What is Criticism?

What is Criticism? Folks here seem to agree that transcendening is neither encouraged nor acceptable. So what do we discuss on. Take for instance "The Steerage" by Stieglitz. How do we interprete or evaluate it? How do we even judge it and based on what theory or critera? Is the artist's verbalisation to be taken into account? Do critics have the last say about what they critique on? The last few threads seemed to conclude that photographers should just present our photographs and "shut-up!" So as to leave the general audience to decide if the artworks appeal to them. Then what is the job (and justification for) of the critics? Your thoughts??

<p>

Aaron

Some information at:

<p>

www.nearbycafe.com/adc/adcmenu/readings/attend1.html

The job of the critics is to promote sales of the publications, or

sales of the broadcasting airtime, for the companies that pay their

wages...

Aaron,

<p>

I think you are still trying to translate photographs into words and

then deal with the words. This misses the point of visual art. If

something is best expressed in words, use words. If best in pictures,

use pictures. It's up to the audience to perceive or not once the

artist has chosen the medium. Verbalizing your experience of visual

art is more likely to diminish than enhance the experience.

<p>

As for criticism, there are two very different meanings to the term.

The first is best exemplified by an honest movie reviewer. Her

published opinions are helpful to an audience. They are irrelevant to

a creator's efforts (though they may have a strong impact on the

creator's financial success). The other model is the accomplished

artist giving a Master Class. He coaches the aspiring artist to

increase strengths and avoid weaknesses. The process is of no interest

whatsoever to the audience, but the result may be.

<p>

As for Stieglitz, he's been dead for over half a century and never

listened to anyone while he was alive, so the only role of criticism

would be on the lines of the first model. Pointing out that Stieglitz

made great photographs and that an audience will do well to study and

enjoy his work is a great idea. Trying to figure out what "The

Steerage" means in words is just a wast

Aaron: Criticism is akin to listening to the President speak on

television, then having all the dumbass reporters get on the air and

tell us what he really said and meant because they think the audience

is too stupid to listen and understand. In doint the art shows with

my photography, I have learned the true value of criticism. If the

criticism is good, I get a ribbon and a check from the judges. If

bad, I get nothing. I have showed at larger shows and got a first

place and then go to another, smaller show, and not even won an

honorable mention. Critics have their own likes and dislikes just

like you and I have, and their opinion is no more important. Most

critics are self appointed or hired by a publication to fill a hole

in the page. Tolerate them, but don't put too much weight to what

they say.

<p>

Regards,

November, l946

<p>

To all critics, pro or con--my work or anyone's work--in

photography,painting, sculpture or music, I say (digo yo) you

can't explain a Bach fugue. If you could you would explain away

its very meaning--its reason for existence.

<p>

-E. Weston, The Flame of Recognition

Aaron,

<p>

I just posted my views on "vision" in answer to your previous

question, so I won't repeat here what I said except to say that every

vision, if fully understood, requires an understanding of a complex

and shifting nexus of particulars regarding the photographer, the

subject, the photographic tradition, esthetics, and, finally and I

think most importantly, the craft of photography, in the present case

large format photography.

<p>

My work in LF began only a year or so ago, but I have read quite a

bit of "criticism"--from spec sheets to manuals to coffee table books

to scholarly articles and monographs.

<p>

I find most satisfying and valuable the criticism that I would

call "historical" and/or "academic". Such matters as the

photographer's schooling or training, early or continuing influences,

exhibits or shows seen (or not seen), correspondence or meetings with

other photographers, and so on. This is criticism of a limited,

workmanlike, and not very imaginative kind, but at least it doesn't

pretend to be something it isn't, is based on evidence, and so

results in claims that the reader/viewer can accept or reject. This

is in contrast to two big failings of photographic criticism as I

understand it:

<p>

The critic who reveals a lack of understanding of the craft of

photography and esp. of the large format camera and its operation.

This is evident, for example, when an inevitable consequence of the

design of the camera or lens in obedience to the laws of optics is

represented as a deliberate esthetic choice by the photographer when

it would be obvious to everyone in this forum that the photographer

really had no choice about the matter at all. I have yet to

encounter a piece of criticism which is at once informed, well

written, convincing, etc. and which reflects a thorough knowledge of

the craft, of the practice of LF photography in all its aspects. "If

you can do, do; if you can't, ...become a critic."

