Comments Re: the Rob Heyman Thread, Which Trigger General Etiquette Questions For This Forum

[pcg]

The Rob Heyman thread below became another interesting dialogue.

 

I responded in that thread twice, both times with bluntly negative comments

about the photographs (not about the photographer). The overall response to

my opinion was either 1) defensive comments about how nice the guy is, 2)

defensive comments aboutt how good his work is, or 3) negative comments

about me.

 

I object to any implications that we cannot be critical of each other's work. If

this is to become solely a feel-good, swarmy forum where we all love each

other's images, no matter how bad or how we really feel, we are no better

than the masses of politically correct folks who tremble at any thought of ever

being honest with each other. Such attitudes destroy dialogue, as well as

growth.

 

Okay, there's obviously a line over which honesty may be considered cruel by

some. Honest comments require discretion. My comments in the earlier

thread were not personal, nor, I believe, cruel. I don't know whether Heyman

is green, has four legs or recently crawled out of a cave in Australia. Frankly, I

don't care. He could be anything or anyone & I would still judge his work

alone, for only the images he publishes matter here.

 

What have I consistently said about the work? That Rob Heyman's work is

classic High Sentimentality. Personally, I shudder at any soft focus images of

kids & young girls no matter how charming. For me, such stuff balances on the

edge of exploitation. Who cares if it's well done? As subject matter it says

nothing to me that hasn't been stated over & over for 500 years. Personally, I

say it falls into the category of cat & dog pictures, & sweet rear shots of kids

with their bathing suits pulled down. And further, I have a right to say so, & say

so strongly.

 

There are those who love such images (& they are clearly represented in that

thread) & there are those who instantly despise it. If I fall into the latter

category, that 1) doesn't make me into some demonized fringe character, nor

2) does it imply that my own work is poor.

 

What silly, simple-minded attacks.

 

If we are going to post our work & the work of others here, we need to have

thick enough skin to face all comments. I'm delighted to have spurred a bit of

dialogue, but I soundly reject any suggestions that I shouldn't render my own

opinions.

 

There is much good work that shows up here on occasion. And there's a

larger share that's posted by photogs who are obviously struggling with the

most basic issues. In that vein, most of us are gentle and constructive with a

new photographer's work.

 

But gentleness, in my opinion, is not a requisite with professionals. To have

succeeded financially in the photography business is not a mandate that

everyone who sees the work must grant the successful photog acclaimation.

Even more so, the widely published artist must expect highly conflicting

opinions about their work. That's what we expect, & cherish, in a free society.

 

We are all entitled to our individual opinions. If opinions are posted here that

differ from our own, attacking the poster is inexcusable. I've always been

quick with compliments when wonderful images are posted here; & I've also

been quick with criticism if such criticism seems warranted. And I will applaud

anyone else who is similarly honest.

 

There are those who have chosen to try to blunt this dialogue. But I remind

them that each of us is entitled to our own highly individualistic comments

about anything that is posted here.

[jay bee]

Couldn't you have been a bit more concise?

[pcg]

Agreed.

[_Alex_]

You're absolutely right. You can say whatever you wish about people's work on this forum. Free speech is alive and well. However, I think, some opinions--especially if they're not at all constructive--serve little purpose. The Heyman post was not a request for critique. It was a point in the direction of someone's work so that others may appreciate it too.

 

Whether it's "High Sentimentality" and something you don't appreciate is irrelevent and has little impact on the thread other than to make you look like an overzealous critic.

 

I'm not making a personal attack here. I'm stating why I responded to the thread originally.

 

This forum is not a critique forum by definition. It's an enthusiast gathering place. I think, that in most cases, the negativity brings the whole place down. It's not about being politically correct. It's about sharing and, hopefully, encouragement.

[bill_dewberry]

Critique & comments cut both ways, especially when posted in the manner you did, which came off somewhat obnoxious. You should feel free to dish it out, but be prepared to take it also.

