Minimalism

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... saying "that's bad because..." and "that's bad because and here's some ideas on how to improve it", then we can do that here.

Both are feedback and both are opinions.

The only difference between an opinion and a feedback is the "back" part. If I express an opinion about someone's photograph but they are not aware of it, that's an opinion, but not a feedback. It becomes a feedback if/when they hear it, i.e,  when it comes back to them.

[Farmer]

Fine, change the word because you are so bloody fixated on it.

Stop giving opinions/feedback/whatever-word-you-want that is negative without providing any guidance, direction, experience, and so on.  And, more specifically, stop complaining that people are posting certain images without commenting on them directly but just complaining you don't like that type (and still not offering any wisdom as to how to improve beyond "don't post those").

Most normal people understood the nuance between the two words in the context used.  You have an opinion.  You give feedback.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... Stop giving opinions/feedback/whatever-word-you-want that is negative without providing any guidance, direction, experience, and so on...

Ah, the famous "constructive criticism."

From one of my earlier posts:

... every time I hear those odes to "constructive" criticism, I cringe. Every criticism is useful, thus constructive. The burden, though, is on the recipient to understand it properly. My people have a saying that even a mosquito buzz is music for a smart head (i.e., being able to detect even the minute amount of useful information in anything).

Lets not forget the medium, i.e., internet forum. This is not an academic environment and there is no obligation for its participants to provide lengthy, well-reasoned and well-written opinion. This is a free forum, where everybody and anybody, for better or worse, can pitch in, as much or as little they know or have time.

"It sucks" is a perfectly valid criticism. So is "nice!", "+1", "does nothing for me", "bravo!", etc. Just do not fall into clinical depression or quit your day job yet. Put it (as the recipient) into a context. It simply means there are folks who do/do not like it, and they either did not have the time to elaborate, or do not feel eloquent enough to do so, or it is not that worth elaborating. You, as the recipient, pay attention to how many of those comments you get, from whom (i.e., credibility), etc.

[Farmer]

No, not every criticism is constructive.  "It sucks" means nothing.  "It sucks because you missed the focus" means something.  Leaving it up to someone to guess why you hold an opinion is not constructive, because there's no way for them to validate your criticism.

[32BT]

Opinion = when I tell you what I think
Feedback = when I tell you what the wife thinks

I wouldn't know why anyone remotely wants "feedback"...





;-)

[Farmer]

Gold, Oscar, gold :-)

[Rob C]

The pointlessness of so-called critique has seldom been more evident than now, when even a definition seems to evade people one might consider capable of understanding the nuances implied…

As well, it underlines the malaise that forms like a cloud wherever a collection of self-styled artists gathers. Ego, fear, pride and envy – such the qualities that pervade. No wonder so many spend their time onsite in the technical measurebating club; possibly they realise that the abstract nature of art makes it a hopeless subject for debate – an utter waste of their day.

Rather than thinking that ”it sucks” is bad criticism, perhaps it’s time to rethink the issue and to see that in a real and basic manner, expression of such an emotion is indeed the most honest of criticism. I have long understood that, for a sane person, belief in one’s instincts is the best judgement one can apply to life. From religion to art, from career to disposal of our own waste at death, we have the answers already built in: we just need to listen to the cold reality our senses try to deliver.

The harsh truth about art is that some people are gifted but a majority is not. It’s the same problem that underscores everything in this modern world, starting with early education and the parental expectation that all shall attain success, however ill-suited the individuals might be to whichever endeavour they apply themselves. We deny life’s realities by offering failure the mask of a double-F pass. Then we are shocked that a prospective employer passes, too. What to do then? Easy: blame the teachers, “the system”, for your child’s (one’s own) stupidity.

Amateur photography offers everyone a cheap yet golden opportunity for expression: seize it and have fun, but in order to do that, switch off the silly voice telling you to ask your fellows whether your work has meaning. How the hell would they know? Suffice that it makes you happy, and most of all that you don’t have to turn it into income.

[Farmer]

They're rarely asking if it has meaning, they're asking for comments that might help them to improve, either by confirming good aspects or explaining bad ones.