<p>

The other is that in my (admittedly still limited) experience, the

photographers themselves don't turn out to be very good critics of

their own work. By "critic" I mean something like expounder. Enough

said. Ansel Adams was wise, I think, to refrain from the

interpretation of his own work in the main. I've always believed

that a successful photograph, like a successful piece of writing or

musical composition or performance, is one that can speak for itself

without need of supplementary commentary.

<p>

Good luck in your continuing search for meaning in our chosen

artistic endeavor. Nick.

What Doug Paramore said.

<p>

They pool their ignorance and see what floats to the top.

<p>

Photographs need to stand on their own. I don't buy into crummy

photos with huge long narratives about their transcendance. =BS

<p>

I do enjoy a sentance or two about where how why.

<p>

What really smokes me is some crummy picture and an artist that states

"if you have to ask............blah blah blah."

There is no justification for critics! The only critic that matters

in my work is me. I think the quote by Weston said it quite well. Pat

I think a good critic can bring out ideas about the work in

question. These can be ideas that the artist had but couldn't or

didn't choose to verbalize, ideas that the artist wasn't conscious

about expressing, or ideas that are off-the-wall and appear to have

no validity. It can be interesting and even illuminating to hear or

read what people say about art. It can also be annoying or trite. Bad

critics, in my opinion, think that they have great wisdom to impart -

definitive verdicts instead of ideas. They deliver their verdicts

from an isolated narcissistic height. The problem with criticism

today is that it is too influenced by current New York art scene -

the incestuous cicle of collusion between gallery managers, curators

and collectors. It has not always been that way in New York, but it

is in a bad way now. I don't however think that there is anything

intrinsically wrong with criticism. They bring work to our

attention, ocassionally help artists hone their vision and can help

stimulate debate about art.

Criticism is OPINION. Some criticism is of more value than other.

A critique of photographic work from a novice, is less valuable that

criticism from a source of great experience and education.

Criticism from experts can be very valuable, and thought provoking.

Criticisms are opinions, and like that perticular body

orifice..."everybodys got one". If you can't stand criticism then

don't show your work or ask for opinions. If hungry for growth...show

your work to somone with experience and talent...and get constructive

feed back. Any critic worth his/her salt, will give an opinion in a

positive and constructive way, to help the artist improve with out

destroying the artists ego and self esteem. Remember that self esteem

comes from 'self'. It it comes from critics or others, it would be

caller "other esteem"! A critiqe of ones' work from a respected

artist, can be a learning, positive and growth experience. For those

with thin skins.....and fragile egos,...don't bother. Just shoot for

yourself, and be happy in your work. No sin in that.

More from Edward Weston in 1948:

<p>

"I will not criticize. I think art criticism is the bunk. The only

thing critics do is psychoanalyze themselves."

<p>

And another "Teaching? That's an entirely different story. It is

possible to comment or "criticize" or talk to any young person, face

to face, who comes for instruction, or to learn. That's a different

story. But criticism through a third person-no! You haven't the right

to talk about another person's work unlss you spend as much time on

it as he has."

<p>

Best holiday wishes to all! Merg

Aaron,

<p>

Might I suggest that you go to the LensWork site and order and

read "On Looking At Photograhs", a discussion between David

Hurn & Bill Jay about just this very sort of topic.

<p>

It should prove most rewarding ... especially if someone bought

it FOR you as a Christmas present.

