Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => User Critiques => Topic started by: amolitor on July 21, 2012, 07:00:48 am
-
EDIT: Dredged this thread from the depths of time, as a refreshing example of what the forum CAN be, and also it's a timely topic.
----
I wrote this for my dumb blog, but since it's basically written as a direct response to something Rob C. said, I figured I'd throw it on here too, for the delectation, argumentation, or ignorification of all you nice people.
--
What value is there is requesting comments and critiques? It's all just personal, isn't it?
It is a feature of "good art" (whatever that is, let us agree that our ideas of "good art" overlap sufficiently for rough work, here) that it is not only evocative, but that it tends to evoke similar reactions from many people. If your goal as a photographer is to make "good art" then, surely, you want to produce photographs that evoke, and that evoke similar responses from "most" people.
Having colleagues, friends, classmates, or random people on the internet "critique" your work, then, is a bit like a poll. You ask, really, do you react to my photograph? If so, tell me about your reaction, please? Then you gather up the answers, and see if they seem to cohere. If they do, then your photograph communicates in a coherent fashion. It might still not be good art, but it has one of the features of good art. If almost nobody reacts to your piece, you know it's probably not good. If people react, but the responses are all over the place, your work is apparently something odd -- it evokes, but not in a coherent way. All these possibilities are interesting and informative to the artist.
This is science: If you seek to communicate, you should attempt to communicate. "Test, test, 1, 2, 3, do you read? Do you read? Over." If the attempt fails, you should seek to understand why, so you can do better the next time.
When selecting people to critique, it's important to rule out certain groups, I find. Most internet forums are filled with technical nerds, who will tell you all about how your focus is wrong, and how you ought to follow the rule of thirds, and that your white balance is off. These technical details are largely irrelevant. They matter only to the extent that they color a viewer's response to the image. It's also important to rule out excessively studied critics. The last thing anybody needs is a rambling lecture on Postmodernism, or similar.
The useful responses are simply a record of the viewer's reaction, perhaps with some detail and a modest effort to understand the reasons for the viewer reaction, if any can be discerned. "Yes, I read you. Two by three (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_by_five)."
--
-
A well written and thought provoking piece.
Old news but still worth a chuckle regarding the worth (or otherwise) of forum critiques. (http://www.flickr.com/photos/andrerabelo/70458366/)
Dave
-
Well said, Andrew, but I think I'd substitute "popular" for "good" in your second paragraph. "Good" is a pretty subjective word. "Popular" is demonstrable.
I've found that User Critiques on LuLa is one of a very small group of fora that stays pretty much away from technology and talks about the qualities of actual photographs instead of the virtues of lenses, bodies, complicated and absurd-looking camera carrying gear, and trivia of that nature. Once in a while we run across somebody who holds forth at length about rules of art and practices, but that kind of gibberish usually is ignored and the perp eventually goes away.
I think you're right that mostly we're trying to collect reactions, but I can remember times when I've learned from suggestions that were accompanied by demonstrations of the suggested changes. Happily we're allowed, even encouraged to demonstrate suggestions on an OP's thread, and it's rare for someone to complain about a thread "hijack." Practically everybody who's been on here for any length of time has a particular approach to photography that's a bit different from all the others, so it's a wonderful learning and teaching tool.
The only fly in the ointment is that no one wants to hurt anyone else's feelings, so sometimes a posting doesn't get the kind of criticism it calls for. On the other hand, there seems to be a lot less of that here than on some of the other fora I've reviewed or been on. People here tend to be honest, though sometimes they're a bit too reserved (except for Slobodan, who always calls a spade a spade).
-
I'll second those comments Russ.
Regards
Tony Jay
-
The only fly in the ointment is that no one wants to hurt anyone else's feelings, so sometimes a posting doesn't get the kind of criticism it calls for. On the other hand, there seems to be a lot less of that here than on some of the other fora I've reviewed or been on. People here tend to be honest, though sometimes they're a bit too reserved (except for Slobodan, who always calls a spade a spade).
I end up getting myself into some hot water sometimes Russ because I tend to be very honest about expressing my own personal opinion.... and don't hold back, :-) I endeavour to always be polite.....and usually qualify that it is JUST my opinion... and heck.... that's ALL it is ! ... one person's opinion. I figure if I am polite and respectful; I am not responsible for someone else if they feel hurt by what I have said... then that enables me to just honestly express what i feel or think.
Julie
Julie
-
The only fly in the ointment is that no one wants to hurt anyone else's feelings, so sometimes a posting doesn't get the kind of criticism it calls for.
Is that a bit of self reflection? If anyone calls for critique but really wants praise, they are inevitably going to hurt themselves. Not because of suggestions and comments, but because of incongruent expectations…
I am a firm believer that if you are not willing to tell the truth, it will hamper change. And no change is no growth. And no growth is a premature death…
-
Thank you, Russ.
Good and Popular are surprisingly hard to comb apart, and despite writing a few paragraphs on it here and there, I am unable to concoct a concise and clear description of what I think is going on. On the one had, I vigorously deny that Good and Popular are the same, or that one includes the other. On the other hand, I consider them to be strongly related on these grounds:
Good implies some success in communication, at some level. If your piece is Unpopular, that implies that people, generally, dislike looking at it (or listening to it, or whatever) and THAT is an impediment to communication. There is Good work which is Unpopular, I think, but I can rarely pull an example out of my hat. It's definitely possible in theory.
So, I tend to conflate them occasionally, or at least fail to keep them properly separate, especially if what I'm talking about is specifically that communication element, which exists in some sort of zone "mostly" shared by the two ideas.
-
Unpopular is sometimes unpopular because it tells the viewer something he'd rather not know, and in that sense, communication has actually been achieved in manner most successful, if unpopular.
