SEEN BETTER DAYS by GERRY GENTRY

Tom, I think some of the answer may lie in your post about artificial Photoshop effects:
http://photo.net/casual-conversations-forum/00b0tI

Gerry appears to enjoy similar effects across the board regardless of subject matter. It reflects his taste, and there's nothing wrong with that, but it doesn't necessarily mean a POW selection validates it therefore merits pussyfooting around what many perceive as ill treatment of images.

Here is what Jeff Spirer said in that very same thread, Michael:

That certainly resonates with me. I do have to admit that the BG of this week's PoW is absolutely fascinating to me as done with HDR--the foreground, no, not for me.

I got blasted a few years back by my sister for how I rendered my mother's face with a lot of high contrast, curves, etc. In that case, the criticism was clearly more than about over-processing pure and simple. It was about how I had made my mother look old.

She was about ninety at the time. She died last year. Now my sister loves the photo, since it showed everything that my mother had endured. Every line was a battle scar and thus a badge of honor. It will be interesting to see how Gerry evaluates his own photo in a few years.

I will say what I said much earlier: I would love to see the original.

--Lannie

The most boring discussions of art are the merely technical ones where you almost have to be an artist to appreciate it. Discussing the impact of art isn't boring and necessarily has a broad range, from self inspection to the inspection of the self of the artist and of his subject. Everything about everyone and every thing is fair game. Art would be DOA without such latitude. Gerry does some work I like. How? What we know of his personality is that it is distinguished: it is fair game too, part of trying to understand something that he created.

This thread is becoming Monty Python-esque absurd in places.
Since my reaction is on that dreaded first page, I guess I am one of those ad-hominem villians now too? Except, there is a fundamentally wrong assumption in these late-thread-apologies to Gerry, and putting the guilt instead with those first few reactions.

(*)
Those were reactions to the photo with its title, as presented. Pretty much all those first reactions respond how people see this photo, how they react to it, what they impression and perception is. Nothing else - whatever presumed motive was caught, it was there because of the photo itself.
Hard words? Yes, mine are certainly not soft, but they are my real reaction to seeing this photo. Gerry included the title himself, so it's part of his intent of the photo. It didn't help, in fact it only widened the gap between what the audience saw, and what the intent was.
Is it ad-hominem at what the photographer's motives were? No. It was saying what motives are perceived from the photo. So, if the motives were 180 degrees different, then the photo failed at showing those motives completely.
All of this is about the photo. Not Gerry, not techniques in general - about the photo, as given. Photo vs. Viewer. Pure as can be.

Then suddenly, the main character turns out to be his mom, and his actual intention of the photo is revealed. Whoever looks at the photo after reading that is sure to get a different impression, and write a different critique. To say in retrospect those first were ad-hominem is disregarding timelines.
And wondering: should my response to the photo be different because of what Gerry shares about what he hoped to achieve?

True, that is a completely valid remark. But, it's also a different approach, leading to different results. The photo (presented as-is without remarks from its creator) has communicative values. Sharing what communication is picked up, letting only the photo do the work, is in my view highly informative. Adding the details later on, by asking the question, could add another layer (I'd argue whether it did here), and yield a different layer of information. But it would no longer be the pure reaction to the photo itself.
Both are interesting to hear, and as a level of feedback to the photographer, both have merit and value. But to me, it's simply not the same. This thread shows it nice enough, I think.

I'm not going to join in a Lannie-like sudden apology. Yes, starting with "Oh dear." isn't going to win me any prizes, but it was (and still is) my first reaction on seeing this photo. Caricature a too harsh a word? Maybe. But it's the overarching impression this image leaves on me. Can't really find any other way to describe what I get from it.

So, OK. With what Gerry revealed to be the actual intent of the photo in mind, let's rehash my review a bit:
I think the whole composition is wrong. The photo is about the decay of the seaside, which his mom loved when she was younger. Then why is mom the principal element in the photo, and the seaside making a backdrop? The shelter (which does not look in that bad a shape in the photo as presented) should be the main subject to start communicating that message, the decay should be visible (different editing style, probably, would have suited it better). Mom should be in the shelter, or in the back alongside it, as participant in the overall message. As it is, the photo does not convey the emotions mom has for the place, nor decay, nor sympathy for the place, nor what the actual main subject of the photo is.

Ouch, that didn't get much better, did it?
This photo as presented, with or without considering what the photographer's intent was, manages to miscommunicate. If expressing this is ad-hominem, then the only thing remaining is discussing the MTF-graph of the lens used to shoot it (yes, I am being hyperbolic).

