Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => User Critiques => Topic started by: button on May 19, 2009, 12:24:30 pm
-
I am constantly impressed with my inability to appreciate certain features within my own photos that I post, but yet I consider myself a decent constructive critic of other work posted here (based on feedback that my comments generate). As has been mentioned before, divesting oneself of his/her work and critiquing it objectively is not easy. How do you think we can get better at this? What techniques do you use to better this skill?
John
-
I need at least a month before I can objectively look at one of my photos, especially if I initially like it. Helps a lot if I crank out a few other images in that time. I can usually spot an image that will sell right away, but that doesn't guarantee I won't hate it down the road a bit.
-
I am constantly impressed with my inability to appreciate certain features within my own photos that I post, but yet I consider myself a decent constructive critic of other work posted here (based on feedback that my comments generate). As has been mentioned before, divesting oneself of his/her work and critiquing it objectively is not easy. How do you think we can get better at this? What techniques do you use to better this skill?
John
I agree with Bill. The best way to overcome the problem is to wait. Put the pictures away where you can't look at them by design or by chance. Then, a few weeks later, look again. One thing I've noticed about any creative work -- poetry, writing, photography -- is that the thing you just did is always the best... until you've given it a chance to settle. Which is not to say there aren't exceptions. Sometimes you know, right away. But if you run into one of those situations more than about once a year you're not being critical enough.
-
I concur with the previous two posters. Often with my photos and my writing I need to put them aside for a month or so before I can gain any perspective on them. At the time of creation I usually find that I'm too close to it to see it for what it is.
-
I think this advice might be the best I've read in at least a year. I epecially like the idea of taking other pictures in the meantime. Thanks!
John
-
Agree totally.
-
John Paul Caponigro has a number of recent posts and a number of papers (free for download) on this subject. You can start here:
http://www.johnpaulcaponigro.com/wordpress/ (http://www.johnpaulcaponigro.com/wordpress/)
Mike.
-
John Paul Caponigro has a number of recent posts and a number of papers (free for download) on this subject. You can start here:
http://www.johnpaulcaponigro.com/wordpress/ (http://www.johnpaulcaponigro.com/wordpress/)
Mike.
I don't know about that one, Mike. Something like his "Think outside the box" is a command about as inside the box as I can think of, whether I'm thinking inside or outside the box.
It seems to me that trying to dissect ones own creativity is a hopeless, and even dangerous task -- at least if you want to go on doing creative things. The idea of doing that reminds me of Archibald MacLeish's book, Poetry and Experience in which he shows, conclusively, that any attempt to dissect a good poem is futile. Creativity itself doesn't come from thinking, though the tools to do something with creativity may.
-
Something like his "Think outside the box" is a command about as inside the box as I can think of, whether I'm thinking inside or outside the box.
I love that.
Art criticism or analysis, and analysis of the 'creative process' is a real snark hunt in many ways. It's certainly possible to impose some kind of cognitive/analytical framework on a work of art, or a body of work from a particular artist. But it's really beside the point, isn't it? Art has to speak for itself. Attempting to analyze the process of creating art seems a bit like trying to analyze the function of the human body by dissecting it. You may learn something about the way parts fit together, but you're still left with a corpse.
-
I've thought some more about this, and I think I have another useful tidbit to consider. I find myself making more objective decsions about a potential subject while framing it, before I click the shutter. Until that time, what I'm looking at is just stuff, not yet "MY" stuff. Once the image appears, then the personal attachment happens, allowing for rationalizations, explanations, etc.
So, the moral of the story for me here, is SLOW DOWN, and really critique the scene in the viewfinder while it's still maleable. That may be obvious to many of you, but it's a real breakthrough for me in terms of my developement. Furthermore, critiquing through the viewfinder isn't always easy, especially if the subject is moving (wind), if holding the camera at a weird angle causes arm/back fatigue, or if the elements cause pain/distraction.
John
-
I've thought some more about this, and I think I have another useful tidbit to consider. I find myself making more objective decsions about a potential subject while framing it, before I click the shutter. Until that time, what I'm looking at is just stuff, not yet "MY" stuff. Once the image appears, then the personal attachment happens, allowing for rationalizations, explanations, etc.
So, the moral of the story for me here, is SLOW DOWN, and really critique the scene in the viewfinder while it's still maleable. That may be obvious to many of you, but it's a real breakthrough for me in terms of my developement. Furthermore, critiquing through the viewfinder isn't always easy, especially if the subject is moving (wind), if holding the camera at a weird angle causes arm/back fatigue, or if the elements cause pain/distraction.
John
John, Congratulations! What you're doing is a big step in the right direction. You're right, it's not always easy but you'll find it gets easier as you go along. It's something all of us have to learn by doing, but it's worth the price.
-
John - a good insight that also came to me, eventually.
Using a tripod helps, and another useful aid, until framing becomes semi-automatic in the brain, is a square of card with an appropriately-proportioned rectangle cut out in the centre. That can go with you anywhere even if you don't have the camera, and is a good way to practise visualisation. It even has a built-in zoom facility (the arm!).