Apart from the hopeless problem of second-guessing the shooter's situation and intent at the time of the shot, there's the additional one of ego: it takes more than a fair share of same to pontificate about another's work, and I find that some emperors are far more naked than others. To be truthful -and why not? - I can't think of a single photographer whose work I respect, deeply, who engages in the ritual. Could be my slipping memory... but!
Rob C
-
Any photographer who teaches, or taught -- and there have been a few -- has surely engaged in the ritual!
-
Rob, if I had time I could give you several quotes from HCB that do exactly that, though he doesn't identify any photographers by name, but my D800 just arrived, so I'm busy.
-
Any photographer who teaches, or taught -- and there have been a few -- has surely engaged in the ritual!
And how many top, professional (and still working) photographers do you know who want to, or have the time, to teach?
Those photographers who do 'teach' have no alternative but to offer critique: it comes with the expectations, part of the package for which the punter parts with his pennies.
Rob C
-
How does one learn to make photographs, Rob?
Having taken some painting classes, I have a rough idea how that works. Surely you don't subscribe to a magical "it cannot be taught, you either have it or you do not" school?
-
And how many top, professional (and still working) photographers do you know who want to, or have the time, to teach?
Rob C
Jay Maisel - http://www.jaymaisel.com/ (http://www.jaymaisel.com/)
Tony Sweet - http://tonysweet.com/workshops/ (http://tonysweet.com/workshops/)
Alain Briot - http://www.beautiful-landscape.com/Workshop-home.html (http://www.beautiful-landscape.com/Workshop-home.html)
Charlie Waite - http://www.charliewaite.com/workshops (http://www.charliewaite.com/workshops)
David Noton - http://www.davidnoton.com/44/Workshops/ (http://www.davidnoton.com/44/Workshops/)
Joe Cornish - http://www.joecornishgallery.co.uk/workshops (http://www.joecornishgallery.co.uk/workshops)
I stopped looking after a few minutes, as everyone I could think of off the top of my head, seems to teach, write books and make time to run workshops etc, so what was your point exactly?
::)
Dave
-
I'm no person to offer thoughts on how to critique. I wouldn't think I'd be qualified in any instance. I post on the forum to get feedback and responses to those that love to take photographs, love to look at photographs or both. It's probably a bigger benefit to me when I'm editing than actually capturing.
Dave,
Of the photogs you listed, all seem to be landscape specialist with the exception of Jay Maisel who is retired from commercial work. Which says to me that there's not much of a living to be made in that genre without something supplementing it. You don't see as many professional photojournalists or fashion shooters actively sprooking workshops. Documentary photographers seem to fall somewhere in between.
(Before you mention it, I'm aware that even Magnum offers workshops periodically)
-
I think another problem with critique is that when you never stray outside your peer group (or clique) you sometimes fall into ruts of encouraging people more than telling them when they suck. It is very hard to tell a friend that something they hold up as art is--in your opinion--rubbish. Sometimes here at LuLa, there seem to be people trying to be encouraging instead of honest. Though, as a flaw, that is probably not the worst thing that could be said of a group of people.
-
Jay Maisel - http://www.jaymaisel.com/ (http://www.jaymaisel.com/)
Tony Sweet - http://tonysweet.com/workshops/ (http://tonysweet.com/workshops/)
Alain Briot - http://www.beautiful-landscape.com/Workshop-home.html (http://www.beautiful-landscape.com/Workshop-home.html)
Charlie Waite - http://www.charliewaite.com/workshops (http://www.charliewaite.com/workshops)
David Noton - http://www.davidnoton.com/44/Workshops/ (http://www.davidnoton.com/44/Workshops/)
Joe Cornish - http://www.joecornishgallery.co.uk/workshops (http://www.joecornishgallery.co.uk/workshops)
I stopped looking after a few minutes, as everyone I could think of off the top of my head, seems to teach, write books and make time to run workshops etc, so what was your point exactly?
::)
Dave
LOL... and ME... LOL... and whilst it could never be truly ascertained.... I would like to think that I did have some input and play a part in 'teaching'... and guiding my own students to produce the work that they are developing and producing - which is way better than my own! :-)
Julie
-
I think another problem with critique is that when you never stray outside your peer group (or clique) you sometimes fall into ruts of encouraging people more than telling them when they suck. It is very hard to tell a friend that something they hold up as art is--in your opinion--rubbish. Sometimes here at LuLa, there seem to be people trying to be encouraging instead of honest. Though, as a flaw, that is probably not the worst thing that could be said of a group of people.
Well I can say ever time I try to post a landscape of some form, I'm told I suck. :P Then they tell me to go take more shots of people in the wild. I think my next image is going to be another landscape.
-
Well I can say ever time I try to post a landscape of some form, I'm told I suck.
Oh, I don't know about that. I, for one, thought your Pudong Airport shots were really good.
Oh wow, this is my 900th LuLa post. I think I'll pour myself some scotch.
-
Quote opgr
I am a firm believer that if you are not willing to tell the truth, it will hamper change. And no change is no growth. And no growth is a premature death…
Unquote
Are you confusing opinion with truth? Whilst you may think what you are saying is the truth in reality it is only an opinion. Now what is the definition of truth?