If you take specific dislike for choice of words used by anyone, why not drop them a message, give them your feedback on their critique and suggest how to phrase things nicer? I would appreciate it (and if I'd reply with "go to hell" then that's just my misguided sense of humour).
___________
(*) Note: Lex, unfortunately two quotes of you, but they happened to spark the discussion. I don't fully disagree with what you tried to raise, as discussed, but I felt some points need to be put into perspective, and your quotes give a good point of departure for that.

My opinion of the photo has not changed one little bit.

I think that we could have done better in the style and tone of our criticisms, even if the substantive content of those criticisms remained the same. Sometimes it is not what you say, but how you say it.

I stand by everything I have said, including the substance of my opening salvo. I just wish that I had put it in different words, with SOME semblance of concern for the feelings of the recipient of that salvo.

That tone is all that I am apologizing for. I actually began that apology in my very next post, right after my first. I stand by both of them and everything since. I just wish that I had done it in a more measured style with a less harsh tone.

These are my final words on the matter of "apology":

Wouter and Fred, I am not apologizing for the apology.

--Lannie

I did not ask you to do that, Lannie.

But Michael, those reviews are still made, whether the artist reads it or not. They are made not only for the benefit of the performer, but for others as well, such as a potential audience. As a beginning photographer, it's educational for me read the honest opinions of others. The author of this photo doesn't have to read these critiques, but they still benefit the rest of us.

No one is required to post photos to this website, but if they do, they should simply be aware that those photos may be opened to critism. Such is the burden of those who make art, that people may not react as they'd expected.

I would recommend that in future POWs (or "critique of the week", should a reclassification be considered) that the author of the work be first notified, and that he agree to its publishing or not, but also that he agree to divulging (by an initial statement, or later in response to comments, it probably doesn't matter which) some information as to his intent or to his approach in making the photograph. And I agree that whereas the critique should not be limited in the extent or depth of its message, it should take into some account the sensitivity of the photographer and possibly question his intentions rather than simply saying, as in one case, the photograph "sucks". The intention should be to create a constructive dialogue about a photograph with other Photo.Net members, and particularly with the one principally concerned. The result, and this certainly has occured at the best of times, could be value-added in its content.

A lot written while I was sleeping!

First of all, to suggest that the reaction to the image with the title--even without the title--regarding what was portrayed was out of line or misguided seems itself to be misguided. This is an amateur/learning site for the most part and probably one of the most prominent types of amateur photography is the "cheap shot" of homeless and other unsuspecting and helpless "characters". It isn't that photographing these people is wrong in all cases but it is exploitative if it is only done for a "good" or "interesting" shot to be shared with others on such sites. When you see one shot of this type in a person's body of work, captured from a stealthy vantage point and a title like this, there is reason to question motive as much as photographic skill and is every bit as germaine.

Maybe, if there was an error in the opening salvos-and not everyone will agree--it was only that the comments were definitive rather than descriptive of what was being portrayed and suggestive of the seemingly insensitive image--I just think the title, and maybe the treatment, threw us over the cliff! I have said it several times now that I am skeptical of Gerry's claims, but that doesn't mean they aren't true or that this image might not have been made in that spirit. That is the reason most of us have followed with both aesthetic and technical discussions regarding why or why not as to the image working in that context or as an image without those considerations.

Personally, I also think the work "art" is thrown around here way too much or at least so nebulously that it has reached the point of no meaning. Sometimes we are just looking at photography. Photography encompasses a lot of things way before it gets to the level of art--even decorative art. There are and always have been lots of cool ways to decorate our photographs through various techniques--digital and analog. Decorating images doesn't make them art--although it can make them cool in THEIR time. Phone apps make pretty awful images look cool, but it doesn't make them art. We should be a bit more reserve in granting the moniker art to things that are just photographs that we like--or don't.

In the final analysis, the fact is that there has been a good exchange of ideas, technical and aesthetic, here regardless of bias for or against the image. It seems to me that there is always a better discussion when an image is controversial in some way and there is more to talk about than "nice image".

Good thread, warts and all. . .

--Lannie

this will stand in POW history not so much for the mediocre art but for the sad display of the photographer unwilling to assume criticism. Also the spectacle of a man saddling his elderly mom with his injured vanity further informs how we see the picture, and the author; it’s telling and bizarre and overtakes ‘…you all got to hell’ silliness

http://some.ly/NOuiNX

John A., that would be a deterrent of sorts. I like it, whether I should or not.

--Lannie

well, Lannie, it is often more important to not take ourselves so seriously than to do so....

Well, you have to admit, John, "Go to hell" was pretty darned eloquent.

I propose that in the future, when we allude to this thread, we simply refer to it as the "Go to hell" thread. or the "Go to hell PoW."

"Your photo sucks."

