Luminous Landscape Forum

Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: wolfnowl on November 21, 2006, 02:51:11 pm

Title: From the Big House to the Outhouse
Post by: wolfnowl on November 21, 2006, 02:51:11 pm
EXCELLENT article!  Thanks much for sharing it with us.  Given some of the recent criticisms on this list I think this article can provide a new perspective for those willing to take it.

Mike.
Title: From the Big House to the Outhouse
Post by: seany on November 21, 2006, 04:32:10 pm
Quote
EXCELLENT article!  Thanks much for sharing it with us.  Given some of the recent criticisms on this list I think this article can provide a new perspective for those willing to take it.

Mike.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=86435\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You can't be serious have you seen the prices he puts on his own "ART" the guy is having a laugh!
Title: From the Big House to the Outhouse
Post by: image66 on November 21, 2006, 05:39:59 pm
Ok, what's the difference between "criticism" and "guidance"?  This whole article doesn't sit well with me.

The moment an "Artist" chooses to sell his work, he no longer is an "Artist" (in the purest sense) but a businessman/woman.  As such, the purity of the "Art" is immediately compromised and criticism/guidance is reality.

During college or art school, there is one main thing being taught.  There is an effort to raise the student to a higher level than what he/she ever knew existed.  This is no different than the performing arts.  Those who can't hack the criticism during this stage probably aren't meant to be "professional artists" because the real world won't cut them any breaks either.  If you don't have the chops for it now, you won't have them later.  We all conform even when we are rebelling.  Take a teenager who thinks they are being "creative" or "edgy" by getting piercings in their lip or tongue.  Yeah right.  No more creative than 85 other kids in their school and 2,000,000 of them around the country.  It takes a tough teacher to beat that "duplicative originality" out of them.  If the student is just wanting to be an "artist" then art school isn't the place to be.

Unfortunately, not every teacher understands this game and is just an ad-agency flunky that got burned out in the real world.  Or on the opposite extreme, is somebody that never left the education world--went straight from student to teacher.

Personally, I welcome the guidance.  I understand that criticism could be used to raise me to a higher level.  When I'm defensive about my own work, I need to step back, and depersonalize it.  Maybe there is something to the comments.  Maybe not.  But you have no idea if it is something constructive or destructive if you close your ears and ignore all outside comments.  Just maybe that person sees something that you don't.  We are ALWAYS blinded by our own vision.
Title: From the Big House to the Outhouse
Post by: Jack Flesher on November 21, 2006, 05:42:02 pm
Kudos Pete!  Another great article that is right on the money!

Cheers,
Title: From the Big House to the Outhouse
Post by: Mark D Segal on November 21, 2006, 05:57:46 pm
Cutting to the chase - the recommendations, I have real problems with some of this:

RECO #1: Yes, giving aspiring photographers encouragement about the positive is re-inforcing. Saying nothing about what doesn't work in a photograph does no-one a favour. We learn from what we do right and from being informed about what can be improved.

RECO #2: I agree with Pete in this domain is makes no sense to try competing against others - but I can be inspired by the work of others to improve mine. That said, if I don't compete against myself I don't improve.

RECO #3: I agree with Pete that money isn't everything. In fact I could probably sell some of my photographs but the effort of doing so would spoil the fun. That much said, if people would be willing to pay for my work, it would be a sign of appreciation. Yes, money can distort values, but it can also reinforce them.

RECO #4: Goes back to RECO # 1. Agreed.

RECO #5: There is criticism and there is criticism. And then there is the giver and the receiver. The giver can give anything. Control rests with the receiver, who needs to know from where to get it, how to evaluate it, never to be insulted by it, but to evaluate what crticism to retain and what to reject. That requires self-confidence and objectivity. These qualities are more useful than staying away from criticism.
Title: From the Big House to the Outhouse
Post by: DiaAzul on November 21, 2006, 06:41:13 pm
Quote
RECO #5: There is criticism and there is criticism. And then there is the giver and the receiver. The giver can give anything. Control rests with the receiver, who needs to know from where to get it, how to evaluate it, never to be insulted by it, but to evaluate what crticism to retain and what to reject. That requires self-confidence and objectivity. These qualities are more useful than staying away from criticism.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=86461\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I think you have hit the nail on the head with this comment. Most of what is described in the article is the result of not having the confidence to open up to what other people are saying, to listen and then objectively evaluate the feedback. Calling everything criticism is just closing ones ears to the potential information that is available.

It would have been a better article - and more in line with what I was expected when I started reading the article - if there had been examples on how to give constructive criticism and then how to evaluate and apply it. Instead it comes across as some kind of neurotic rant and justification for avoiding any form of feedback whatsoever.