-
Jay Maisel - http://www.jaymaisel.com/ (http://www.jaymaisel.com/)
Tony Sweet - http://tonysweet.com/workshops/ (http://tonysweet.com/workshops/)
Alain Briot - http://www.beautiful-landscape.com/Workshop-home.html (http://www.beautiful-landscape.com/Workshop-home.html)
Charlie Waite - http://www.charliewaite.com/workshops (http://www.charliewaite.com/workshops)
David Noton - http://www.davidnoton.com/44/Workshops/ (http://www.davidnoton.com/44/Workshops/)
Joe Cornish - http://www.joecornishgallery.co.uk/workshops (http://www.joecornishgallery.co.uk/workshops)
I stopped looking after a few minutes, as everyone I could think of off the top of my head, seems to teach, write books and make time to run workshops etc, so what was your point exactly?
::)
Dave
None of these people rates for much in my sense of definition about successful professionals. (Jay's been around so long he deserves a medal for that - also the exception that proves a rule).
In fact, it strikes me that they are mostly into the very business of teaching rather than of photography. Waite and Cornish have done some travel book illustration in the sense of commissioned work and then they have produced for themselves, but it's all aimed at the amateur photographer and not a lot to do with commercial photography, where the real business is, where the real critical eyes reside.
Noton seems much the same and the website is nothing more than a shop, and not one I'd frequent or pop on my 'favourites' either.
In other words, when someone steps into those tripod holes, they are not professional photographers they are professional 'art photographers' and teachers. A pro deals with clients, a teacher with students, and that's far easier.
Since you asked, that was my point exactly, much as Jennifer has pointed out in her reply before me.
Rob C
-
Quote opgr
I am a firm believer that if you are not willing to tell the truth, it will hamper change. And no change is no growth. And no growth is a premature death…
Unquote
Are you confusing opinion with truth? Whilst you may think what you are saying is the truth in reality it is only an opinion. Now what is the definition of truth?
Ah, yes, I didn't mean to refer to some universal truth. I meant to refer to being truthful about one's own feelings or opinion. I realize that what I wrote doesn't properly distinguish between the two. I also realize that for some people it can be hard to convey their true opinion, because they are either inept at accessing/forming an opinion, or inept at communicating that opinion.
But because of the inference mentioned, I believe that it is possibly a moral obligation to at least attempt to always remain truthful.
-
Some random remarks.
First of all, I should say that my original piece was a response to Rob, and not intended as a rebuttal at all. It's literally a case of 'Rob said this, and then I thought this other stuff, and wrote it down.' I fully support Rob's right to his opinions and ideas, and I don't think he's wrong on any single point, here. We arrive at somewhat different conclusions, but I think we're lot closer together than one might imagine.
Secondly, Rob IS throwing out a bit of a fallacy with the 'professionals don't critique' since what he means by 'professional' includes 'doesn't teach' which is.. dum dum DUMMMMM... Begging The Question. But that's ok, I see what he's driving at, and once again, he's basically right. Professional mathematicians don't teach, they're busy. That said, they'll probably offer an opinion if someone walks up and asks them for one.
Thirdly, the only correct response to being given a suggestion on how to shoot a thing better is 'That is the dumbest idea I ever heard!' but the value comes in the next thought, once the juices are flowing, which in the best circumstances is '... but, now, this OTHER thing.. that's a GOOD idea'. Bouncing stuff off people, and getting their idiot replies, can trigger the most wonderful stuff. When I offer critique, I fully expect you to lump it in to "another idiot reply" and I hope that, from time to time, I stimulate an original and good idea in you, that is fully your own.
Fourthly and last, I lied. I do disagree with Rob on one point. Commercial photographers are 99 percent a bunch of fad chasers, by necessity. There's no "critical eye" there, there's just endless evolutionary copying. The client doesn't want your damn original art, they want a bunch of photos that look just like Those Photos they saw over there, but a little bit different. Yes, yes, they SAY they want truly original stuff, but they're lying. This doesn't mean commercial work isn't real and worthy. It is, it's real work, it takes real talent and ability, and a fair bit of luck, to make it happen. But it's not the real home of the critically important thinkers. Maybe Rob is talking about the 0.01% of commercial guys who launch the fads, or something? I am willing to believe that there might be a small population of actually interesting guys in commercial work, but I haven't run across them.
-
"There is only you and your camera.
The limitations in your photography are in yourself, for what we see is what we are".
Ernst Haas
I rest my case; there's simply nothing left to add.
Rob C
-
How does one learn to make photographs, Rob?
Having taken some painting classes, I have a rough idea how that works. Surely you don't subscribe to a magical "it cannot be taught, you either have it or you do not" school?
My own way was simple: I read lots of magazines, went along to a guy's darkroom where he was printing a load of crap, saw how he was doing it, converted the family loft into a darkroom with paper and flour-paste walls, set up a baby bath as a sink, and away she sailed. Literally, that's how I began.
The most important parts came in two: I would buy lots of magazines I could hardly afford and there I formed clear ideas of the genres that interested me, and they, too, were two: travel and girls, the latter either as in fashion or pinup (I learned early on to eschew the word glamour which has long been corrupted beyond recognition, another of those endearing advantages of a lax lexicon some here applaud); the second part of the story happened when I was able to leap from the last stage of an engineering apprenticeship into the same company's photo-unit, where I learned the subtleties of b/w printing and colour processing, to the extent that, towards the end and until I left, I pretty much was the colour department.
External classes at night school, compulsory as part of my acceptance into the unit when I joined, were abandoned after I realised what yo-yos some of the teachers were: employed, failed commercial photographers doing additional work to stay alive. I droppd out, and to my relief, nothing was ever said about it at the unit. I've told this here before, but the final blow came when, on citing David Bailey as a great example of where fashion photography was at, the lecturer declared that were he to shoot like Bailey, he'd give up photography. I gave him up instead.
In a nutshell, you teach yourself, though others can certainly show you how cameras and techniques function; what you do with what you learn is totally up to you and the stuff in your head. Goddamit! There's only aperture, shutter speed, focussing and ISO to learn! How tough is that?
