation and explanation why the evaluation was made are what a

critic should do.

 

"Seeing what is there" has nothing at all to do with technique except

insofar as the technique enhances or detracts from the work. And it

certainly has nothing to do with type of film, paper, etc. Those

things are truly most uninteresting. Does anyone except a scholar

searching for the subject of a Ph.D. thesis care what brand of linen

canvas a painter used?

 

"Seeing what is there" is not so easy. It is a real skill, developed

from study and practice.

 

A critic does not give "critiques"--the comments or words of wisdom

one might receive in response to showing one's work in a class or in a

workshop or on Photo.net.

 

From what I have seen of most critiques, they are not only not

helpful; they are harmful. Giving a critique is a great

responsibility. Unless the person giving it is qualified to do so, and

cares enough to do so seriously, they should not be listened to or

read. The blind leading the blind is a perilous thing.

Michael, You really put things into perspective! Do you think technology plays a role in destructive criticism? I mean, anyone can post an image just as anyone can offer criticism. No credentials, experience, reputation, or background of an individual need be established or, if offered, would even be scrutinized by most. This relayed instantly to a huge global audience that traditional print media could only dream of reaching. In Chesterton's day, a critic or reviewer would have probably met the artist in person, perhaps lived in the same City, maybe belonged to the same club or frequented the same social circles. A Critic might have the luxury of months or even years of watching a Photographer Develop(heh-heh! I couldn't resist that!)as opposed to now, where everything is moving faster than trouser zippers in the men's lavatory at a truck stop in the middle of the desert! The element of time---the luxury of having it---seems to be echoed by those who take workshops. It seems like those who have taken more than one workshop with a "master" feel they continue to benefit even more in subsequent workshops. At least thats the impression I get. Anyone out there have additional insight or comments?

Maybe no insight but a comment or two. First, some quotes from the last two responses:

 

"From what I have seen of most critiques, they are not only not helpful; they are harmful." and "The blind leading the blind is a perilous thing."

"It seems like those who have taken more than one workshop with a "master" feel they continue to benefit even more in subsequent workshops."

 

In the last year, I've had the benefit of three legitimate masters commenting on my work. Now, I've been photographing for a little over three years now so I consider myself somewhat "blind" in the artistic arena. The only consistent source of feedback I have available is participating in a couple of these internet sites. The great awakening I got from the three masters is that their perception of my what was good in my work was diametrically opposed to what the "critics" on these websites consider good. As Michael says, very few are really qualified to be critics and doing so bears a great responsibility. If one listens to the vox pop masses, then one will produce work that is basically maudlin, run of the mill, buy it in the novelty store. Nothing wrong with making a living doing that, but its not for me, and I don't want to do that kind of stuff.

 

So, to sum up, as one who is relatively blind, I certainly agree that the blind leading the blind is not the path to follow. Time spent with an acknowledged master is truly time well spent.