Competitions are often a great opportunity for people looking for to see other peoples work, get feedback on their entries and generally act as an inspiration to improve within the framework of a friendly environment. Competition can act as a great spur and inspiration for many people - it is not that competition is inherently wrong, just some peoples perception of them and how they feel not being first or receiving criticism from judges reflects upon them personally. Competition between two or more people as a positive environment to do better is also good, but that is again in the hands of the competitors - it is their choice how to react to competition and not a problem with compeition as a concept.

As Mark has pointed out above - the problem is not with the person making the comment, criticism, feedback, critique or whatever (though aggressive put downs, diatribes, etc...are less likely to be constructive or well received), but rather with the receiver and how the choose to use and react to the situation.

Our education systems do not typically develop peoples skills for receiving feedback, understanding how to depersonalise remarks and ingest the useful information whilst disregarding (or putting to oneside until more experience is gained) that which has no immediate use. Perhaps if the article had focused more on the authors experience in those domains there could have been more useful practical application.
Title: From the Big House to the Outhouse
Post by: Tim Gray on November 21, 2006, 07:37:27 pm
Good criticism isn't a contradiction and bad criticism isn't redundant.
Title: From the Big House to the Outhouse
Post by: thompsonkirk on November 21, 2006, 08:27:03 pm
I don't know what to say - is article-writing like photography, somewhere beyond criticism?

Many artists & writers benefit enormously from constructive criticism by peers & even by the evil people called critics.  I belong to a group (the Bay Area Photographers Collective) that offers valuable constructive criticism in two ways - (1) monthly peer-review gatherings, & (2) occasional outside critiques by accomplished photographers, editors, & teachers.  Two of our best critics happen to be art teachers/faculty members - the group that gets such a bad press in the Myers article.  They aren't 'failed artists,' as far as I can tell; they've looked at thousands of images; & their viewpoints are genuinely insightful.  They're good teachers who help artists grow.  

For many of us, working with a critique group speeds up the creative process, because of our natural tendency to 'love all our children' - to accept too many repeat performances & personal cliches as significant work.  Nothing helps me more than having thoughtful & constructive viewers (1) point out my tendencies toward what psychologists call 'repetition compulsion,' & (2) urge me to see more clearly what is new or emergent in my work.  

One specific example:  Just last week one of those dangerous art-school critics - a thoughtful & feelingful fellow who's quite a bit younger than I - offered two constructive criticisms of a new portfolio of my documentary work: (1) the more use I made of the kind of wide & deep space that seems to envelop the viewer, the more successful the images seemed to be; and (2) some of the transitions in the portfolio from one point of view to another were too abrupt & need filling in.  You'd have to see the work to decide if you'd agree with him, but my own take was that he was right on.  Because of gallery scheduling, the work won't be shown for many months; & as I work on the project in the interim, I plan to take these two criticisms very much to heart.

Another example, less specific:  At a college where I taught, a beginning photo instructor offered a course focusing not just on technical stuff, but on helping students to recognize photographic cliches. Her course was a rewarding game that taught beginners to sort out their 'deja-vu-all-over-again' images from the ones that might evolve into an original & personal portfolio.  Her students carried a healthy distrust of cliches into their advanced work.  

Overall, because I appreciate criticism & have been helped a lot by it, some of the article just didn't ring true to me.  The connection between our money economy & the function of criticism seemed loose & overblown.  A number of separately valid points got mixed into what sounded at times like an anti-critical rant: (1) some critics are better than others; (2) some Internet criticism is thoughtless & feelingless (or just inexperienced?); (3) the art market isn't a great guide to making satisfying images; (4) learning isn't linear; (5) constructive citicism is of course better than destructive - etc.  But the tone bothered me, because I really don't want to become paranoid about criticism.  The more of it I can take in - assuming the source is repectful & honest - the better for me.  

(In the interest of full disclosure, I'll mention that I'm one of the untrustworthy people who's been known to teach art.)
Title: From the Big House to the Outhouse
Post by: Ricko on November 21, 2006, 08:28:05 pm
Bravo!  Bravo!

Many, many thanks, Pete.

Rich
Title: From the Big House to the Outhouse
Post by: BernardLanguillier on November 22, 2006, 01:48:39 am
A very interesting article Peter, thanks for taking the time to write these thoughts down for us to enjoy.

The internet has somehow opened the doors to criticism than can hurt some, but it has also provided these people with a mean to show their work to a potentially very large audience at very low cost. That's the most important part to me.

As a matter of fact, many of the photosharing sites amateur photographer use to exhibit their work (I am one of them) are based on the exchange of criticism. One of the reasons being that these kind of services are easy to implement from a technology standpoint and appear to provide enough value for people to be willing to pay a fee - which keeps the system afloat. Another reason is that many people are looking for an audience, and some sort of feedback. Praise, criticism,... any reaction would do at the beginning. When you exhibit your work in a gallery, it is easy enough to hang around and check out the viewers reactions, there is no such thing on the web.