Now, Photoshop, to my mind, is something that every aspiring photographer owes it to himself to study as best he can - it's the new passport. Self-teaching, as in my case, takes forever and a specialist can show you things you never suspect exist. But that's not photography: that's another scientific art in its own right.
Rob C
-
Thanks, Rob. That was a very thorough and interesting discussion! I do note that it contains zero (0) instances of 'and then I asked someone to tell me what he thought of a thing I did' which is very much to the point.
In a way, a commercial guy does that a lot, though. They're implicitly asking for feedback from the clients, but that feedback takes the form of money rather than discussions of light and form ;)
EDIT: Also I agree that the technical side is basically trivial, and it is a source of endless annoyance to me that 99.9% of the discussion we see on these glorious internets is about those elements. Stupid nerds.
-
Fourthly and last, I lied. I do disagree with Rob on one point. Commercial photographers are 99 percent a bunch of fad chasers, by necessity. There's no "critical eye" there, there's just endless evolutionary copying. The client doesn't want your damn original art, they want a bunch of photos that look just like Those Photos they saw over there, but a little bit different. Yes, yes, they SAY they want truly original stuff, but they're lying. This doesn't mean commercial work isn't real and worthy. It is, it's real work, it takes real talent and ability, and a fair bit of luck, to make it happen. But it's not the real home of the critically important thinkers. Maybe Rob is talking about the 0.01% of commercial guys who launch the fads, or something? I am willing to believe that there might be a small population of actually interesting guys in commercial work, but I haven't run across them.
If you want to to find the photographers whose input counts, look up the list of important photographers' agents. They're an international lot, working all over the globe. I have never heard of a single one who offers critique or lessons; they're too busy working or looking for work in a very rarified atmosphere.
That's why people try to find work assisting them: to learn by example and by doing the job. It's the only way.
Rob C
-
None of these people rates for much in my sense of definition about successful professionals. (Jay's been around so long he deserves a medal for that - also the exception that proves a rule).
In fact, it strikes me that they are mostly into the very business of teaching rather than of photography. Waite and Cornish have done some travel book illustration in the sense of commissioned work and then they have produced for themselves, but it's all aimed at the amateur photographer and not a lot to do with commercial photography, where the real business is, where the real critical eyes reside.
Noton seems much the same and the website is nothing more than a shop, and not one I'd frequent or pop on my 'favourites' either.
In other words, when someone steps into those tripod holes, they are not professional photographers they are professional 'art photographers' and teachers. A pro deals with clients, a teacher with students, and that's far easier.
Since you asked, that was my point exactly, much as Jennifer has pointed out in her reply before me.
Rob C
Rob, if none of these photographers fit your criteria for 'rating for much in your sense of definition about successful professionals.' And as you also seem to be agreeing with Andrew that "Commercial photographers are 99 percent a bunch of fad chasers, by necessity. There's no "critical eye" there, there's just endless evolutionary copying."
Can I ask for some example names of the real stars of photography that are 'non-teaching pro's' that you are referring to? Is it several people you are thinking about, or are we talking about a single individual here - sorry to labour the point, but you still have me confused as to what your point is and the facts you are basing this point upon.
Dave
-
Rob, if none of these photographers fit your criteria for 'rating for much in your sense of definition about successful professionals.' And as you also seem to be agreeing with Andrew that "Commercial photographers are 99 percent a bunch of fad chasers, by necessity. There's no "critical eye" there, there's just endless evolutionary copying."
Can I ask for some example names of the real stars of photography that are 'non-teaching pro's' that you are referring to? Is it several people you are thinking about, or are we talking about a single individual here - sorry to labour the point, but you still have me confused as to what your point is and the facts you are basing this point upon.
Dave
Dave, I was dreading you’d ask: I can’t find a way to copy and paste from my favourites list, so I have to do it the painful way - by hand.
http://www.agentur-linke.de
http://www.artpartner.com
http://www.gianfrancomeza.com
http://www.merekandassociates.com
http://www.julianmeijer.com
http://www.lundlund.com
http://www.mfilomeno.com
This is a tiny selection from what’s out there, even from the list that I already have in my computer, and as I’m sure you won’t accept any of it as proving my point, there’s little point in me going nuts trying to convert you. ;-)
These guys are as good as it gets; they rule the friggin’ world of photography and deservedly so.
Our French friend Fred works, on and off, with one of Spain’s equivalents and I envy him the opportunity. Even now, long after retiring, I’d love to work alongside any one of these photographers simply for the joy of seeing masters do their thing, revel in the magic of the creative moment, something that without having had personal experience of, nobody can ever quite understand. It’s nothing like that great view, that stunning moment of celestial pyrotechnics; it’s about the single thing that’s better than sex: creation of something absolutely transient but magical with a woman.
The rest is suds.
Regarding you statement that I “seem to be agreeing with Andrew…” I most certainly am not! That’s a total misreading of my position and I can’t quite see how you got there. Important, successful commercial photographers, by which I refer to those doing big-time advertising of whatever kinds, do not appear (to me) to be copycats. It’s the wannabes that have to do that.
I really don’t know what your photographic genesis was, but unless you spent time in the commercial world doing advertising or fashion or big time stock, its not likely you’ll know much about any of these people other than Bailey, who’s trotted out every time the Beeb needs a token snapper. These chaps are not public icons – usually.
Rob C
-
Thanks for the links, Rob. There's some interesting stuff in there.
I have some boring commentary on the work, but I deleted it.
I was also having a little trouble with the 'Rob is agreeing with Andrew' theory, but I was willing to accept it!
