Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => User Critiques => Topic started by: RSL on August 21, 2009, 03:47:30 pm
-
Okay, you can stop laughing and get up off the floor. I’m not really going to try to define “art.” In fact, I’ve almost reached the point where I dislike the word, “art,” because people use it without defining what they mean and have the chutzpa to assume that -- of course -- I know what they mean. Yes, art is in the eye of the beholder, but if you’re talking about gallery-style “fine art” it’s also often in the hope of the buyer for monetary appreciation and in the, well, sometimes, cupidity of the seller.
But I bring up the term, “art,” because, whatever it is, I think it’s something we’re all trying to produce if we post or critique on this forum.
I don’t know how many on the forum are interested in or familiar with the story of the birth of Impressionism, but it’s an interesting story. In the mid nineteenth century there was a place not far from Paris called La Grenouillère (The Frog Pond) where Monet and Renoir used to go to paint what I like to think of as “street paintings.” The Frog Pond was a very relaxed establishment and most of its patrons came there to drink, engage in bawdy exchanges with the girls, and, sometimes engage in activities best not mentioned in a family thread.
But Monet and Renoir came to La Grenouillère to produce art. They’d set up their easels side by side, paint, and critique each others’ work. But the work of Monet is very, very different from the work of Renoir, so the critiquing wasn’t the kind of thing where Renoir would say to Monet, “I think that would be much better if you’d crop out those two boats and maybe darken the sky a bit.” Instead, their critiques dealt with the extent to which the paintings reflected the soul of the scene they were painting. These guys learned from each other and both profited from the learning.
It seems to me that the people who take the trouble to post on this forum don’t come here to drink, engage in bawdy exchanges with the girls, or engage in activities best not mentioned in a family thread. I think we’re all trying to create art – whatever our personal definition of art happens to be.
I’m very sorry that the “What’s the Idea” thread got vandalized. It seemed to me we were getting closer and closer to a reasonable definition of what constitutes valid criticism. I especially liked Mike’s approach: “If the image doesn't appeal to me personally (and nowhere is it written that every image posted here must do that!), and if I have nothing constructive to add, i.e. 'have you considered...' or 'if it was my image...' then I keep my mouth shut and move on.” Keeping your mouth shut and moving on leads, finally, to Jason’s comment: “…sometimes ‘silence’ is the best critique of all, dreaded though it is.” Makes me wonder if I really need absolution and remission for failing to comment on posts I find of no value.
But I still think it’s fair to ask, “Why did you shoot that?” The question shouldn’t be interpreted as an insult.
-
Art is NOT an accident.
Art is NOT an afterthought.
You need to try to make art - it doesn't just happen.
-
...patrons came there to drink, engage in bawdy exchanges with the girls...
...people who take the trouble to post on this forum don’t come here to engage in bawdy exchanges with the girls...
Girls are a separate class somehow? Where I grew up they were artists and photographers, just like the boys.
-
Nicely put, Russ. I like it.
-
But I still think it’s fair to ask, “Why did you shoot that?” The question shouldn’t be interpreted as an insult.
Not only is it not an insult, but it cuts through all the fluff and gets right to the heart of what's important to the "artist," and whether or not they achieved their desired outcome. In the end, whether or not others consider a piece to be "art" is irrelevant as long as the artist achieved his/her goal. If it's a metaphor, great. And if it's just a recording of a thing of beauty, that's great too. The artist's intentions determine how successful the final print is, at least IMHO.
-
Not only is it not an insult, but it cuts through all the fluff and gets right to the heart of what's important to the "artist," and whether or not they achieved their desired outcome. In the end, whether or not others consider a piece to be "art" is irrelevant as long as the artist achieved his/her goal. If it's a metaphor, great. And if it's just a recording of a thing of beauty, that's great too. The artist's intentions determine how successful the final print is, at least IMHO.
Half right, half wrong. Logically, it does not seem that it would be insulting in any case. But that assumes that people are perfectly logical and emotionless, or at least they lack negative emotions.
Of course, you could minimize the friction by repeating the mantra ad nauseam until everyone is appropriately dulled by the constant repitition.
But you'll have more luck and get better responses if you word it better, couch it better, make sure in advance that your askee understands your intent. There are a few people on several forums I can think of who would ask that question bluntly of someone they've had friction with, just because they think they can get away with it and look clean in doing so.