[bobtodrick]

I find myself agreeing with Patrick G's comments completely. I consider myself a pretty good photographer (I have two local galleries who represent my work) and I make a sizeable (though not liveable) income from it. However I would truly guestion anyone who said my work was great, and I think that Patricks comments on the original post in guestion were bang on. They are good photos and it is always nice to see someone making their living from something they love to do. But when words like great are thrown around (usually by people not ever wanting to offend) I think of Robert Frank, HCB, Salgado, Gibson (talking just Leica here, there are legions of others) and others. I really don't think that 50 years from now the future photo-net members are going to be sitting around discussing just how important the works of Robert Heyman's are. I think it is always important that we support each other, but a bit of realism also helps.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Patrick; your comments show you do not like sentimental photos; which are univeral in liking across all cultures. This seams a little odd; maybe you should reflect on why this bothers you. The statement of :<i>I shudder at any soft focus images of kids & young girls no matter how charming. For me, such stuff balances on the edge of exploitation </i> seems a little weird too; How are photos of kids having fun jumping over mud puddles <i>on the edge of exploitation</i>????<BR><BR><a href="http://www.leica- gallery.net/heymanphoto/folder-list.html">Heyman</A>

[djphoto]

This is an open forum and you are free to express your opinions. My comments about Rob Heyman were not at all defensive. Nobody said he is a great photographer, however I said in passing that he is a great guy, which has nothing to do with his photographic ability or his philosophical approach to the medium.

 

I suspect he simply doesn't care what you think about his work. And neither do I.

[patricks]

I have indeed very happy that all individual are unique and so are their tastes and opinions. But I also think it is fair that someone (in this case me) may occationally disagree and voice that disagreement. Hence, that is not critique of anyone's person/values/being, but rather on my reaction to someone's comments. It is just and open and friendly dialogue.

[fotografz]

The implication of the WAY you posted your comments suggests that

the photographer is a creative prostitute who could make images YOU

would like if he tried, but instead panders to the lowest common

emotional denominator. My question would be how would you know

anything about this persons' creative integrity? The mistake in etiquette

was originally yours', and some respondants just followed your lead.

 

IMO, this does not, in any way, mean that you shouldn't express your

opinion. It is not what, but HOW. Like this for example...

NOT GOOD:

Patrick, you obviously have an inferiority complex which is clearly

demonstrated by your venomous remarks about other peoples' work. Yet

try to look at your work, and the home page is disabled, and there are

zero uploaded photos in your photo.net folder. A sure sign that we have

a "all talk, no show" on our hands.

BETTER:

Patrick, you are entitled to your opinion, but perhaps just saying that

this kind of photography just isn't your cup of tea because it is too

sentimental for your tastes would make the point quite clear to all.

[kelly_flanigan1]

I have no beef over Patricks comments; we all are different. When I have spent the entire day making many graphic 30x40" autopsy posters for a client/attorney; I find looking at some "Sentimental" photos a welcome change.<BR><BR> One old girlfriend of mine would freak out over the covers of Cosmo magazine; and considered that pornography; and considered the women who posed for them as being victims of "the system".

[dford]

After viewing the pics by Rob Heyman I thought that they were very well done, executed by an accomplished professional. Those employing his services must be very satisfied with his work. Apparently he is/was employed to photograph families and hence the 'nature' of the photographs.

But when I read the critique of his images as being defined as 'High Sentimentality' I immediately thought this phrase surely must be the domain of the 'cultural elite'. So now my opinion of his work has changed from, simple family photos executed by an accomplished professional to one of anti-intellectual images that thumb their noses at those who feel that 'they', and there ilk, define artistic expression.

Its interesting how critiques can redefine the political nature of a simple picture.

...and somewhere, many dressed in black, are gathered around a photograph of a man with a whip stuck up his ass, and one of them whispers to another " this is a great photograph, its daring in both its social implication and its technical execution." And the other responds " unlike the Heyman photos, what drivel! I despise High Sentimentality and all of its exploitive connotations.