-
Anyone who makes a living by selling what comes out of their camera is a professional, imo. I respect professional photographers of all kinds because I know how hard it is to make a living that way. Whether you're a commercial photographer who shoots to satisfy the needs of a client or a fine artist who sells their work in galleries, both are dependent on marketing. Both depend on someone wanting to buy what they create. But it's the working grunt commercial photographer who earns my greatest admiration. For they're only as good as their last shoot. They have to prove their worth to the client every day on the job. They need to be able to turn on the creative juices on demand, not only when they feel "inspired". They're out there on a highwire without a net and any number of things beyond their control could happen that could ruin their business.
-
Taking us back a few postings to talk about the impact of group opinions of your work as art...I was reminded of something I read on Mike Johnston's website about forums and technical discussions, and I think it applies here:
...
I might also gently point out here that forums aren't the right place to "decide" technical issues, because all they do is create group consensus. Short or long disputations end up with people agreeing to agree, or perhaps continuing to disagree with the majority helping to enforce the group's preferred determination or choosing to support the group's leader or leaders, or perhaps deferring to whomever has the best-sounding explanation (and I've seen examples of conclusions that were extraordinarily well-developed at great length and effort that were utterly, completely wrong) or even whoever's been hanging around the forum the longest (because they can say things like "we've discussed this many times before and here's what we decided"). Forums can often engage in long, fanatically detailed, partially researched, closely reasoned epic arguments that culminate in a strange "folk" conclusion that real experts simply roll their eyes at.
...
From this blog posting: http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2012/07/ufos-in-the-sunset.html
You could almost replace "technical issues" with "artistic judgements."
-
Arriving at consensus on an artistic matter is a sure sign that something along the way has failed, be it the piece of the audience.
-
And how many top, professional (and still working) photographers do you know who want to, or have the time, to teach?
Rob C
I would imagine that at least some of these photographers have assistants who are with them because they want to learn as part of their own career path and that some of them may even have started off learning from someone else as their assistant. There is more than one way of teaching and it doesn't only happen in workshops. The studio system goes a long way back in the history of art and may be alive and well in commercial photography.
-
I would imagine that at least some of these photographers have assistants who are with them because they want to learn as part of their own career path and that some of them may even have started off learning from someone else as their assistant. There is more than one way of teaching and it doesn't only happen in workshops. The studio system goes a long way back in the history of art and may be alive and well in commercial photography.
Excellent point. Back in the 80's I worked for a while as an assistant to one of the highest paid commercial photographers in San Francisco and I learned a ton. But more valuable than what I learned about photography was what he taught me about professionalism and selling yourself to and working with clients. And even though I went onto to a career in a different field, that knowledge has helped me enormously.
-
I would imagine that at least some of these photographers have assistants who are with them because they want to learn as part of their own career path and that some of them may even have started off learning from someone else as their assistant. There is more than one way of teaching and it doesn't only happen in workshops. The studio system goes a long way back in the history of art and may be alive and well in commercial photography.
"Excellent point. Back in the 80's I worked for a while as an assistant to one of the highest paid commercial photographers in San Francisco and I learned a ton. But more valuable than what I learned about photography was what he taught me about professionalism and selling yourself to and working with clients. And even though I went onto to a career in a different field, that knowledge has helped me enormously.
(Quote from popfresh)"
---------------------
"If you want to to find the photographers whose input counts, look up the list of important photographers' agents. They're an international lot, working all over the globe. I have never heard of a single one who offers critique or lessons; they're too busy working or looking for work in a very rarified atmosphere.
That's why people try to find work assisting them: to learn by example and by doing the job. It's the only way.
Rob C"
--------------------
Exactly what I've stated all along.
That's not 'critique' and neither is it teaching: it's learning on the job by keeping your eyes peeled and ears open, as I described it.
Q.E.D.
Rob C
-
That's not 'critique' and neither is it teaching
It is certainly not 'critique' as practiced in online forums, but I would have thought some teaching might go on, in the ordinary sense of the word. What we are talking about is surely a version of the apprenticeship system, in which, assuming the apprentice is attentive and capable of understanding, the master consciously passes on some of what he or she knows. The internship system (eg see here (http://www.summerinternships.com/photography-internships/)) seems to be a modern variation which might be open to exploitation but at its best could provide real benefits to both parties. More generally, I think there are plenty of great artists who have shown an interest in "teaching" and found it to be in their interest to do so as part of the quid pro quo for getting good help. I don't see why great artists who happen to be "commercial" photographers would be any different.
-
Dave, I was dreading you’d ask: I can’t find a way to copy and paste from my favourites list, so I have to do it the painful way - by hand.
http://www.agentur-linke.de
http://www.artpartner.com
http://www.gianfrancomeza.com
http://www.merekandassociates.com
http://www.julianmeijer.com
http://www.lundlund.com
http://www.mfilomeno.com
This is a tiny selection from what’s out there, even from the list that I already have in my computer, and as I’m sure you won’t accept any of it as proving my point, there’s little point in me going nuts trying to convert you. ;-)
These guys are as good as it gets; they rule the friggin’ world of photography and deservedly so.
Rob C
Ah I now see and follow your gist, you are referring to fashion photographers - sorry my fault :)
Dave
-
Ah I now see and follow your gist, you are referring to fashion photographers - sorry my fault :)
Dave
Fashion photographers, still life photographers, architectural photographers, industrial photographers, general advertising photographers, pretty much any category of professional photographer other than landscape photographer which, as much by its own definition precludes itself from allowing the term professional to apply to it if only because so few practitioners are able to earn their living from it; hence the need for the side-lines of teaching, mentoring, critiques, forays into books, prints etc. all of which really constitute no more than a fiddling around on the periphery of professional photography. I’m sure this comes not as news.