<p>

Season's Greetings ... Walter

Criticism is different from discussion and different from

teaching, although all can contain elements of the others. Well

that's just my opinion!<P>At it's best criticism opens the eyes of

the audience (and sometimes the creator of the work being

discussed) to aspects of the work or body of work that the reader

or listener was unaware of, and can open connections by

placing the work under discussion intoa larger context. Also at

it's best criticism can be the equivalent of the child crying 'The

emperor has no clothes on!" when everyone else is oohing and

ahhing.<P>At it's worst criticism closes the eyes and ears with

obsfucation and snobbery and just shuts off communication in

genral.<P>It is also important for an artist to develop a critical

eye to seperate the chaff from the wheat, to search for what is

true and honest in his or her own work, and discard and move

past his or her false steps. It is also very important for an artist to

develop a critical ear for listening to criticism and to ldiscern

what is honest and true criticism as opposed to that whhich is

facile and shallow.<P>Those who say criticism isn't important

tend (in my experience) not to grow. Even such originals as

Weston and Picasso learned to listen to feedback to their work

and learned when to just listen to their inner voice and shut their

ears to those who didn't get it.<P>I close with a quote from the

fine English songwriter Richard Thompson. Spealking about his

fans he once said: "They are worse than professional critics,

they are amateur critics!"

Criticism is different from discussion and different from

teaching, although all can contain elements of the others. Well

that's just my opinion!<P>At it's best criticism opens the eyes of

the audience (and sometimes the creator of the work being

discussed) to aspects of the work or body of work that the reader

or listener was unaware of, and can open connections by

placing the work under discussion into a larger context. Also at

it's best criticism can be the equivalent of the child crying 'The

emperor has no clothes on!" when everyone else is oohing and

ahhing over the finery they are being instructed to admire.<P>At

it's worst criticism closes the eyes and ears with obsfucation

and snobbery and just shuts off communication in

general.<P>For an artist it is important to develop a critical eye to

seperate the chaff from the wheat, to search for what is true and

honest in his or her own work, and to discard and move past his

or her false steps. It is also very important for an artist to develop

a critical ear for listening to criticism and to learn how to discern

what is honest and true criticism as opposed to that which is

facile and trendy -- even if it agrees with what you are

showing.<P>Those who say criticism isn't important tend (in my

experience) not to grow. Even such originals as Weston and

Picasso learned to listen to feedback to their work and learned

when to just listen to their inner voice and shut their ears to

those who didn't get it.<P>I close with a quote from the fine

English songwriter Richard Thompson. Speaking about his fans

he once said: "They are worse than professional critics, they are

amateur critics!"

If you want to read good art critisim, read Carter Ratcliff. He is

amazing, and you can find his articles in Art In America. Honestly,

after spending years learning to critisize literature, I found I

prefered creating, that's why I changed over to making texts (wich is

what I think a photograph is) rather than being critical, no mater

how positive I tried to be -- and it is easier to be a negitive

critic. Do you want to give birth to things, or be the social servics

person? I got lost in the daze of my own intertexuality relating to

my shared subjectivity ... Maybe you should take some critisim

courses, or read some critics: Cleanth Brooks, Benedetto Croce's

Aesthetica in Nuce is good for removing the fog. Not that I don't

live in fog, it's just I'm livng too much right now to see beyond the

day to day. The fog isn't a bad thing you know. It's a good place to

hang out. Enjoy it ... it obscures the day to day reality wich

sometimes sucks.

Dean

Picasso, if he wanted to, could paint like Rapheal, and any

number of different styles. So when he paints both eyes on the same

side of someone's face as their nose, I know he's doing this as a

legitimate choice as opposed to this just being a constriction of

someone who doesn't know how to paint.

<p>

Their are 'con men' and/or 'Charlatans' who have made a fortune

selling their 'splattered paint', and even blank canvases as art or

abstract art. Much of this work had no frame of reference and was

inscrutable, but some knucklehead critics would go ahead and project

their thoughts and feelings 'inkblot style' onto these works anyway

which gave validation to some of this phony bullshit.

<p>

I defy anyone to explain how a blank canvas as art. I won't

waste my time going to a museum to look at one, but I will go to the

beach for the same feeling without the pretense.

<p>

The best of abstract Art had some identifiable reference, and to

me when it's so abstract that there's no reference there for anyone

but the individual who produced the work it's not Art.

<p>

Art is the highest form of communication, if nobody can know what

it is, it isn't art, unless you consider splattered paint, doodles,

scribbles, and blank canvases art.

<p>

In considering legitimate Art, it ought to be possible to judge

how well the artist did in his execution of his idea. The Charlatan

can't do anything well since he can do it only one way, one gear, and

he cons some critics into co-signing this bullshit as valid even

though there's no way possible to explain or understand the 'so called

art'.