Long live the great Rob Heyman and the 'unintended' political nature of his work.

[kelly_flanigan1]

How is High Sentimentality exploitive?

[thomas_t]

First, Patrick is entitled to his opinion. And similarly, others are entitled to express their opinion on Patrick's critique. Only fair. That basic principle having been stated, it doesn't mean one must necessarily exercise that right, nor does it mean that one has to exercise it in a manner that seems discourteous to others. The artist in question did not "submit" his work for critique. While you are free to criticize him nonetheless, one may rightly wonder why you felt so compelled to do so? Since I am nowhere near the caliber of a photographer such as Mr. Heyman, and perhaps nowhere near the high caliber of anyone else for that matter, I choose to only leave positive comments. Choosing to dish out negative critique that is unsolicited and so inherently subjective reminds me of a person who decides to walk down the street and unilaterally address every passerby's aesthetically displeasing 'big nose' or 'giant ears'. In this case, neither the poster nor the artist asked for the critique. The original poster merely pointed out a fellow leica user's work for viewing. In a free society, sometimes the greatest freedom is the exercise of discretion. Cheers :)

[vijay_nebhrajani]

Patrick.

 

When you are as honest as you are (to the point of cruelty), then it is odd that you cannot accept someone elses (in their opinion, honest to the point of cruelty) opinion about you.

 

:-)

[mark_rutledge]

It's funny to me all the people who have rushed to Mr. Heyman's defense

saying neither he nor the poster were seeking a critique. Mr. Heyman posted

the images on the web obviously to show someone, right? The title of the post

contains "good photographer" ,a subjective evaluation.

People forget that good, great, nice are critiques as well, albeit positive ones.

If you're attacked for negativity isn't it fair to attack for effusive praise? Perhaps

Patrick could have been a touch more tactful but all the responses rushing to

Mr. Heyman's aid sounded like defensive and overprotective parents.

Mr. Heyman's photo's themselves are nice for the portrait market he serves

although I don't particularly care for them. The fact he, or anyone, makes

money from their photography does not mean their pictures are art or even

great...it simply means they sell.

BTW, I never could understand why people insist that if you criticize

someone's work you must show your own work to prove your validity?

[_________1]

Mr Heyman never for a second pretended that his pictures were ART. Why did that notion come from?

[trooper]

If I had commissioned Mr. Heyman to capture those images of my children, I would have been overwhelmed by the sensitivity of his ability to capture the moment and to have the technical mastery and artistic eye to print them so beautifully. They would hang in my office or home with great pride.

[gib]

I wonder what a photo of a family, or more precisely, that family

would like if it was not highly sentimental.

 

A long time ago, an old priest who talked like a gangster,

suggested to me that sentimentality was giving something more

love than God would. Which is a remark I still scratch my head

over from time to time.

 

A sharply written critique will draw what it will in response. Either

of the same kind or a different kind. Heat draws heat or

defensive responses sprouting quicker than parking tickets on a

busy street. Whatever else, the photos will stay the same,

probably made the family happy.

 

Say what you will. That is what this place is about.

[ray .]

Although I don't completely agree with Patrick Garner's assessment of Rob Heyman's work (I would have refrained from calling it "cheap", at any rate), it seems to be a valid enough viewpoint. If one wishes to criticize negativity, there are plenty of examples of greater magnitude elsewhere on this forum.

[el_fang]

<i>"BTW, I never could understand why people insist that if you criticize someone's work you must show your own work to prove your validity?" -- Mark Rutledge</i>

 

<p>I don't think anybody said you have to. But it sure adds (or subtracts) weight from your criticism if people can see where you're coming from. For example, I made a post a few days ago about <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=003o9T" target="_blank">David Alan Harvey's new book</a>. A number of people responded with negative criticism, referring to "underexposed images" and "Disneychrome film" that "kills the mood in every shot". But then you see some of THEIR stuff like <a href="http://www.leica-gallery.net/jbf/folder-2576.html" target="_blank">this</a>, <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=175230" target="_blank">this</a>, and <a href="http://www.leica-gallery.net/alfiewang/folder-2319.html" target="_blank">this</a>.