-
Instead, their critiques dealt with the extent to which the paintings reflected the soul of the scene they were painting. These guys learned from each other and both profited from the learning.
I like this line, and I think it galvanizes some thoughts I've had lately about the critiquing process. I'm trying to move away from "I'd do this or that" type replies, and rather offer interrogatives to challenge the poster to reconsider certain elements in his/her offering.
That style, I think, accomplishes two things: it comes across as less heavy handed, and it (hopefully) creates an interaction with the OP, which, at its best, might inspire both the poster, myself, and anyone participating to make better photos next time.
John
-
As a personal experience, when I was starting out, somebody posted a comment on my photo "so what?"
From where I came from, it can considered as offensive. I think "why did you shoot that?" would have been better.
Now, I would not want to assume that he is rude or he felt that he lost a minute of his life just looking at my garbage... so I did answer him as mush as I can.
From that point onwards, I was more careful. And after a few months I got a positive feedback from him. Gold.
We do not know how a person would react to a negative critique. Would he better himself or take it personally. In any case I believe it should be given specially when asked. Sugar coating it would depend on the person whose giving it.
Online, where we cannot see our faces and we are of different cultures, our written words should reflect our best intentions.
In the end, it is the artist own confidence in his works that will stand - it's just that critiques can give him some points that he might have missed.
ReD
-
I like the question "Why did you shoot that?" much better then the question "What's the idea?". "Idea" seems (to me) too much of an intellectual, "left-brain" concept, which may be applicable to some photos but not to many others. When judging my own photos, "Why did I take that?" is often a useful (and sometimes humbling question) to ask.
But as for, "What is Art?" I have to say "Art is the nickname of my friend Arthur.
-
I like the question "Why did you shoot that?" much better then the question "What's the idea?". "Idea" seems (to me) too much of an intellectual, "left-brain" concept, which may be applicable to some photos but not to many others. When judging my own photos, "Why did I take that?" is often a useful (and sometimes humbling question) to ask.
But as for, "What is Art?" I have to say "Art is the nickname of my friend Arthur.
Eric, I agree with you. I don't think Brooks Jensen picked the right word in that article. He's a good writer but sometimes he seems to shoot from the hip. Nevertheless I thought what he said was to the point.
I've been thinking about how to phrase the question, "Why did you shoot that?" so that it doesn't sound critical -- which it's not intended to be. "What did you visualize when you shot this picture that you wanted to convey to your viewers?" seems a more polite way to ask the question. Maybe others on the thread will have ideas about how to phrase the question.
-
Basically in art as on many things and situations, YOU LIKE IT or YOU DON'T.
I love many Picasso paintings, but some I don't, and if I would have had the opportunity to be with him I would have told him so, but by saying this, he would not be offended (I hope), because its his LIKES against my DISLIKES.
In this regard, the photograph should convey the message the artists wants to give, with out having to give a tittle, and if given, it should only reaffirm its message.
Now going to the discussions that have gone back and forth: one thing is to give your opinion, that can be a negative/positive critique of a particular image, and if it stays only on the facts, no harm is made. We artists should be able to cope with this, but if the critique is offensive, goes on a discredit, its made personal or harms in any way, in my case, I just remove the offender from my mind and carry on. I will continue to see/like the image the same way as when I created it. Never the less, some times you also have to do more than that, if a discredit/harm was made.
Gonzalo
-
I don't think anyone is against valid criticism, but the fact is, some critiques are way over the top, and oriented towards technical matters and manipulating images. Aesthetics and the Art of seeing is just as important. And not every photo we take or post is going to evoke a comment that is worthy of more than a few words. Take this new person "Ognita", obviously a fine photographer, posting only his best. What are we to say, we like his photos because they are very good and because his work is more than a literal translation of the world. We could talk about his style and so on. Fine up to a point. But he is a very good photographer and he knows it and we know it. Why not just highlight his work. That seems more appropriate to me and we could probably learn a lot more this way. We all strive for this, but we take hundreds, if not thousands, of images and they are just not that profound. Should we post these or not? Of course not. We post only a few and what we wish commented on or displayed. Of these thousands, if we take a great image, can we say we were concious of its representation at the time? Maybe, more likely not. Do we have to defend every image we take? I think critiques should stick to basics, just like in a classroom. Good composition, strong lines and shapes, patterns, symbolism or representation, use of light, balance, etc. It gets pretty tiresome to read that someone does not like a certain crop, as if most images could not be cropped, seven ways to Sunday. It's one of the basic things you learn in photography class. But if someone suggests a crop, not to "improve" the image as "we" would like it, but to better help the author convey what he wanted, that is good critique.