-
It seems to me that trying to dissect ones own creativity is a hopeless, and even dangerous task -- at least if you want to go on doing creative things. ... Creativity itself doesn't come from thinking, though the tools to do something with creativity may.
This is a fair observation but I don’t completely agree with it. Critical analysis is the key way to advance one’s skills. I do agree that you have to put your emphasis in one area or another. If you dip too far into being a critic, particularly when being self-critical, it will serve to hinder your desire to create. But one stops learning the moment they refuse to objectively and critically analyze their own work.
This is a topic of long philosophical and psychological discourse. Going back to René Descartes, famous “I think therefore I am” through Nietzsche’s comments on the actor, through Freud and culminating with ideas by Adler and Jung, the role of self-criticism in art has a long history. But without dipping too far into that, if one wants to further their knowledge and skills they need to be critical about their own work. Not just in the sense of self-condemnation, but in the sense of learning from others and applying that feedback to one’s own works.
-
This is a fair observation but I don’t completely agree with it. Critical analysis is the key way to advance one’s skills. I do agree that you have to put your emphasis in one area or another. If you dip too far into being a critic, particularly when being self-critical, it will serve to hinder your desire to create. But one stops learning the moment they refuse to objectively and critically analyze their own work.
This is a topic of long philosophical and psychological discourse. Going back to René Descartes, famous “I think therefore I am” through Nietzsche’s comments on the actor, through Freud and culminating with ideas by Adler and Jung, the role of self-criticism in art has a long history. But without dipping too far into that, if one wants to further their knowledge and skills they need to be critical about their own work. Not just in the sense of self-condemnation, but in the sense of learning from others and applying that feedback to one’s own works.
Justan, Actually I agree with you, but I think we're talking about two different things. I don't think that analyzing your work and being critical of it is the same thing as "dissecting your creativity." "Dissecting your creativity" asks the question: "Why am I creative?" Critical analysis of your own work asks the question: "How can I improve on this?"
-
Justan, Actually I agree with you, but I think we're talking about two different things. I don't think that analyzing your work and being critical of it is the same thing as "dissecting your creativity." "Dissecting your creativity" asks the question: "Why am I creative?" Critical analysis of your own work asks the question: "How can I improve on this?"
Both questions seem OK to me - and I would add how to why.
-
Justan, Actually I agree with you, but I think we're talking about two different things. I don't think that analyzing your work and being critical of it is the same thing as "dissecting your creativity." "Dissecting your creativity" asks the question: "Why am I creative?" Critical analysis of your own work asks the question: "How can I improve on this?"
Hmmmm. You make a fair distinction, yet they are variants of the same thing. Cognitive psychologists use a term called “metacognition.” This process is the activity of stepping back and thinking about your own thinking. There are other terms for the process. One of them would be your “Why am I creative?” It is what you do when you stop for a moment, or longer, in your pursuit of an answer, and wonder whether your understanding of the problem is adequate.
You need to have a sense of “why,” either consciously or not, before you can begin to sucessfully answer the question “How can I improve on this?” The “I” is the central subject of both postulates.
One could equally say that metacognition is the shadow of the creative process or that the creative process is the shadow of metacognition, because they are variants of the same thing.
In a broad historical sense, the period of art starting with Mannerism and culminating with Impressionism were probably highly influenced by metacognition showing increasing influence into visual art .
That was admittedly a bit of a rant but highly applicable to the concept of personal investment in art
-
Hmmmm. You make a fair distinction, yet they are variants of the same thing. Cognitive psychologists use a term called “metacognition.” This process is the activity of stepping back and thinking about your own thinking. There are other terms for the process. One of them would be your “Why am I creative?” It is what you do when you stop for a moment, or longer, in your pursuit of an answer, and wonder whether your understanding of the problem is adequate.
You need to have a sense of “why,” either consciously or not, before you can begin to sucessfully answer the question “How can I improve on this?” The “I” is the central subject of both postulates.
One could equally say that metacognition is the shadow of the creative process or that the creative process is the shadow of metacognition, because they are variants of the same thing.
In a broad historical sense, the period of art starting with Mannerism and culminating with Impressionism were probably highly influenced by metacognition showing increasing influence into visual art .
That was admittedly a bit of a rant but highly applicable to the concept of personal investment in art
Cognitive psychologists probably don't make very good photographers.
-
> Cognitive psychologists probably don't make very good photographers.
All kinds of skills come to play in photography.
But in fairness to the OP, he asked about getting better at objectively critiquing his own work. I was following a comment of yours in relation to that. I think we agree that you don’t want to go too far in “dissecting ones own creativity” but we aren’t exactly sure where going too far might be.
Back to the OP: A big part of gaining objectivity is based around 4 sometimes difficult to live with concepts. Three have been mentioned directly.
The fourth and hardest for some is to continue to expand one’s sphere of knowledge. Take classes for both technical and academic purposes. Learn from other masters. Study the works of other photographers and other artists and try to emulate the ones you like. If there is a University or any bigger than average art library near by, visit it frequently. The web is great but it doesn’t quite replace books. Read about all things related and not so related to photography and other art.
-
> Cognitive psychologists probably don't make very good photographers.
All kinds of skills come to play in photography.
