Critique Strictly On Photographic Merits or Is the Subject Valid?

[tom_thumbnail]

<p>When critiquing, and perhaps judging (as in a contest or for a score) a photograph, how much weight is it fair for the critiquer to allot to their personal preference of the subject as opposed to the "photographic merits" of the photo (technical, compositional, post processing)? </p>

<p>i.e. for someone that doesn't like photos of babies, or weddings, or the homeless, the impoverished, war photos, portraits that are taken very close up, any sports lower than the major league level, kittens, sunsets etc or whatever, how much is it fair for them to deduct?</p>

<p>or conversely,</p>

<p>for someone who tends to be particularly enamored with any of the above subjects or any others, how much favor is it fair for them to show a photo of that genre?</p>

<p> </p>

[reza motaghedi]

<p>For aesthatics I usually try not to be influenced by my personal taste. But certainly if the photo is something that is taken everyday like landscape, sport, some of the portraits, etc and it is not different from photos that you may see everyday (including many of the top rated photos in photo.net) i usually give a very low score for originality.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Everyone has their favourite subjects or themes. That part of it can only be highly subjective. </p>

<p>I believe too much emphasis is placed on technical prowess, post-processing, aesthetic cuteness and conservative concepts of composition. Art, which is also attainable photographically, puts the emotional and psychological impact of an image far above these conventional parameters. Unfortunately, we seldom see it and perhaps do not often recognize it.</p>

<p>Judges and rating systems cannot live with an image long enough to critique its more profound features (should they exist). </p>

[william l. palminteri]

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2347092"><em>Arthur Plumpton</em></a><em> </em><a href="../member-status-icons"><em><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub3.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/2rolls.gif" alt="" /></em></a><em>, Aug 28, 2009; 10:05 p.m.</em></p>

 

<p><em>Everyone has their favourite subjects or themes. That part of it can only be highly subjective. </em></p>

 

<p><em>I believe too much emphasis is placed on technical prowess, post-processing, aesthetic cuteness and conservative concepts of composition. Art, which is also attainable photographically, puts the emotional and psychological impact of an image far above these conventional parameters.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>You bet, Arthur. Photography is one of my favorite art forms, and as a graphic artist by training, I approach photography as such. I leave the gear to the manufacturers, that's their job. My camera is my brush, so to speak. I use it to create art, how it's made is up to the tool maker.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>Unfortunately, we seldom see it and perhaps do not often recognize it.</em><br>

<em></em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I see it in every photograph I take, and look for it in every photograph I see. Apparently I am one of the few people that see photography as an art form.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>Judges and rating systems cannot live with an image long enough to critique its more profound features (should they exist).</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ain't that the truth !<br>

That's why I don't get involved with "Photo contests", and I don't invite "critiques".</p>

<p>Bill P.</p>

[colin carron]

<p>As the rating system on PN is a matter of profound insignificance you might as well let rip with whatever thoughts, feelings or prejudice you like, within the bounds of common decency. It is after all nothing more than an elaborate parlour game and the more outrageous it becomes the more entertainment it affords and maybe the more thought it provokes in observers.</p>

 

[william l. palminteri]

 

<blockquote>

<p><em>Colin Carron </em><a href="../member-status-icons"><em><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub8.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></em></a><em>, Aug 29, 2009; 05:28 a.m.</em></p>

 

<p><em>As the rating system on PN is a matter of profound insignificance you might as well let rip with whatever thoughts, feelings or prejudice you like, within the bounds of common decency.</em></p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Colin, for those reasons I seldom offer a comment on anyone's work unless I'm asked, and even then I try to choose my words carefully.<em> </em></p>

<blockquote>

<p><em></em><br>

<em> It is after all nothing more than an elaborate parlour game and the more outrageous it becomes the more entertainment it affords.... </em><em></em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sad but true, typically these sites have a few 'gurus' that don't like to be questioned, and a herd of 'lurkers', magpies that exist just to be baiting and annoying. That quickly becomes a waste of time, and a disservice for newcomers who would like to learn, and to me, not the least bit entertaining.<em> </em><br>