I really get the feeling that some people don't want to see certain people post their images. I think this is fair only if any one person posts too many, or is deliberately disruptive, but that is something that is self-evident and should be taken up with the moderator if it is a problem. What is ART? Callous as it may sound, I think it is what people are willing to buy or pay to see as art in a public exhibition. Few people can really call themselves artists or live by their art.
JMR
-
What is ART? Callous as it may sound, I think it is what people are willing to buy or pay to see as art in a public exhibition. Few people can really call themselves artists or live by their art.
I don't think it is callous, just off the mark. I couldn't disagree more. Artists don't have to sell their work. Many of the "greats" past, present and future didn't, don't and won't "live by their art".
Art and commerce certainly intersect, but they are wholly different animals, IMO.
-
<snip> Take this new person "Ognita", obviously a fine photographer, posting only his best. What are we to say, we like his photos because they are very good and because his work is more than a literal translation of the world. We could talk about his style and so on. Fine up to a point. But he is a very good photographer and he knows it and we know it. Why not just highlight his work. <snip>
Hi John R,
Thank you for your kind words if I may answer your question in regards to "why not just highlight his work"
Yes, I am pretty confident of my works but not to the extent that I'd to go in a new community and do so. Specially in a forum that is composed of respected professional photographers. I offered my images for critique to know what a seasoned eye would see - to learn. Varying opinions and tweaks on details was mentioned (thanks Jeremy)
With much respect,
ReD
Apologies for the short derail.
-
Art is just a word we put on our desperate yearning to promote the non-utilitarian objects and actions we create to something far greater than mere craft. To create a definition for art, we would first need to understand why we think there should be such a thing at all. I have no real theory but it may have something to do with the little lump of gray matter that is large in people with strong spiritual inclinations.
I personally will consider calling something art if it absolutely rivets my attention and takes my breath away the moment I see it. An Epiphany of perception that goes right to brain's basic wiring, that's what it takes. All the rest is craft and decoration, which is what I mostly make and what we see a lot of here.
-
I especially liked Mike’s approach: “If the image doesn't appeal to me personally (and nowhere is it written that every image posted here must do that!), and if I have nothing constructive to add, i.e. 'have you considered...' or 'if it was my image...' then I keep my mouth shut and move on.” Keeping your mouth shut and moving on leads, finally, to Jason’s comment: “…sometimes ‘silence’ is the best critique of all, dreaded though it is.” Makes me wonder if I really need absolution and remission for failing to comment on posts I find of no value.
Russ,
I respect what you say, but I think we must allow room for the highly negative critique provided reasons are given. When we get comments like "I don't like it" or "This image doesn't work for me" then yes, it is unhelpful, but if you add the word "because", followed by some explanation, to the end of those sentences then we get into a real discussion. I can only speak for myself, but this is why I post here. Getting good comments is nice, but the negative ones make me think about what I have done, and I hope guide me to improve as a photographer.
Of course, making a reasoned criticism requires some effort, and the poster has no moral right to demand that effort from others. However, when someone does take the time to take my image apart and cut it to shreds, then I for one appreciate that.
Ed
-
Art is like pornography. I can't define it, but I know it when I see it.
-
Russ,
I respect what you say, but I think we must allow room for the highly negative critique provided reasons are given. When we get comments like "I don't like it" or "This image doesn't work for me" then yes, it is unhelpful, but if you add the word "because", followed by some explanation, to the end of those sentences then we get into a real discussion. I can only speak for myself, but this is why I post here. Getting good comments is nice, but the negative ones make me think about what I have done, and I hope guide me to improve as a photographer.
Of course, making a reasoned criticism requires some effort, and the poster has no moral right to demand that effort from others. However, when someone does take the time to take my image apart and cut it to shreds, then I for one appreciate that.