But in fairness to the OP, he asked about getting better at objectively critiquing his own work. I was following a comment of yours in relation to that. I think we agree that you don’t want to go too far in “dissecting ones own creativity” but we aren’t exactly sure where going too far might be.
Back to the OP: A big part of gaining objectivity is based around 4 sometimes difficult to live with concepts. Three have been mentioned directly.
The fourth and hardest for some is to continue to expand one’s sphere of knowledge. Take classes for both technical and academic purposes. Learn from other masters. Study the works of other photographers and other artists and try to emulate the ones you like. If there is a University or any bigger than average art library near by, visit it frequently. The web is great but it doesn’t quite replace books. Read about all things related and not so related to photography and other art.
Justan, Right on! Studying the works of other artists -- painters as well as photographers is essential to developing a personal style. It starts with emulation but after a while it drifts toward your own way of seeing. I'd add, if there's a museum near you that hangs prints by the masters it's worth studying the actual prints. Ansel's photographs look great in a properly printed book, but there are subtleties in his actual prints that books can't capture.
-
Justan, Right on! Studying the works of other artists -- painters as well as photographers is essential to developing a personal style. It starts with emulation but after a while it drifts toward your own way of seeing. I'd add, if there's a museum near you that hangs prints by the masters it's worth studying the actual prints. Ansel's photographs look great in a properly printed book, but there are subtleties in his actual prints that books can't capture.
Studying the works of others can be as much of a hindrance as a help. For example, the work you are likely to study is a narrow selection of artists who have aggressively promoted their work, or had it promoted for mostly unknown reasons by family, associates, investors, etc. Even worse is that the artists' work has been vetted or "approved" by the wise and learned art critic community. Crap, I say.
Suggest an alternative? Yes. Learn on the street, from people on the street. The little people as it were, rather than the so-called masters. There are plenty of them around, and most of them have something to offer. And think about it. You're not on the Paris/London/NYC bigtime art gallery website now, you're on Luminous Landscape. Because the little guy has more to offer. Because it's alive here - not dead.
-
Studying the works of others can be as much of a hindrance as a help. For example, the work you are likely to study is a narrow selection of artists who have aggressively promoted their work, or had it promoted for mostly unknown reasons by family, associates, investors, etc. Even worse is that the artists' work has been vetted or "approved" by the wise and learned art critic community. Crap, I say.
Suggest an alternative? Yes. Learn on the street, from people on the street. The little people as it were, rather than the so-called masters. There are plenty of them around, and most of them have something to offer. And think about it. You're not on the Paris/London/NYC bigtime art gallery website now, you're on Luminous Landscape. Because the little guy has more to offer. Because it's alive here - not dead.
So the work of Eugene Atget, Ansel Adams, Paul Strand, Andre Kertesz, Edward Weston, Henri Cartier-Bresson, Dorothea Lange, Walker Evans, Gene Smith, Manuel Alvarez Bravo, Robert Frank, Steve McCurry, etc., etc., is "crap?" Is that what you're saying, Dale? The only way you possibly could believe that is if you've never seen their work. Is that it?
-
So the work of Eugene Atget, Ansel Adams, Paul Strand, Andre Kertesz, Edward Weston, Henri Cartier-Bresson, Dorothea Lange, Walker Evans, Gene Smith, Manuel Alvarez Bravo, Robert Frank, Steve McCurry, etc., etc., is "crap?" Is that what you're saying, Dale? The only way you possibly could believe that is if you've never seen their work. Is that it?
Leave it to you to twist what I said.
Here's a *very* simple thought you *might* be able to grasp: Those guys are all dead. There are thousands of times that many who are alive and doing great, relevant art. By clinging so desperately to the past, you're denying yourself the present. And the future is the present.
I have a photo of myself taken in late 1948, which my parents gave to me in 1958. On the back of the photo I wrote the date "January 9, 1958 - NOW." You see, it's always now, and there's no time to waste. A study of the so-called masters may be a prerequisite for some, not for everyone, sorry. But when it is, get what you can from it, then move on and do something yourself. If those dead dudes were alive in some other dimension looking at you, they'd be saying "get out of the house, put down the big, heavy art books, and go take some photos."
-
Leave it to you to twist what I said.
Here's a *very* simple thought you *might* be able to grasp: Those guys are all dead. There are thousands of times that many who are alive and doing great, relevant art. By clinging so desperately to the past, you're denying yourself the present. And the future is the present.
I have a photo of myself taken in late 1948, which my parents gave to me in 1958. On the back of the photo I wrote the date "January 9, 1958 - NOW." You see, it's always now, and there's no time to waste. A study of the so-called masters may be a prerequisite for some, not for everyone, sorry. But when it is, get what you can from it, then move on and do something yourself. If those dead dudes were alive in some other dimension looking at you, they'd be saying "get out of the house, put down the big, heavy art books, and go take some photos."
No kidding? Steve McCurry is dead? Robert Frank is dead? I'm pretty sure they'd disagree, but who knows? Have you asked them?
-
No kidding? Steve McCurry is dead? Robert Frank is dead? I'm pretty sure they'd disagree, but who knows? Have you asked them?