"Go to hell."

'Twould have made for a shorter discussion thread.

--Lannie

Of course, there is eloquence, and then there is eloquence:

[LINK]

--Lannie

Thankfully, the moderators have been eating turkey, watching football games, and elbowing to get into WalMart stores. Otherwise this POW/COW would have been much less memorable, and fewer ideas would have been exchanged. It has been an interesting week, and it's not even Monday yet.

Arthur, I much prefer each POTW author deal with it in their own way. Some may want to offer a statement of intent. Some may not. I also prefer each critic to critique in their own way. As long as no one violates the terms of agreement of the site, I like the diversity not only of substantive views but of stylistics and tones of voice. Some make more hard-edged and provocative photos. Others make easier and more pleasing ones. Some have an abrasive critique style. Others are more smooth. What comes out in photos and in critique is emotion and passion and individuality. I loved reading all the critiques on this photo, in all their various styles. Were I the photographer, I would have stared wide-eyed at my computer screen while reading, probably had some hurt feelings, probably laughed some, probably took some to heart, and probably pretty much ignored some. I would have marveled at the strong opinions offered. All of it would have been of benefit, even if in the long run. As a reader, I got a lot out of them, too. I took the substance of most and got off on the diversity not only of opinions but of means of expression. I want Arthur to continue writing in his style and John A. to continue in his and Alex in his and Carlos in his. We don't need to reach any accords on the tone of voice to achieve here. We need to speak our minds and accept each critique for what it is. We need to agree with some and disagree with others. I am OK with finding some objectionable and crass, others way too placating for my tastes. Just as our photos may be critiqued, our critiques may be responded to as well. We put ourselves out there in public, whether it's our photography or our critiques, and we open ourselves to a variety of responses from a vast array of personalities. Let's not seek to unify our various approaches. Let's not seek to "just get along." Let's keep this diverse, vibrant, provocative, and passionate . . . again, as long as we stay within the rules of the site.

Well... your mom.

Looks fake to these tired old eyes. Like a $3 bill with Nixon on the front.

The good news... I think we have a very talented illustrator here with a good eye for design. I'm not sure of his photographic talents because all of his art seems, to me at least, very post-processed. But since that seems to be his style, and his rule rather than the exception, then I congratulate Gerry on his art since his vision is consistent and quite good. I also think it's very commendable that this piece was chosen as the POTW.

On the other hand, why is this person acting like such a moron? Why are we being criticized, on the whole, for being arrogant and pompous and that we should consider a field trip to hell? What is this person even doing on a public forum? And what do we care about his almost Norman Bates relationship with his mother? And, by the way, what 20 awards has this "portrait" won? I agree with many of the comments here so I will not bother to rehash them. I like the overall image, although I think it lacks contrast and a point of focus, and suffers from a misleading title.

Gerry, you should also understand that, in order to give constructive criticism, one doesn't need to be a photographer him/herself. There are great teachers who are not talented in the field in which they teach. One really doesn't have to have anything to do with the other.

And here's a question for all of us pompous humans: Why are we (as in WE) even taking the time to complain about this person when his attitude is so childish?

We are urged throughout our lives to offer only constructive criticism.

I am sitting here wondering what the concept of "constructive criticism" might entail in a case like this.

--Lannie

"Constructive criticism" will mean different things to different people and be given in different tones of voice. That's the beauty of so much in life . . . diversity.

I'm not here suggesting what the answer may be, but many things we've been told all our lives are well worth questioning for ourselves.

Note that the word "critique" is often used by contributors here, but I don't believe it ever appears in the guidelines for this forum. What many people write are not critiques, which I think is fine. There are comments which range from critique to response to reaction. There are expressions of taste, of technical matters, of aesthetics, of appreciation, of disgust. We are simply asked to give some reasons for what we write. What we write comes in many forms. Though the word "criticism" or "critique" don't seem to be used in the guidelines for this forum, the word "discussion" and "contribution" are.

Certainly, as a photographer myself, I am as interested in hearing gut reactions, felt responses, and even associative anecdotes at the same time as I enjoy reading intellectually argued critiques.

In reacting to stuff like photos, I would generally expect a fair share of negative along with positive and, though some might try to, not everyone has to offset negativity with whatever the world or our parents or teachers or rabbis might consider "constructive."

*In some cases, it might be up to the photographer receiving them to be constructive with whatever comments he or she gets.

Any and all of the comments here can be seen as constructive . . . through a set of eyes willing and/or able to see them that way. Eye of the beholder.

Bothering or just being moved to comment might be the beginning of the notion of "constructive" necessary to move on here.

I certainly cannot challenge that, Fred. Being civil is a two-way street.

--Lannie