Ed
Ed, I agree with everything you said, but I also know that there are some very tender selfs out there who haven't learned that the best criticism is direct and untrammeled criticism. Those selfs want a pat on the head to go along with the kick in the pants.
-
First, art is not just about technique. Good art implies good technique, but using good technique alone does not result in making art.
Technical mastery results in making technically excellent photographs, but not in making art.
To be art a photograph has to be both technically excellent and artistically inspired and inspiring.
Second, art cannot be documentation. It has to be the expression of the artist's personality and inspiration. In other words, the artist has to be "present" in the work by making his/her personality and style visible in the facture (rendering) of the piece.
-
Well said Alain.
-
I remember seeing a quote somewhere about Modern Art once
Is Modern Art actually Art, or is it Sh*t
As with everything, something that is Art to one person will not be Art to another.
-
A few years ago I wrote this tongue-in-cheek blog entry on Appreciating Art (http://roberts-rants.blogspot.com/2005/08/appreciating-art.html). I have linked to it on this site before but I thought it was apt in this thread.
-
This one is less tongue in cheek... On the Art of Observing Gallery Viewers Observing Art (http://tao-of-digital-photography.blogspot.com/2009/08/on-art-of-observing-gallery-viewers.html)
Mike.
P.S.
If you make a dumpster and over the years you paint it red and blue and green and you keep throwing garbage bags in it, does it become art?
[attachment=16312:DSCF0992.jpg]
-
Sorry about original post I misunderstood the word trammel. So deleted my original comments.
JMR
-
P.S.
If you make a dumpster and over the years you paint it red and blue and green and you keep throwing garbage bags in it, does it become art?
Yes, as general rule that sort of process leads subconsciously to the creation of genuine art vibrant with the unmistakable impression of the creator's world view.
P.S.
OOH! That's BEAUTIFUL, I saw some pictures just like that on the Internet!
-
First, art is not just about technique. Good art implies good technique, but using good technique alone does not result in making art.
Technical mastery results in making technically excellent photographs, but not in making art.
To be art a photograph has to be both technically excellent and artistically inspired and inspiring.
Second, art cannot be documentation. It has to be the expression of the artist's personality and inspiration. In other words, the artist has to be "present" in the work by making his/her personality and style visible in the facture (rendering) of the piece.
Alain, Do you consider Cartier-Bresson's early work, which for the most part is not technically excellent, to be art?
-
Alain, Do you consider Cartier-Bresson's early work, which for the most part is not technically excellent, to be art?
Sure, if a picture has a good idea or strong message it just works regardless of technique. So, also technically bad images can of course be art. Another exception, where the technically bad performance is part of the work, thats also valid. But nevertheless, exceptions aside, what Alain said holds true as a general statement for me. I could nitpick all sort of special cases, also come to the conclusion that no one can define anything, or the like, but the basic idea is pretty much straightforward.
-
Sure, if a picture has a good idea or strong message it just works regardless of technique. So, also technically bad images can of course be art. Another exception, where the technically bad performance is part of the work, thats also valid. But nevertheless, exceptions aside, what Alain said holds true as a general statement for me. I could nitpick all sort of special cases, also come to the conclusion that no one can define anything, or the like, but the basic idea is pretty much straightforward.
But Alain hasn't answered the question. What he said was: "To be art a photograph has to be both technically excellent and artistically inspired and inspiring." To me that means nothing that isn't technically excellent can be art.
-
But Alain hasn't answered the question. What he said was: "To be art a photograph has to be both technically excellent and artistically inspired and inspiring." To me that means nothing that isn't technically excellent can be art.
Given the contemporary post-modern trend to emphasize concept over image (nudes with dead fish, small children with birds nest, party masks and, worst of all...text), I don't see how technical excellence is relevant. Much of this new works suffers greatly from technical inadequacies, yet it's not only called art, it's all the rage.
Don't get me wrong, I greatly dislike this contemporary drivel. However, there is no denying how popular it is within art circles.
-
Given the contemporary post-modern trend to emphasize concept over image (nudes with dead fish, small children with birds nest, party masks and, worst of all...text), I don't see how technical excellence is relevant. Much of this new works suffers greatly from technical inadequacies, yet it's not only called art, it's all the rage.