They didn't ask me anything, why should I ask them anything? And why would I want to emulate anything they do? Next time I get to the Art Museum to see one of the dead dudes' collections, maybe one of these guys' stuff will be there too. Yawwwwwwn.
-
They didn't ask me anything, why should I ask them anything? And why would I want to emulate anything they do? Next time I get to the Art Museum to see one of the dead dudes' collections, maybe one of these guys' stuff will be there too. Yawwwwwwn.
Actually, you're right, Dale. The only reason you'd be interested in the work of those people, including the "dead dudes" would be if you aspired to become a serious photographer.
-
Dalethron> Studying the works of others can be as much of a hindrance as a help.
I'm sorry but this is silly This is the kind of thing ones says when they feel cornered. I don’t believe you really mean it.
Dalethron > For example, the work you are likely to study is a narrow selection of artists who have aggressively promoted their work, or had it promoted for mostly unknown reasons by family, associates, investors, etc.
One is definitely subject to the influences of family and friends. The reason to go to libraries and take classes is to find variety and get guidance in a broad field of knowledge. Don’t you agree it would be a weak mind that grabbed a few random books based on recommendations of friends but never went beyond that? Would you agree that taking such a facile approach is probably not a route of success?
Dalethron > Even worse is that the artists' work has been vetted or "approved" by the wise and learned art critic community. Crap, I say.
I've never taken a class where the instructor didn’t know of nearly limitless sources of furthering one’s knowledge. But if I came across an instructor who actually had only an “approved” list and discouraged further study I would agree that they are crap.
Dalethron > Suggest an alternative? Yes. Learn on the street, from people on the street. The little people as it were, rather than the so-called masters. There are plenty of them around, and most of them have something to offer. And think about it.
This is actually a very good suggestion. Over the course of a career, it is best to draw influence from a wide variety of sources. Ultimately, there is no right and wrong, but there is more and less useful. It doesn’t have to be one kind of source or another, and should be many sources.
Dalethron > …you're on Luminous Landscape. Because the little guy has more to offer.
I agree that interacting with a community, in particular this community, is one of the better learning aids there is. And while LL is as good as they come, it would never replace the variety of experiences one would get by a formal education or earning a degree.
-
Dalethron> Studying the works of others can be as much of a hindrance as a help.
I'm sorry but this is silly This is the kind of thing ones says when they feel cornered. I don’t believe you really mean it.
Dalethron > For example, the work you are likely to study is a narrow selection of artists who have aggressively promoted their work, or had it promoted for mostly unknown reasons by family, associates, investors, etc.
One is definitely subject to the influences of family and friends. The reason to go to libraries and take classes is to find variety and get guidance in a broad field of knowledge. Don’t you agree it would be a weak mind that grabbed a few random books based on recommendations of friends but never went beyond that? Would you agree that taking such a facile approach is probably not a route of success?
Dalethron > Even worse is that the artists' work has been vetted or "approved" by the wise and learned art critic community. Crap, I say.
I've never taken a class where the instructor didn’t know of nearly limitless sources of furthering one’s knowledge. But if I came across an instructor who actually had only an “approved” list and discouraged further study I would agree that they are crap.
Dalethron > Suggest an alternative? Yes. Learn on the street, from people on the street. The little people as it were, rather than the so-called masters. There are plenty of them around, and most of them have something to offer. And think about it.
This is actually a very good suggestion. Over the course of a career, it is best to draw influence from a wide variety of sources. Ultimately, there is no right and wrong, but there is more and less useful. It doesn’t have to be one kind of source or another, and should be many sources.
Dalethron > …you're on Luminous Landscape. Because the little guy has more to offer.
I agree that interacting with a community, in particular this community, is one of the better learning aids there is. And while LL is as good as they come, it would never replace the variety of experiences one would get by a formal education or earning a degree.
Thanks for the detail here. I tease a little sometimes, when I detect a dogmatic view of a subject. However, some of the seemingly radical things I say I do mean. For example, I have only about a year of college credit studying "new math" or whatever, but I bought the first personal computer and 20 or so engineering applications for it, and learned computing from that. So I don't have a degree, but I've done pioneering work in the PC field, and my programming skills are second to none. It is totally true, of course, that you won't become skilled as a photographer (or most anything else) unless you do the work *and* study the work of other acknowledged experts. But I strongly resist dogma. I do hang out with a lot of skilled photographers, but one thing I won't do is drop names, i.e. borrow from the reputations of other people to try to enhance my own.
-
Moving right along, and going back to Button's original post, here's another way to help judge your stuff, and, one would hope, help improve it.
I print and mat what I consider to be my best photographs in a range from 13 x 19 framed 20 x 26, 10 x 14 framed 16 x 20, 8 x 10.5 framed 12 x 16, and 4.5 x 7 framed 8 x 10, and hang them on my walls. At home I have 77 prints on the walls ranging over those sizes and in my office I have about 30.
When I make what I consider to be a good photograph I print it (in its size class), hang it alongside what's already there and look at it for several days as I pass through the room. If I finally decide it's better than one of the pictures already hanging, I take down the superceded picture and substitute the new one. Some of those pictures have been up for years. Others come down within months of going up. It's kind of like being a runner and working to better your time. I've found that at the least it's an interesting exercise, and at the best it helps me improve my work.