<em></em></p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>....and maybe the more thought it provokes in observers.</em><br>

<em></em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>The level of 'critique' I find on these sites rarely provokes any useful thoughts for me.</p>

<p>Bill P.</p>

 

[tomwatt]

<p>As far as favorite subjects go, something that is in my 'favorite' aisle is likely to receive harsher scrutiny, simply because I have already spent time and energy analyzing and exploring the subject... familiarity breeds contempt?<br>

As a rule, I don't consider subject matter in judging someone's work.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Bill, it is comforting to know that others share similar feelings about art and about critique. </p>

<p>Essentially, we are talking of a communication (the art image) from one person to another. </p>

<p>Rating of art and photographic art is often useless, unless it is done in the spirit of helping another in his or her approach. Then it becomes more a constructive critique and less a score.</p>

[randall ellis]

<blockquote>

<p>Rating of art and photographic art is often useless, unless it is done in the spirit of helping another in his or her approach. Then it becomes more a constructive critique and less a score.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Precisely. How can anyone think to be able to reduce the vast complexity if the interpretation of the world around us to a simple number? The degree of abstraction in doing so is so great as to render the effort completely meaningless. I tend to leave constructive criticism along the lines of what you stated above, or simple no feedback at all. Since most people who ask for critiques provide no indication of what they were trying to accomplish, or what they would like feedback on, it is difficult to say anything constructive, so I tend to do the later far more often than the former.</p>

<p>- Randy</p>

[laurent-paul]

<p>As Arthur mentionned : themes or subjects are highly subjective, as a photograph will makes us react according to our culture and education.</p>

<p>But I believe that "photographic merits" are as much subjectives : I can judge technical, compositional, post processing only from the little I've learned and experienced therefore the whole lot I don't know about will never come in mind when judging evaluating and commenting a photograph.</p>

<p>Probably only a very few lucky persons are able to see Art where it exists and turn everything always into Art, and from that ultimate knowledge and experience are able to give really brilliant and meaningfull critiques but they will usually never find anything worth getting a comment from them.</p>

<p>Now the very big majority of us wihtout this complete knowledge are still attracted by photography, and this passion still makes us fell stongly about a photo. I believe that we all are still allowed to say what we fell but that knowing we have limitations our comments can never be ultimates comments, and even less any kind of expression of some Truth. And that is exactly the same with the comments we receive on our photos.</p>

<p>As for ratings, I don't believe it is useless : here on PN it shows two important things in my opinion :</p>

<p>1.the ability of the photographer to create and maintain a network with other members. That is far from a "bad" thing if such a thing exist : what else do we really want when be creative than communicate with others.</p>

<p>2. How our vision of our surroundings is speaking to others : i fI get an average of 5/5 on a photo where everybody gave 5/5, it only means that this photo is not creating any feelings at all : no emotion is created with that photo. But when the 55 is an average of half the people giving 3/3 and the other half 7/7, then it starts to be a bit more interesting, because that means there is a strong reaction.</p>

<p> </p>

[william l. palminteri]

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2347092"><em>Arthur Plumpton</em></a><em> </em><a href="../member-status-icons"><em><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub3.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/2rolls.gif" alt="" /></em></a><em>, Aug 29, 2009; 10:40 a.m.</em><br>

<em>Bill, it is comforting to know that others share similar feelings about art and about critique.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Arthur, it is indeed comforting. <br>

Interesting, I posted this about two hours ago and it never showed up.<br>

Gremlins in the system................</p>

<p>Bill P.</p>

[steve_swinehart]

<p>William - I,m really interested in why anyone should take your opinions over anyone else simply because you have a backround on graphic arts?</p>

<p>As a reformed graphic artist - I can only say that your backround has no meaning within the context of the philosophy of photography. When you have something original in thought, rather than parroting what has aready been posted - then maybe we'll take you seriously.</p>

 

[william l. palminteri]

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=86165"><em>Steve Swinehart</em></a><em> </em><a href="../member-status-icons"></a><em>, Aug 29, 2009; 05:07 p.m.</em><br>