It’s a tough old world, photography; much kinder to the self to play for fun. But, should there be a nice bit of family bread available, then a great opportunity to prove the maxim: the best way to make a small fortune out of photography is to start with a big one.
;-)
Rob C
-
Those who can, DO. Those who can't TEACH.
-
Ansel Adams and Walker Evans both taught.
I'm just sayin'.
-
Ansel Adams and Walker Evans both taught.
I'm just sayin'.
+1
-
So did Garry Winogrand.
-
So did Garry Winogrand.
Winogrand taught and mentored a family friend of ours early in his career. It would have been sometime in the 1970's. I somehow remember it was associated with a university program, but I'm not sure.
-
Ansel Adams and Walker Evans both taught.
I'm just sayin'.
Walker Evans COULD, the jury is still out on Adams.
-
Those who can, DO. Those who can't TEACH.
I've always taken umbrage with this phrase. Both my parents were teachers as are two of my brothers. They CAN TEACH thus they do. In the case of my father, a musician and conductor, he can also DO.
I understand sentiment though. There are certainly those that aspire to the Peter Principle and when they get there, decide to share their experiences with others.
-
I've spent this evening coaching folks wanting to learn more about night photography. I do it as a favour for a friend when the groups become too big. I "critique" and advise during the process to their level and background. It's not a formal workshop as it runs weekly, but it's enjoyable mainly because the people that come are there simply to take pictures and have some fun. I might help one or two of them get a better shot.
My assumption is that anyone that achieves excellence in their field will "teach" and/or critique (said differently, mentor) other's efforts as a natural part of their work. It's probably the most valuable aspect of having a mentor or being an apprentice. To get anything out of it, both parties need to be invested in the process and care about longer-term outcomes.
But it isn't the same thing as marketing workshops. That's a money making exercise and a job in itself.
-
Jennifer, Both my parents were teachers at one time or another. My mother was a high school English teacher for decades, beginning when my brother and I were in our early teens and she no longer had to be home constantly for us. Two of my grandparents were teachers, and four of my uncles and aunts were teachers. I taught computer science for a while at college level, and I did a lot of teaching during my 26 years in the Air Force.
And yet I often use the phrase: "Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach." That phrase doesn't apply to people who teach because they're good at it and want to do it. It applies to those who, for instance, desperately wanted to be photographers but didn't have the God-given ability to recognize a good photograph when they saw it. Someone like that may be perfectly capable of teaching the mechanics of photography, post-processing, etc., or the application of photography to, say, photojournalism or advertising, but photography as an art form escapes them. In that sense the phrase is useful and descriptive.
-
I am perfectly happy to accept application of the sentiment. I'm pretty sure I'm better at recognizing good work and talking about why it's good than I am at creating new good work. While I wish I were a mighty artist, I'm not, and that's ok with me.
-
Ansel Adams and Walker Evans both taught...
In fairness to Rob's point of view, it is not whether photographers can teach... it is about whether photographers can learn. And Rob is talking about creativity, not mechanics of photography.
-
Yes, Slobodan's right; anyone can teach photographic technique in the sense of the mechanics, but being a photographer takes something else.
Beyond simple, mechanical abilty and/or creative ability, it takes a commitment that few are able to make (I'm speaking pro) or dedicated enough to make, if only because when you have it, you aren't thinking about the odds stacked way over your head against you surviving even the first year out in the big bad world, you just friggin' have no option: you are compelled by your own nature to find the work to feed the habit, and habit it damned sure is.
Teaching. I neither have nor offer any downer on professional teachers. My own daughter and her husband are teachers (and I've even had Teachers Whisky as clients), but where I do find a problem is with photographers who fail to make it as such and take up peddling photography lessons yet insist that they are still bona fide professionals. They are neither pro snappers nor pro teachers, in my view; at best, they strike me as lukewarm, probably very well-intentioned, but neither fish nor fowl.
Part of my family is here with me just now, spending a couple of weeks in the sunshine (we hope) and tonight I took them along to a gig where my muso mates were playing. Now there's another form of pure dedication: you could catch the tiredness in the eyes at some moments, and yet seconds later, as some little bit of improvisation worked out well, the cheer was instantly back in the faces. Think of doing this at every gig you can find, and they are few and far between in this economy now, and you realise just what bloody hard work it is being creative in a bar or restaurant. Yet, they want nothing else. And there, again, the 'teaching' sometimes comes into play if only to make ends meet. Talent ain't always enough...
Hell, we do what we can do, and some do it better than others and get nowhere whilst others just seem to get everywhere on thin air.
It takes a little madness.
Rob C
-
I guess I'll add my two cents worth to this. Slobodan's right, and so is Rob. I crack up when I read the ads in Pop Photo or Shutterbug for "workshops" where everybody traipses out and shoots roughly the same stuff followed by critiques and "mentoring" by the "pro."
Let's face it, as Rob and Slobodan and I have pointed out on other occasions, "pro" is an economic term. It means the "pro" makes a living on photography, or in the case of a "semi-pro," makes a buck on photography, but would starve if he tried to live on it. The term doesn't say a damned thing about the pro's ability to make a decent photograph. If you don't believe "pros" can't make bad photographs, walk down the main street in any small town and look in the windows of the "pro" photographers' shops.
As HCB pointed out, there's really nothing important about the technical side of photography you can't learn by reading the instruction manual that came, along with the camera's beautiful leather case. Of course he said that back in the days when you got a leather case with your camera, but the guts of his statement stand, though nowadays you'll need a book on Photoshop too. Then there's the idea of a "mentor." There may be such a thing in the flesh, but it seems to me the best mentors are books of photographs by the masters. A "mentor" always will have a single person's point of view and do things a certain way. By the time you've gone through the list of masters from Atget to McCurry you've been exposed to dozens of points of view and seen great photographers do things in dozens of different ways. Somewhere in there you probably are going to find your own metier.