 

<p>As someone in that thread pointed out, I think there are a few people pissing upwind, just as some are here. Note that I am one of the people who have zero uploads, so I probably shouldn't be criticizing anyone... so subtract what weight you will.

[fotografz]

No one has said that critism is forbidden. Yet, IMO, it would be nice if it

was civil, and clearly stated as an opinion rather than presented as a

definitive fact. Conviction is one thing, but run-on sentences featuring

every derogatory adjective the critic can look up in the dictonary, is

another. It's called tact, a technique used by intelligent people to create a

dialog rather than a monolog.

 

As far as wanting to see the work of a critic? IMO, sure. No one here

has established credentials for insightful criticism that I know of (unless

they are using a poison pen-name, and are really Susan Sontag). So, I for

one, won't just listen to anyone unless he/she says, or shows, me

something insightful. Otherwise, it's just another example of that old

saw, " I know what I like", which really means "I like what I know".

[frank_horn]

I'm fairly easy to please and enjoy most photos uploaded here. IMO, a photographer is "good" if his camera equipment can be paid for with the proceeds of his photographic endeavors. A photographer is "excellent" if he not only can pay for his equipment, but make a fair living, in addition to paying off equipment. A photographer might be "outstanding" if he or she gets some sort of national and international recognition.

 

It is human nature to be sensitive to criticism. Knowing that I have no portfolio to display, and that I wouldn't fit my own criteria of "good," much less "excellent" or "outstanding," and that many people contributing here *do* fit that criteria, I believe the old saying, "Better to be silent and appear stupid than to say something and remove all doubt."

 

NOW! About that new Leica, with a new film size, 44mmx55mm, horizontal, with perforations each side, between-the-lens shutter to 1/500 sec, full flash sync, about the size of the M5.... ;-)

[bruno_menilli]

Political correctness does destoy dialogue, but unnecessarily harsh criticism destroys respect and caring for other's feelings,and I think professionals should act as such-- professionally.

 

 

What is gained by exercising your undoubted right to an opinion, in such a derogatory and spiteful way ,rather than in a considered and respectful way ?

 

We are all entitled to our individual opinions, and you obviously do not like these subject matters, me, I will repeat that I think the photograghs are great,and what would I give to have such photos of my brother (assassinated) my wife (death by suicide) and my eldest son (murdered)

 

Personal family photos are the most important for me, and they are the ones I would like to save if my house was on fire, not the technically perfect ones used in business.

 

 

This is not the newsdesk of some national daily newspaper, or a magazine editors desk, so the ethics and methods that may apply there should not, I think , be used here ,or am I wrong?

[ray .]

Here are Patrick's two comments on the thread we're talking about:

 

 

(1) "This guy is obviously suffering from a terminal case of sentimentality."

 

and,

 

(2) "Patrick to Patrick:

 

Too many fresh faced children for my taste. Perhaps he's got other tricks. I saw one soft focus young girl, & at that point clicked off

the site. What he does he appears to do well. But I have always disliked & distrusted such effusive sentiment. It's cheap, easy &

beloved by all. Which, like it or not, makes it no different than tourist landscapes on cardboard canvas from Germany.

 

Art is isn't; Sentiment it is, no matter how well shot. Sorry to have disagreed with you, but my carefully rendered opinion is, Come

on!"

 

What's the big deal? Am I missing something? I just don't get how those remarks are harsh, cruel, or anything bordering on it. I may disagree with his opinion (and yes, Bruno, my family snapshots would be the first I would save in a fire also), but so what? He's entitled to his viewpoint, and I can't see how his comments aren't civil. Come on!- indeed!