<em>William - I,m really interested in why anyone should take your opinions over anyone else simply because you have a backround on graphic arts?</em><br>

<em></em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Hi Steve, I don't recall saying that anyone should take my opionions over anyone else's.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>When you have something original in thought, rather than parroting what has aready been posted - then maybe we'll take you seriously.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Don't feel bad, most photographers don't understand my point of view. I don't read every thread on every website, so perhaps not all of my thoughts are as original as you'd like. If you don't like my posts, then don't read them. Simple enough, wouldn't you say ?</p>

<p>And you not taking me seriously proves what ?<br>

How does a comment like that contribute anything constructive to this thread ?<br>

<br>

Bill P.<em></em></p>

[tomwatt]

<p>Strange turn of thread... I recall having a conversation with a colleague when we were both serving as jurors for a minor art exhibition in which we discussed the potential effects of choosing 'winners' and 'losers' among so many bright young budding artists whose work showed little clue of their potential (school-based exhibit). He was an abstract painter, I a realism-based illustrator. We also noted with relief the practice of having 'outside' jurors... we could pass judgement and get out of town quietly while the various factions and favorites clashed.<br>

As a learning experience, I'm not always sure that juried systems provide much feedback. I later adopted the method of one of my mentors - "there are no mystery grades" - portfolio reviews are face to face, and you left with grade in hand (and possibly your pride intact). I think without comments, rating systems provide little more than horserace info, and while I'm not completely knocking the system here on Photo.net, I don't particularly see it as helpful to me personally.<br>

But then my personal path has been convoluted... from painter to illustrator to graphic artist/printer to military photojounalism back to graphics (and still doing event photography) to just photographing to suit myself. If someone likes my work, well that's a plus. And if they dislike it (and there's a lot to dislike), move along, there's more to see elsewhere.</p>

[michaellinder]

<p>Ratings on photo.net have been discussed <em><strong>ad nauseam</strong></em>. The system is entirely subjective, except that there are established "definitions" for the 7/7 as opposed to 1/1. There are no objective standards for applying these ratins, and perhaps there should not be any.</p>

[bmm]

<p> To Michael - I suspect that standards for applying ratings would only amplify the furore that currently exists about this issue. Because a few people aside, I think there is a lot of error of central tendency going on, especially reflected in shyness at giving low ratings due to kindness. I include myself in the above critique. Just today in fact a well executed but totally non-original picture of a household cat curled in its basket received a 5/3 from me (and already I was feeling bad about the 3) when in reality it may have deserved a 5/1 on reflection.</p>

<p>To the more general question in the title of this post I think there is no doubt in practise that people critique base at least in part on subject. The most obvious example is that brilliant images of 'normally ugly' people do not often rate as well as more modest images of very attractive people (particularly so when they are nudes of women). I think this can also apply to preference for/against genres - going back to the I for example do not generally like images of family pets and I have to be conscious of 'rating fairly' when I see one pop up so that I assess it - especially on the aesthetics criterion - on what my humble opinion of its merits are against others of the genre I've seen.</p>

<p>I also see a strong relationship between this thread and the previous ones in this forum discussing conservatism and also cliches. All this is very interestingly interwoven.</p>

[charlesheckel]

<p>Going back to the OP, the question is based on the assumption that you can in fact be objective about the contemplation of art, a process that is <em>ipso facto</em> subjective. Without this assumption, you can't have a philosophy of esthetics, so there are stipulations about ideal observers and sophisticated viewers, and properties inhering in the work, and so on; but in practice it seems to be putting the cart before the horse.</p>

<p>Personally, I will not critique a picture I don't respond to, whether fairly or unfairly, and it doesn't matter whether the creator or I mess up in creating or disregarding the work. There are plenty of people out there with differing interests and backgrounds, and those who wish to contemplate it are welcome to do so. All artworks have to run this subjective sort of gauntlet, like it or not. The "objective" standard on which we "ought" to evaluate future works is based on those works that have survived their very selfish and biased critics.</p>