Don't get me wrong, I greatly dislike this contemporary drivel. However, there is no denying how popular it is within art circles.
What about 'concepts' that are ultimately executed technically well .... just not by the 'conceiver', but his or her minions?
-
Given the contemporary post-modern trend to emphasize concept over image (nudes with dead fish, small children with birds nest, party masks and, worst of all...text), I don't see how technical excellence is relevant. Much of this new works suffers greatly from technical inadequacies, yet it's not only called art, it's all the rage.
Don't get me wrong, I greatly dislike this contemporary drivel. However, there is no denying how popular it is within art circles.
Chuck, Does popularity define art or help to define art? For a long time I was involved with poetry both as a producer and as a consumer. But over the years I watched poetry transition from something that was generally popular and at least somewhat familiar to the majority -- at least of the people I knew -- to become the product of a secret society, coherent only to the initiated. If you ask someone deep in the poetry pit whether or not current poetry -- the kind of thing published nowadays in Poetry magazine, for instance -- is art, you'll get an earful about how advanced and wonderful it all is -- as long as it's produced by those with the proper credentials and background.
People from the same group buy fantastically expensive paintings of Campbell soup cans and believe they're high art because they're expensive and because people with the proper credentials tell them it's high art.
Seems to me that not only art but the very definition of art is in the eye of the beholder. There are those who believe art is art because it's unintelligible. There are those who believe art is art because it's expensive. There are those who believe art is art because someone with the proper credentials tells them it's art.
I'd suggest that certain works are accepted as art within the groups where they're popular, silly though the works may be. The rest of us just have to fend for ourselves. Nudes with dead fish? How about nudes posed uncomfortably on rocks, or nudes sinking uncomfortably into a swamp, or nudes knee deep in the ocean carrying umbrellas? Or nudes...
As I said in the initial post, I have no intention of trying to define art in this thread. I think I just proved that.
-
Alain, Do you consider Cartier-Bresson's early work, which for the most part is not technically excellent, to be art?
Russ,
I don't think I'm familiar with it. I would have to see some examples. If you have a link that would be great.
-
But Alain hasn't answered the question. What he said was: "To be art a photograph has to be both technically excellent and artistically inspired and inspiring." To me that means nothing that isn't technically excellent can be art.
Technical excellence has to be approached within the context of the movement that the artist is working in. What that excellence entails will therefore vary. For example, with reportage-type images, blur or movement is often part of the work and not considered a flaw. On the other hand, with "f-64" type of images, total sharpness is expected. Each type of images, each movement, calls for a specific approach. What is a mistake in one art movement can be intentional in another art movement.
-
Chuck, Does popularity define art or help to define art?
If we're talking about specific groups, especially groups that purport to be the leaders in the art world (gallery owners, editors, etc) the answer is yes, popularity defines art, at least for their group and those that are influenced by it. It has always been so, whether we like it, or not.
I'm not talking about global popularity, but rather popularity WITHIN a particular group.
Shouldn't be like that, but IMHO it is exactly like that.
-
Anyone who claims to have the definition of art is either naive, arrogant, delusional, is flogging an agenda, or some combination thereof. It's perfectly fine for you to have a definition for your own purposes, just don't expect to line up the rest of us in agreement. I'll drink my own Kool-Aid, thank you. The best articulation of the problem is Thierry de Duve's Kant After Duchamp.
-
What about 'concepts' that are ultimately executed technically well .... just not by the 'conceiver', but his or her minions?
I never meant to imply that all conceptualized fine-art photos are technically poor, as that is not the case. However, poor technical quality is often excused or even <gasp> expected.
Of course, this raises the question as to what exactly defines "technical quality"? Are blown highlights indicative of bad technical quality? How about flat shadows or poor lighting? While I would think of them as extremely poor quality, a young post-modern photographer might say "so what?", they're not important to the message or the subject matter.
IMHO, those are nothing more than excuses, but I'm firmly rooted in the straight photography camp so my views are rather biased.
Still, I'm right
-
Russ,
I don't think I'm familiar with it. I would have to see some examples. If you have a link that would be great.