[Rob C]

They're rarely asking if it has meaning, they're asking for comments that might help them to improve, either by confirming good aspects or explaining bad ones.

" How the hell would they know?"

Applies equally to your slight difference in questioning emphasis.

Show me the experts here and I might be willing to change my mind, even listen to them.

Rob C

[RSL]

They're rarely asking if it has meaning. . .

And that, my friend, is exactly the problem.

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

Show me the experts here and I might be willing to change my mind, even listen to them.

Rob C

Rob,

You know full well that I am the Ultimate Expert here! If I say something, it is Absolute Truth for All Eternity (and the same applies to what I say the very next day, even if it is the exact opposite of whatever I said today.)   

It's all the fault of the Digital Revolution. Back in darkroom days making an image took so much time and effort that we didn't waste energy arguing definitions of minimalism, opinion, or feedback.

Go out and shoot pictures, folks!

-Eric

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

-1.

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

-1.

That is my minimalist opinion. (Or is it feedback?)

[degrub]

0

[Rob C]

Rob,

1.  You know full well that I am the Ultimate Expert here! If I say something, it is Absolute Truth for All Eternity (and the same applies to what I say the very next day, even if it is the exact opposite of whatever I said today.) 

2.  making an image took so much time and effort


-Eric

1.  I shall never see you as Mr Trump.

2.  No, it was usually a labour of love, so time didn't exist.

I prove this by knowing that my "working years" musical catalogue was formed by pirate radio, to which I would listen each and very darkroom session. I even remember the perfect synchronicity of hearing the Mamas and the Papas singing to me that "the darkest hour is just before dawn" and they were right: I proved it on stepping out of the darkroom trap into the finishing room where the window revealed dawn to be just about to break!

For the skeptical: pop music works when it's based on truth, whether of love found, love lost, working in a coal mine or simply paddling you pirogue up the bayou.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOEI5Lp30_8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J759HLTrMaM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3HIBqwWBmU

You see?

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

 

[Farmer]

And that, my friend, is exactly the problem.

No, the problem is that you're not directing them to ask that question when you tell them "it sucks" or, since you don't really do that literally, when you say nothing.

Having all the wisdom in the world is worth nought if you keep it all to yourself.

[Rob C]

No, the problem is that you're not directing them to ask that question when you tell them "it sucks" or, since you don't really do that literally, when you say nothing.

Having all the wisdom in the world is worth nought if you keep it all to yourself.

Now, with that I have no argument.

Rob C

[Jeremy Roussak]

You know full well that I am the Ultimate Expert here! If I say something, it is Absolute Truth for All Eternity (and the same applies to what I say the very next day, even if it is the exact opposite of whatever I said today.)

Eric, you've reminded me of something. Before 1966, decisions of the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords (the highest court of appeal in England and Wales, now called the Supreme Court) were immutable: the principles they laid down could never be changed, except by Act of Parliament. A P Herbert, a member of Parliament in the mid-20th century, wrote humorous columns on law for Punch. One of them contained this, supposedly from a speech in the Lords:

The point which your Lordships are required to decide has never been decided before, and, if your Lordships are able to decide it now, it need never be decided again, nor can it be decided otherwise. It is never likely to arise again, but that is another matter. Your Lordships' House is almost the only authority in this mortal world whose word on any subject is the last word for ever. Your pronouncements have the unalterable force of a law of nature; and if we are able by taking pains to add a single grain of certitude to the shifting sands of human affairs is there any one who is prepared pedantically to count the cost? 'It is something,' as Lord Mildew said in Rex vs. Badger, 'to dot an "i" in perpetuity.'

I think the last sentence and a half is one of the most beautiful pieces of writing I have ever come across, and am delighted to have it brought to mind again.

Jeremy

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

Thanks for that, Jeremy.
Previously I never seriously considered applying to be a (paid) consultant to the House of Lords! I think i'd fit right in.

Unfortunately, the speech you quoted is too complex to be understood by most members of the current U.S. House of Representatives or Senate.

Eric