Artistic ability is born, not taught, though being able to put the ability to work takes an incredible amount of study, labor, and practice. Nearly every great photographer was self-taught. I say "nearly" because even though I can't think of an exception there may be one. Several had training in painting.
-
Nearly every great photographer was self-taught.
Historically, I am sure that is true. Whether it will remain so is another matter. A lot more training in photography is available today. Historically, every great novelist was self-taught, but a lot of decent ones seem to have done creative writing degrees these days. Will it have any impact on the quality of novels, or of photographs? I doubt it. As to what is important, I suspect they will still have to be self-taught.
-
...As to what is important, I suspect they will still have to be self-taught...
I think that you are right Ken.
Regards
Tony Jay
-
So haven't we gone full circle here?
Whereby the act of giving and receiving critique is part of the self teaching process? Artist of whatever hue, very rarely stumble into the world fully formed and complete, they need encouragement and feedback to help them evolve.
I know of no photographer from any avenue of photography, who hasn't gone through this process - I believe it would be impossible to succeed without it. Therefore I would argue that all photographers teach and are taught in one way or another.
Dave
-
Dave, self-teaching by looking and learning from magazines, movies, tv, photo-books, from assisting on commercial shoots etc, is an entirely different concept from going to a school or club or whatever and having some guy pontificate in your face about where you should have stood, which stop you should have used, what your image is or is not 'saying' and on and on. That makes the 'teacher' appear a fountain of knowledge in the eye of the neophyte but in reality, it's much ado about next to nothing; its the suit of armour that makes the flimsy product inside appear substantial.
Of course there are subjects where direct teaching is the only way of spreading understanding of something without the need to reinvent any wheel; photography isn't, in my opinion, one of those. Hell's teeth, basic camera manuals explain all anyone needs to know about stops and their relationship with depth of field, shutters and their action-stopping capabilities. What's left to teach?
Regarding content, that's where peope are best left to themselves for pretty much every reason that I can think of that will impact upon the individual's development as an individual.
I agree that few stumble into this world as fully-formed artists, but I would add that nobody stumbles into it as anything but an artist to achieve that state of grace or distress later on!
Rob C
-
Regarding content, that's where peope are best left to themselves for pretty much every reason that I can think of that will impact upon the individual's development as an individual.
I agree that few stumble into this world as fully-formed artists, but I would add that nobody stumbles into it as anything but an artists to achieve that state of grace or distress later on!
Rob, I believe you are too caught up in some kind of anti-authoritarian state of mind.
I think our language acquisition skills may serve as a useful example:
If you had a good teacher you learned how to use language creatively early in life, and thus you have more time to further develop your creativity and personality.
If you had a bad teacher you had to learn how to use language creatively by yourself, and it will likely have taken you longer to acquire that certain level from which you can further develop your individual creativity and personality.
And I'm not trying to explicate the intricate and subtle vagaries of growing up in just a mere 2 sentences, but I do believe it illustrates perfectly were teaching fits in considering the grander scheme of life. In that respect I also believe that there are some additional points to consider in regards to the responsibility of knowledge and teaching as an interaction between people.
Some teachers teach not because they can't do, but because they like to share their knowledge and like to interact with people. Truly great photographers or even truly great exponents in any discipline, have likely become great specifically because of their understanding of human nature and their willingness to interact with people, with an open mind, and as diversely as they are.
And, once you acquire a certain level of skill and know how you formed your own individual personality, style, and opinion, then it may perhaps become your responsibility to share that knowledge for others to also be able to more easily form their individual character, style and personality. It advances the entire group as a whole, photographers, artist or even humanity as a whole.
I would say it can even be considered a moral obligation. That may sound a little hyperbole, but if you expect other people to appreciate or respect your expressions of Art, then you should understand that you have an obligation to respect your audience as well. And that does not particularly include respecting cultural boundaries or limitations, far from it, but comes in the more subtle form of transferring of knowledge relevant to the advancement of the group as a whole. (Which good Art is likely doing as well).
-
"Rob, I believe you are too caught up in some kind of anti-authoritarian state of mind.
I think our language acquisition skills may serve as a useful example:"
I don't buy either idea. I have no fight with authority and I certainly don't look upon photographic 'teachers' as authorities at all - that's much my point: there are no such real authorities in photography; all anyone can teach is stuff like PS and other technicalities. Nobody can teach anyone else how to see or think for themselves.
Language skills are nothing at all to do with it and not even close as disciplines. In fact, language skills depend very much upon learning rules and regulations of usage, the very opposite of photographic art. Where the two are similar, though, is that whilst many can master grammar, few can write which, if anything, proves my point yet again.
My point? You have it or you have it not.
Rob C
-
Nobody can teach anyone else how to see or think for themselves.
??? Care to elaborate? Seems a blow in the face of every decent parent and teacher in the world.
Language skills are nothing at all to do with it and not even close as disciplines. In fact, language skills depend very much upon learning rules and regulations of usage, the very opposite of photographic art. Where the two are similar, though, is that whilst many can master grammar, few can write which, if anything, proves my point yet again.
That's so contradictory, it isn't even funny. Perhaps you could try and adapt to other people's suggested parallels and use those to enlighten the rest of us, instead of dismissing them a priori.
You realize that the study of language is relatively recent? That most of us apparently recognize a well-formed sentence, but apart from a few linguists, none of us can verbalize the rules? Is there ever a sentence you utter where you thank your teachers for the rules you learned so you can form a reasonable piece of communication?