Alain, Check http://www.magnumphotos.com/Archive/C.aspx...rm&CT=Album (http://www.magnumphotos.com/Archive/C.aspx?VP3=ViewBox&ALID=2K7O3R14TE52&IT=ThumbImage01_VForm&CT=Album). I'm always amazed when I run into a photographer who's not familiar with Henri Cartier-Bresson. He's generally considered to have been the most influential photographer of the twentieth century, though, personally I think I'd award that distinction to Eugene Atget.
p.s. Henri also was French. (And so was Atget)
-
I never meant to imply that all conceptualized fine-art photos are technically poor, as that is not the case. However, poor technical quality is often excused or even <gasp> expected.
Of course, this raises the question as to what exactly defines "technical quality"? Are blown highlights indicative of bad technical quality? How about flat shadows or poor lighting? While I would think of them as extremely poor quality, a young post-modern photographer might say "so what?", they're not important to the message or the subject matter.
IMHO, those are nothing more than excuses, but I'm firmly rooted in the straight photography camp so my views are rather biased.
Still, I'm right
Chuck, I agree. You're right! And you raised the question of what defines "technical quality," something that needs to be addressed. In the late 1800s The French Salon was rejecting the Impressionists' work mainly because of its subject matter, but also because of its "quality." The paintings weren't properly glazed and you actually could see individual brush strokes! Yet it wasn't long before being able to see individual brush strokes in a painting was considered an indication of quality.
I think most photographers consider "sharpness" to be the main test of technical excellence, though as Alain pointed out the need for extreme sharpness applies mostly to f/64 type images, which I'd take to be landscape and architectural photographs. And yet, if you've ever looked at B&W magazine, or lately, Color magazine, you'll see what I'll call "landscapy" photographs that look as if the photographer dropped his camera before shooting or used Lensbabies to make the shots. The people at B&W and Color obviously considered these blurry jumbles to have enough technical excellence to be included in the magazines.
Then, with color, there's the question of color balance and saturation. I'd consider, and I'm sure you'd consider a shot that's been given a green sky in post-processing to exhibit something less than technical excellence. Yet, you probably can go to your local museum and see a photograph in which colors have been shifted far enough that a green sky would more or less be a return to normality. Every time I go to an "art fair" I see booth after booth with photographs in which the color saturation has been pushed high enough to make the result look like a Marlboro ad. I'm sure I've already told this story, but I'll tell it again: I know a guy who displays at art fairs. A couple years ago when I went to the local fair where he was displaying I told him I thought he was pushing his saturation too far. He replied, "Yes, and my sales have doubled." So the buyers obviously consider Marlboro-ad color saturation to be technical excellence.
As far as I'm concerned if I look at a painting or a photograph and get an unexpected jolt to my heart that goes beyond ordinary experience, it doesn't matter whether or not the object was executed with technical excellence. It's art!
-
... as to what exactly defines "technical quality"?...
Common sense. Maybe someone other can state a general rule, I can't. I know it when I see it, very easy.
-
I think that it should start with honnesty with oneself. I would personnally avoid posting:
- images that I am not happy about,
- images that work for me, but I don't know why,
I don't think that it is fair to request others to make choices in place of ourselves, my expectation of a comment is to understand how others value work that I personnally feel works pretty well. The difficult part there is to avoid telling somebody else how I would have shot myself, and to focus on the general value?
This is where peers review helps because we all end up being stuck with ourselves but why bother asking others if we already know that something is wrong?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I'm intrigued by that famous quote from Picasso who, upon seeing the 15-20,000 year old paintings in the caves at Altamira, declared, "after Altamira, all is decadence".
I'm also intrigued by the fact that Picasso had a good training in painting representational art and saw the camera as a threat to this representational skill.
The problem with attempting to create art, whether with a camera or a paint brush, is the problem of conveying and reproducing that personal, emotional experience that one had when either photographing or painting the subject.
In my view, that requires a degree of skill which is one of the synonyms for the word 'art', in the dictionary. Art with no skill is surely just random activity. Take enough photographs and you will eventually get lucky. Throw enough blobs of paint at a canvas, and you might eventually create a Jackson Pollock.
Do enough processing in Photoshop and you might eventually turn a sow's ear into a silk purse . But at least that processing in Photoshop is not random. That's a skill, isn't it?