-
I havent read fully the last posts, only the start of the difference so maybe what I say has been said, in this case I apologize.
What Dalethorn and what RSL said is equally right, I dont see any contradiction.
Obviously I can learn from other masters, and thats a very good thing to do. Obviously I also could hinder myself by e.g. sticking to something or loosing myself into ideas of others. It just depends on my particular position and mindset. I dont always have to do/act like this or like that, or ONLY like that.
But beside this, this thread, esp. the first posts I liked very much. Was astounded that others seem to have these judgement-problems too
Christian
-
Moving right along, and going back to Button's original post, here's another way to help judge your stuff, and, one would hope, help improve it.
I print and mat what I consider to be my best photographs in a range from 13 x 19 framed 20 x 26, 10 x 14 framed 16 x 20, 8 x 10.5 framed 12 x 16, and 4.5 x 7 framed 8 x 10, and hang them on my walls. At home I have 77 prints on the walls ranging over those sizes and in my office I have about 30.
When I make what I consider to be a good photograph I print it (in its size class), hang it alongside what's already there and look at it for several days as I pass through the room. If I finally decide it's better than one of the pictures already hanging, I take down the superceded picture and substitute the new one. Some of those pictures have been up for years. Others come down within months of going up. It's kind of like being a runner and working to better your time. I've found that at the least it's an interesting exercise, and at the best it helps me improve my work.
I don't have quite as regular a system for rotating prints like you do, but I definitely agree that making prints is an important part of judging my work. For me it's not really a photograph until it's printed, and if you can't get a good print from something that you originally thought had potential, there's probably something to be learned from that. Also as you say 'living' with images and looking at them over a period of time is a good test of their true staying power.
-
I havent read fully the last posts, only the start of the difference so maybe what I say has been said, in this case I apologize.
What Dalethorn and what RSL said is equally right, I dont see any contradiction.
Obviously I can learn from other masters, and thats a very good thing to do. Obviously I also could hinder myself by e.g. sticking to something or loosing myself into ideas of others. It just depends on my particular position and mindset. I dont always have to do/act like this or like that, or ONLY like that.
But beside this, this thread, esp. the first posts I liked very much. Was astounded that others seem to have these judgement-problems too
Christian
Christian, The difference Dale and I have been dealing with is the difference between photography as art, and routine photography -- what I'll call tourist photography. Dale’s convinced he can’t learn anything from the masters, and after exchanging posts with him for a while I tend to agree that he can’t. But if you’re willing to look at and learn from the work of people like Eugene Atget what you learn is that a really fine photograph conveys something more than information. Conveying information is what the "pros" do. When you shoot a wedding, what you're conveying in your best pictures is information for the bride and groom and the rest of the family about "the way we were at our wedding."
Conveying information is necessary and very useful. But when a photograph is a work of art it has an effect on you that goes beyond the information in it. Most novices think that if they shoot something beautiful, say a sunset or a pretty flower, they’ve produced a work of art. After all, these things are colorful and the sunset is the kind of thing you’d step out of your house to see. But the feeling you get when you step out of your house and look at the sunset doesn’t necessarily translate into a photograph – especially a photograph made by the kind of novice who’s refused to learn from the masters. If it does translate, it’s art, but that rarely happens. What I’m talking about is what Walker Evans meant when he looked at one of his student’s sunset pictures and said, “It’s a beautiful sunset… So what?” If you want examples, take a look at the User Critiques section in this forum. Occasionally you’ll run across something that gives you the kind of transcendental jolt I’m talking about, but that’s a very rare thing. Most of what’s there is routine – pretty flowers, pretty sunsets, sitting birds, rivers flowing through the woods, etc. A lot of it is quite competent in a technical sense, and any good artist has to master technique, but raw technique isn’t what produces art.
You, and Dale, seem to feel that if you look at the pictures of the masters, somehow their ideas will overcome and supplant your own, or, as you put it, you’re liable to “lose yourself in the ideas of others.” That’s not what happens at all. I guarantee that if you actually try to reproduce the work of a master photographer, you’ll fail. But it doesn’t hurt to try to copy the subject matter of someone like Robert Frank or Helen Levitt or Ansel Adams. When you do that you begin to understand the difficulties involved in producing the kind of work they produced. Once you’ve grasped the problems and tried a variety of approaches and, I think, developed a certain amount of humility before the task you’ve set for yourself, you’ll find your own vision. But if you want to be a photographer and you’re not willing to learn what the masters can teach you, you’ll almost certainly go through life as a shooter of tourist pictures – the kind who’s always ready to bore his neighbors with his shots from his last trip to Yellowstone.
-
Russ,
what you say is true and I appreciate what you are writing. I agree that a good photo needs to be beyond the "pure facts" that are seen but has to contain an idea, should be done with an intention, or even vision, if I can come up with one. I have differing experiences with influences from outside. On the one hand exactly like you describe, learning from others. And sometimes I (try to!) close all doors, no external stuff, and then I also avoid looking at other work because it disturbs my ideas.