Would you rather learn language from someone who can teach you grammar, but hasn't got the faintest idea how to verbalize emotions? Or from someone "who can write"…? Why would a true writer not make a great teacher? Which is meant as a parallel to: why wouldn't a great Artist not make a good educator? idem great photographer? Isn't true Art that they produce educating us at some level or another? Especially regarding independent thinking?
-
Teacher: "This is how you produce shallow depth of field!"
Student: "Wow, nice effect. Where would I use that?"
Teacher: "I don't care."
-
... Why would a true writer not make a great teacher?...
That's the same question my classmates and I asked: "why can't we have those guys to teach us?" You see, my business school likes to brag about having the largest number of Nobel Prize laureates (for economics). The answer was: "You really, really wouldn't want those guys to teach you." There is a profound difference between knowing something and knowing how to convey that to others (other than peers, that is). Not just knowing how, but being willing, interested in, etc.
-
opgr
Not contradictory at all; you were trying to draw a parallel between the learning of language and the learning of photography where no such parallel exists. I simply made the point that whereas you can teach grammar you can't teach anyone to write and that, in that negative sense there is indeed a common element between the two disciplines: in neither can you teach the spiritual but only the mechanics. Perhaps that's where you see a parallel - in the shared impossibility of buying the artistic ability?
Whatever you mean by the study of language, what I mean is the study of how usefully to use it as communication, nothing more and nothing less; in other words, how to form sentences and transmit, accurately and unambiguously, meaning and intent.
How did I learn language? At home from family and then, later, in my pre-teens onwards by being an avid reader. In other words, the learning process was pretty much the same as with my later learning of photography: I was interested and the rest, in my case, just followed. Many others at the same school(s) were also interested and passed their English exams with flying colours, but not a lot managed to do anything with it after that. Their skills with structure and all the rest were developed, but that's as far as anything seemed to stretch. And sadly, the same pattern was repeated by pretty much everybody else with whom I had to sit in a photographic night school class: it's simply not the way, and for many, there just isn't a way, which is part of the huge problem for those who dream that there is, only to find defeat and disappointment within their chosen path. I wonder if 'teachers' and photo-gurus ever step up to the plate and take responsibility for ruined lives, handing back the fees for their courses and peddled dreams.
Look, I'm perfectly happy for you to believe in such teachers as the way to your personal nirvana - I really hope you find it - I simply don't believe that all things are teachable, and in that list I place the 'art' of photography. A photographic technician is another matter; perhaps that's what you've been thinking about instead. After all, the modern world is full of pixel-peepers who make the same confusion.
Be happy - I've nothing more to add.
Rob C
P.S.
Rob C “ Nobody can teach anyone else how to see or think for themselves.”
opgr “Care to elaborate? Seems a blow in the face of every decent parent and teacher in the world.”
Just remembered the barb: nope, simply the way you choose to represent the statement which you’ve taken right out of context, said context being the possibility or otherwise of anyone teaching another how to be an artist, and especially from the basis of photographic critique, the least valuable method of them all, IMO.
It has nothing to do with regular teaching, with parental duties nor even of their success. My wife stopped her job the moment she discovered she was expecting and she didn’t give it another whirl until both children were both well into their schooling. Both children received the same devoted help at home with their education; one turned out to be very academic, nose always in a book, the other couldn’t have cared less about school or working therein. As with art, it’s inborn or it’s not there and you can no more force it than buy it.
Now I really am finished with this circular thread.
-
in neither can you teach the spiritual but only the mechanics.
There is something to this, but it can't be taken too far. The counter-example that comes to mind is classical music, where many of the very greatest performers have also taught. At the top level - the master class level - what they are teaching is is certainly not the mechanics - they wouldn't waste their time on students who haven't completely mastered the mechanics. What then are they teaching? Essentially, I think they are helping technically very capable students to find their own voice. Of course, there is a sense in which that can't be taught - ie, the teacher doesn't know in advance what the student's own voice sounds like and so can't demonstrate it - the students have to find it for themselves. What the teacher does know is what it is like to find one's own voice, because he or she has done it. And the teacher may also recognize when the student has found it or is close to it and be able to provide crucial encouragement.
I don't see why photography would in principle be any different. Of course, the actual availability of this kind of teaching is another matter. Rob's experience of teaching in photography has left him with a low opinion of its usefulness at the highest level. That is fair enough but not, I would argue, a sufficient basis for generalization about what is and isn't possible. Speaking personally, I have never done any courses in photography (and no doubt it shows). But I have had teachers (of meditation and language) who went beyond the mechanics and taught me about the importance of what can't be taught.
-
I've not been too anxious to join this discussion but I just experienced an example of what critique often does in another thread here.
Now, of course, opinions are like bums ..... we all have one. But what is the actual revelation expressed in an opinion? All too often the opinion says more about the critic than it does about the 'work' being critiqued. Particularly in a world where, sometimes, the blind are leading the visually impaired.
-
Bumping this thread as a great example of a) the complete lack of conformity on these here forums, and b) to resurrect a really good discussion of what critique can be, should be, cannot be, and so on.
No consensus was ever achieved, of course, but the level of discourse was pretty awesome. I take a little pride in having started it, although my contributions were certainly minor ultimately.
-
Bumping this thread as a great example of a) the complete lack of conformity on these here forums, and b) to resurrect a really good discussion of what critique can be, should be, cannot be, and so on.
No consensus was ever achieved, of course, but the level of discourse was pretty awesome. I take a little pride in having started it, although my contributions were certainly minor ultimately.
Thanks for the bump. This discussion was indeed much more interesting and valuable than most of the recent "discussions" on similar topics.