<p>

The best critics are the ones who know how to do it.

Professional critics may have the insight but not the ability to

execute, so they're essentially talking about something they can't do.

<p>

People can also have a blind eye culture wise to great works of

art. African Art was dismissed as simple and childlike until they

asked Picasso about what he liked. Many of the scuptures and works of

gold of African Art stem from the traditions of the Yoruba, a religion

that is older than Christianity. The power of African Art stems not

from an attempt at beauty but as a spiritual force.

<p>

Picasso recognized this and said so, and the run was on, African

Art is sought after and prized all over the world and has been for

years. Shona scuplture which is relatively recent can bring $30,000 a

piece.

<p>

It's black humor, things that are of the highest order are

dismissed, things that are unknowable as art except in the mind of its

creator are 'inkblotted' into validation as legitimate art.

<p>

The answer here for many is to not worry about it, do it because

you love doing it. I agree that if you don't have a thick skin, don't

ask anybody about your work. If you're only prepared to hear, "Yeah,

I think it's great", asking folks their opinion gonna give you a lot

of heartache.

How does the old saying go?

<p>

Those who can, do.

<p>

Those who can't, teach.

<p>

Those who can't teach, write about it.

<p>

This pretty much sums up my thoughts about critics...

What a lot of criticism about criticism!

<p>

Critics exist because people want to read them. Sad but true. Nothing

new either - Vasari and Winckelman were continuing a tradition that

was already old when Pliny was writing about Zeuxis and Appelles.

They can have their uses though - though personally I may think most

of his writings are tosh, where would American art have been without

Clement Greenburg?

<B>"You cannot teach a man anything. You can only help him

discover it within himself."</B>

Galileo Galilei (1564-1642), astronomer and physicist<P>

<B>"The teacher if he is indeed wise does not bid you to enter

the house of his wisdom but leads you to the threshold of your

own mind."<B>

Kahlil Gibran (1883-1931), Syrian poet and painter<P>

<B>"I never teach my pupils; I only attempt to provide the

conditions in which they can learn."</B>

Albert Einstein (1879-1955), physicist<P>

The origian lquopte (i think it comes from Oscar Wilde) is

"Those who can,do. Those cannot, teach." As for the last part of

your alleged famous quote Jeffery, you must have been think ing

of Dr. Samuel Johnson's aphorism: "Only a blockhead writes for

other than money."

<B></B></B>

You can illuminate a discussion of Steiglitz's photograph "The

Steerage" by a number of lights. Here are

three:<P><B>Aesthetics.</B> That is a consideration of the

qualities of the thing (the original prints), the reproduction you

are looking at if you don't haveaccess to he original print, and of

course the formal elements of the image: framing, the

photographic rendering of light, the relationship of elements

inside the frame (composition), and how these add up to what

some might call the "emotional gesture' of the image.<P>

<B>Social History.</B> Why did the photographer think it was

important to document the crowded conditions aboard this

ship? What are the larger historical contexts the image must be

considered (as a document of an event) within?<P><B>

Photographic history.</B> Not so simply put but: Why is this

photograph famous? Who was Steiglitz? What, if any, effect did

this photograph have on photography (and photographers) after

the image was initially 9and continually thereafter) exhibited or

distributed? <P><I>How do we interprete or evaluate it?How do

we even judge it and based on what theory or critera?</I> By our

own lights and experiences. there is no grand unified theory that

can contain all that can be said about an image, although Garry

Winogrand's criteria of a grunted "humph" (a yes) or his

dismissive snot is a pretty good approximation of a working

UF!<P><I>"Is the artist's verbalisation to be taken into

account?"</I> Sometimes.<P><I>"Do critics have the last say

about what they critique on?"</I> Well for them they do, unless

they later change their mind.<P><I>"The last few threads

seemed to conclude that photographers should just present our

photographs and "shut-up!" So as to leave the general audience

to decide if the artworks appeal to them. Then what is the job

(and justification for) of the critics?"</I>

The job of (and justification for) critics is to open minds

(including sometimes the mind of the artist) to ideas or ways of

thinking they might not have considered or been aware of

before.(/B>