Christian
-
Russ,
what you say is true and I appreciate what you are writing. I agree that a good photo needs to be beyond the "pure facts" that are seen but has to contain an idea, should be done with an intention, or even vision, if I can come up with one. I have differing experiences with influences from outside. On the one hand exactly like you describe, learning from others. And sometimes I (try to!) close all doors, no external stuff, and then I also avoid looking at other work because it disturbs my ideas.
Christian
Christian, I can agree that there are times when it's best to stick with your own thoughts and not look at anyone else's work, though those times normally shouldn't last long. But I think that once you've reached a point where your work really is your own -- a point where other people can look at a series of photographs and say, "Oh, that looks like Christian's work," -- then you should be able to sit down after a day's shoot, pick up a book of photographs by HCB or Steve McCurry or Garry Winogrand and have what you're looking at reinforce your own originality rather than detract from it. At that point you're absorbing differences, not similarities. But I have to admit that I say that from the point of view of someone who hates doing weddings or formal portraits, and rarely does photojournalism. When I go out to shoot pictures I don't go with "ideas." I try to go with an open mind, and when I see a picture that moves me I stop right there and shoot. If I were doing standard professional work, ideas would be more than important; they'd be critical.
-
Christian, The difference Dale and I have been dealing with is the difference between photography as art, and routine photography -- what I'll call tourist photography. Dale’s convinced he can’t learn anything from the masters, and after exchanging posts with him for a while I tend to agree that he can’t.
This is a misinterpretation. I certainly can learn from the "masters". But that depends on who the masters really are. Russ convinced me that HCB and others were good and talented photographers, and quite popular with their followers. But with Russ' dismissal of Ansel Adams on several points, he lost credibility with me. I know about art having been closely associated with award winning artists for many years.
So Russ has his feelings, but that's all they are after all, just feelings.
-
Christian, I can agree that there are times when it's best to stick with your own thoughts and not look at anyone else's work, though those times normally shouldn't last long. But I think that once you've reached a point where your work really is your own -- a point where other people can look at a series of photographs and say, "Oh, that looks like Christian's work," -- then you should be able to sit down after a day's shoot, pick up a book of photographs by HCB or Steve McCurry or Garry Winogrand and have what you're looking at reinforce your own originality rather than detract from it. At that point you're absorbing differences, not similarities. But I have to admit that I say that from the point of view of someone who hates doing weddings or formal portraits, and rarely does photojournalism. When I go out to shoot pictures I don't go with "ideas." I try to go with an open mind, and when I see a picture that moves me I stop right there and shoot. If I were doing standard professional work, ideas would be more than important; they'd be critical.
Russ, yes I guess thats how it should be, thanks for the heads up. If one is more robust regarding this thats better obviously. I have read the whole thread now. Very interesting to hear from someone experienced as you what you consider as go and no-go. It makes sense when I think about it and try to fit it into my picture. I have just glanced over your photos and found them awesome. Im doing ruins and landscapes currently, wanting to do people.
One question, could you elaborate on why do you think dissecting your creativity is not good? I mean self-reflecting isnt a bad thing, so you must be meaning something other. (I have also some thoughts about it, but I am just interested to hear you on this.)
Christian
-
Like others, I've found just sitting on photos for a good few weeks is the best way to detach myself. When I get back from a shoot, I usually just upload them to my computer and back them up, and do my picks a few weeks later. After another wait, I go back to editing the picks.
Quite a bit has been said about learning from others, especially the masters. There are some, though, who disagree. Jorma-Tapio Valkama (http://www.valkamantaideviikot.fi/jorma-tapio/) (in Finnish) is a well-respected artist in Finland who arranges a yearly Valkama Art Week (http://www.valkamantaideviikot.fi/), and he feels that even viewing other artists' work pollutes his own vision. While I'm quite sure that would not work for me, I can't even imagine reaching such heights as he has.
Point being, do what works for you. And as Dale said, reject any and all dogmatic approaches.
I print and mat what I consider to be my best photographs in a range from 13 x 19 framed 20 x 26, 10 x 14 framed 16 x 20, 8 x 10.5 framed 12 x 16, and 4.5 x 7 framed 8 x 10, and hang them on my walls. At home I have 77 prints on the walls ranging over those sizes and in my office I have about 30.
When I make what I consider to be a good photograph I print it (in its size class), hang it alongside what's already there and look at it for several days as I pass through the room. If I finally decide it's better than one of the pictures already hanging, I take down the superceded picture and substitute the new one. Some of those pictures have been up for years. Others come down within months of going up. It's kind of like being a runner and working to better your time. I've found that at the least it's an interesting exercise, and at the best it helps me improve my work.
This is a great idea, I'll definitely try this!
-
I am constantly impressed with my inability to appreciate certain features within my own photos that I post, but yet I consider myself a decent constructive critic of other work posted here (based on feedback that my comments generate). As has been mentioned before, divesting oneself of his/her work and critiquing it objectively is not easy. How do you think we can get better at this? What techniques do you use to better this skill?
John
Hi John,
I've been reading the responses to this and agree with you as to the difficulty of critiquing your own work. My suggestion would be to find other artists, not just photographers, whose work you respect, and ask them to critique your work. This is not necessarily easy, the various difficulties range from finding such people who would be willing to take the time to dealing with egos on both sides of the conversation. None the less, I think that , if you can do this and really think about what they're trying to tell you the growth opportunities would be great.
Ed
artislens.com (http://www.artislens.com/)
-
Hi John,
I've been reading the responses to this and agree with you as to the difficulty of critiquing your own work. My suggestion would be to find other artists, not just photographers, whose work you respect, and ask them to critique your work. This is not necessarily easy, the various difficulties range from finding such people who would be willing to take the time to dealing with egos on both sides of the conversation. None the less, I think that , if you can do this and really think about what they're trying to tell you the growth opportunities would be great.
Ed
This is very good advice, which I've used in some applications, but it can be frustrating unless you're very patient and have a good (short!) story prepared to win your adviser over.
-
One question, could you elaborate on why do you think dissecting your creativity is not good? I mean self-reflecting isnt a bad thing, so you must be meaning something other. (I have also some thoughts about it, but I am just interested to hear you on this.)
Christian
Christian, It's a fair question and I wish I had a really good answer, but this is the best I can do: Self-reflection, if it's the right kind of self-reflection, is good, though I've known people who practically beat themselves to death with what they'd call self-reflection. But I guess I'd say that the problem with trying to dissect your creativity is that it can degenerate into the kind of navel-gazing that makes your attention wander when you're actually doing something "creative." For instance, I think that if you were trying to dissect your creativity as a photographer you'd tend to ask yourself, as you're ready to shoot, "Is what I'm doing now creative? If so, why am I doing it?" I believe thinking of any kind at the moment you trip that shutter is deadly to the kind of result I'd call "creative," because thinking blots out the kind of intuitiveness that's essential to the creation of art. There's more to it than that, but that's really the crux of the matter.
-
One question, could you elaborate on why do you think dissecting your creativity is not good?
I seem to remember that Beethoven at one point was preparing to rewrite the 9th symphony and dump the choral part. This, after rave reviews of the 9th in early performances. Darby Crash of the Germs was quite a poet, yet his penchant for self-flagellation did him in eventually.
So, introspect away, you can't do worse than many of the great masters.
-
I seem to remember that Beethoven at one point was preparing to rewrite the 9th symphony and dump the choral part. This, after rave reviews of the 9th in early performances. Darby Crash of the Germs was quite a poet, yet his penchant for self-flagellation did him in eventually.
So, introspect away, you can't do worse than many of the great masters.
Dale, Thanks for your penetrating response. I'm sure all the classical musicians and fans of Darby Crash of the Germs' poetry on the thread will be happy you've cleared all that up.
-
Dale, Thanks for your penetrating response. I'm sure all the classical musicians and fans of Darby Crash of the Germs' poetry on the thread will be happy you've cleared all that up.
I'm almost certain some of the great painters have gone that route, but maybe (!) we don't have that problem in photography because we're not real artists (ouch, did I say that, sorry).
-
we don't have that problem in photography because we're not real artists (ouch, did I say that, sorry).
That's certainly true in some cases.
-
This is a misinterpretation. I certainly can learn from the "masters". But that depends on who the masters really are. Russ convinced me that HCB and others were good and talented photographers, and quite popular with their followers. But with Russ' dismissal of Ansel Adams on several points, he lost credibility with me. I know about art having been closely associated with award winning artists for many years.
So Russ has his feelings, but that's all they are after all, just feelings.
Christian, I was going to pass on this one, but I finally decided it needs an answer. Dale's idea that Henri Cartier-Bresson was "popular with his followers," can only come from complete ignorance of who HCB was. His "followers" are virtually all serious photographers from the late thirties on. He certainly was the most influential photographer of the twentieth century. Dale misunderstands because he obviously knows nothing about HCB's photographs. As I've said before on these threads, my favorite photographers probably are Walker Evans and Elliott Erwitt, but both of these guys were heavily influenced by HCB. If you're not familiar with why HCB was so influential, read Henri Cartier-Bresson and the Artless Art by Jean-Pierre Montier. I don't find the book an easy read, but Jean-Pierre pretty much lays out the answer.
Evidently Dale isn't a careful reader. If he were, he'd know that I never "dismissed" Ansel Adams. I've pointed out several times that I learned a great deal from Ansel's prints and from his books. At one time I was a "follower" of Ansel. What I "dismissed" is the idea that landscape photography can be as powerful as photographs that deal with and include people -- street photography in its broadest sense.
Dale claims he can learn from the masters, but in order to do that you first have to learn something about the masters and their work.
-
Dale claims he can learn from the masters, but in order to do that you first have to learn something about the masters and their work.
Yadda yadda. Logic 101 - who are the masters, and who is telling me who they are? After a lot of years in this biz, and a lot more hanging out with real artists (painters), I can find the masters easy enough. I've got LLVJ for that, and I've got books. I'm not going to describe what books, since I'm humble enough to acknowledge that I'm not the expert on all things art. I don't even acknowledge that Russ here is an artist, although he does seem to follow along with some artists.
So why all the criticism of individuals here based on their level of knowledge or appreciation of art or the art of photography? Better for Russ to post his own stuff for critique. Look at Russ' website? Yeah - when I don't have a hundred other *really* important things to do.
-
Evidently Dale isn't a careful reader. If he were, he'd know that I never "dismissed" Ansel Adams. I've pointed out several times that I learned a great deal from Ansel's prints and from his books. At one time I was a "follower" of Ansel. What I "dismissed" is the idea that landscape photography can be as powerful as photographs that deal with and include people -- street photography in its broadest sense.
Sorry I forgot this in the previous post. Yes, I was a careful reader, and noted this. And yes, I consider the dismissal of landscape photography as less powerful (or whatever) than photos of people to be the more important issue. The dismissal of AA is just a symptom of the greater problem.
-
Russ, I agree. Asking questions about yourself at the point of shooting is bad. I think the only rule for self-critique is to strictly avoid beeing negative to yourself, i.e., mentally punish yourself for anything, and the rest is open. And to complement what you said, what certainly can happen if you think hard enough about the motivation behind your work is, that you might no longer be able to do this kind of work you where thinking about. Speaking bluntly, many artists or showstars are essentially living from their neurosis, so these should very strictly avoid reflection by any means, because it could kill their income. So in this regard I consider the warning about self-reflection valid. I believe Dale said that to a point when he mentioned Darby Crash, dont know him. By the way I also liked his remark about Beethoven, is tells all about the problem ^^
All the best
Christian
//edit: Now as Im seeing like the discussion has "advanced" I'll paste in back from history the last block I first deleted before posting:
About the discussion you Russ and Dale seem to have...: For me, you both have original ideas, you only seem to climb the horse from different sides. I know I said this before. I wonder why you are wasting time seemingly trying to misunderstand each other. At least Im sure its only a misunderstanding. I say this because for me it seems to pollute an otherwise very good and productive discussion where you BOTH make strong statements. Maybe you should deal with it with some PMs, tends to help Now I will shut up on this!
-
For me, you both have original ideas, you only seem to climb the horse from different sides.
Christian, You may not remember, but one of Dale's "original ideas" was that you can learn more about photography from Minnesota Fats than you can from someone like HCB. That's not climbing the horse from a different side. It's missing the horse altogether.
-
Christian, You may not remember, but one of Dale's "original ideas" was that you can learn more about photography from Minnesota Fats than you can from someone like HCB. That's not climbing the horse from a different side. It's missing the horse altogether.
This is the kind of nonsense that doesn't help, as the other person said.
My comments about Fats were explained in great detail at one point, and if you misunderstood them, and need more explanation, perhaps I can help. But I can't help when you misunderstand and then rant on with this and that based on your misunderstanding.
The other person did say, why do you waste so much time on misunderstandings? See, I understand your convictions about street photography etc. compared to landscape. If that's not apples and oranges, what is anyway? Not to mention, Russ, this is Luminous Landscape, not Luminous Street.
I can't (and didn't) comment on Fats' expertise in photography, but he understood people and human nature much better than most photographers, including the famous street guys. And his understanding of those things would enable him to be a better street photog than the other guys, if he chose to do so.
-
My comments about Fats were explained in great detail at one point, and if you misunderstood them, and need more explanation, perhaps I can help. But I can't help when you misunderstand and then rant on with this and that based on your misunderstanding.
Dale, You may have forgotten that your explanations "in great detail" are still extant on this forum. Anyone can check back and see exactly what you said.
-
Dale, You may have forgotten that your explanations "in great detail" are still extant on this forum. Anyone can check back and see exactly what you said.
The key word in your phrasing is "exactly". Now to you, who nit-pick and split hairs all the time, an exact word conveys meaning beyond the mere context of the discussion, or the breadth and depth of the subject. To you it's precise, like a mathematical truth table, i.e. 1 and 1 are 1, 1 and 0 are 0, etc. I know people like that - conspiracy theorists, Larouchies, etc.
I'd advise you to relax a little, and try to understand what a person means, beyond the individual words and your dictionary.
Perhaps to you, I was out there trying to impress a bunch of strangers on this forum with my vast knowledge of Minnesota Fats, and in your view, it's some kind of ego or Narcissistic thing. Actually, I don't know anyone here personally, nor do I have an expectation of knowing anyone. I'm not trying to impress people here, obviously, since my photographic results are nowhere near the quality of the work the VIP's of LL turn out. But then, neither are yours.
So what is it, what do you think I'm doing? Believe it or not, I try to help people - those who appreciate it. But I don't think there's any possible way I can help you with anything of any kind, here or anywhere else, now or in the future. You can put me on ignore with the click of one little button. Unless, of course, you're obsessed.
-
Dale, I'm going to drop it right here. I've run back through the whole thread and looked at your comments. They make my case extensively. There's nothing more that needs to be said.
-
Dale, I'm going to drop it right here. I've run back through the whole thread and looked at your comments. They make my case extensively. There's nothing more that needs to be said.
Like your other posts, Russ, you conveniently forgot to mention one little thing - how you just have to have the last word, even (or especially) when it adds *nothing whatever* to the topic.