Either way, expectations from viewers result from past success of the shower and the more you play the game the harsher the comments are likely to become if the shower's vision drifts too far away from what most viewers expect (previous fans liked your work back then, not necessarily you as an artist). That is yet another consequence of the medium. Not everybody liked Picasso's late work and some were vocal about that.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: From the Big House to the Outhouse
Post by: David Mantripp on November 22, 2006, 03:17:33 am
so, to sum it all up, we should reduced criticism (which is a really badly misunderstood concept it seems) to:

"hey, great shot, thanks for sharing"


Great article Pete. Thanks for sharing                
Title: From the Big House to the Outhouse
Post by: Jonathan Wienke on November 22, 2006, 03:24:56 am
IMO, honest criticism is a good thing, even if it isn't flattering or ego-gratifying to the recipient. Nobody improves their skills if all they hear is "nice image" all the time. I post images for critique here occasionally, and the critiques I benefit the most from are those that point out shortcomings in my work (like Alain Briot's comments about my Live Oak image) so that I can improve my work. There are al lot of rude, ignorant people who post vitriol for vitriol's sake, but one ought to have sufficiently thick skin that exposure to their drivel shouldn't cause one to cry under the bed in the fetal position. Have the maturity to separate the wheat from the excrement and learn what one can.
Title: From the Big House to the Outhouse
Post by: GerardK on November 22, 2006, 03:41:20 am
Pete, I'm with you most of the way in this article, but riddle me this, Batman.

A few years ago I met someone at a party who was interested in seeing the exhibition of my photography that was on at the time, so I invited him to have a look. He told me much the same story as you're telling now about the way the artist's feelings should connect with the viewer. His basic 'criticism' of my work was that I was in the business of 'looking' and 'seeing', but without 'feeling'. His comments helped me enormously to open myself up emotionally in the way I take pictures. As it turned out, he is a photography teacher at the local art academy. Some of his students are now major names in modern Dutch photography.

If I were to dismiss that kind of feedback, input, criticism, call it what you will, I would miss out on valuable energy. I would miss out on observations very much like your own. I would even have missed out on your article, because I would not look for input from others such as yourself. Zap! Pow!


Gerard Kingma
www.kingma.nu (http://www.kingma.nu)
Title: From the Big House to the Outhouse
Post by: Henrik Paul on November 22, 2006, 03:42:45 am
I have to agree with some of the people here. There's criticism, and then there's criticism. But I won't reiterate it here.

What I was wondering is the definition of art and artist. If art is a display of feelings and an artist is the one displaying the feelings, then the subject of criticism and praise are void. Measuring the quality of a feeling isn't meaningful to me. "Your sadness lacks some green at the top" or "the memory of your grandmother is overexposed" doesn't make sense. Therefore, given this definition, art is beyond criticism, which I believe many have said before me.

Now, I'm not trying to devoid this definition - I do accept this as one of the many. The problem here is perhaps the lack of a standard definition of the words "art" and "artist", or if there is one that I'm unaware of, the incorrect use of them (as is often the case with the words "professional" and "amateur")
Title: From the Big House to the Outhouse
Post by: alainbriot on November 22, 2006, 03:46:07 am
Quote
I post images for critique here occasionally, and the critiques I benefit the most from are those that point out shortcomings in my work (like Alain Briot's comments about my Live Oak image) so that I can improve my work.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=86519\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I try to post constructive feedback that aims at helping you improve your work :-)  I am glad you find it useful.

Alain
Title: From the Big House to the Outhouse
Post by: LoisWakeman on November 22, 2006, 06:16:24 am
Hmm: this article reads a bit like someone who has been recently offended by wet blankets himself. I may well be wrong of course.  My alternative title would be "From the glasshouse to the doghouse?" - moving from a place where no-one dares throw stones, to one where no-one talks to you because you rebuff their opinions  

Seriously, part of what Pete Myers is suggesting is one step along two slippery slopes IMO:

1. You should never point out problems to anyone as it might damage their egos. We already have (IMO) far too much of this tacit encouragement of the mediocre in many spheres of life, and I don't think it does society any good. All of a piece with banning competitive sport as it disavantages the less sporty, dumbing down media to appeal to the least literate, etc. If we can't all be excellent and happy, then let's all be forced to be mediocre and miserable - hah!

2. Accepting that art/craft doesn't necessarily have to possess any redeeming qualities and is just therapeutic for the artist/craftsman.

Nothing wrong with that per se (art as a hobby or pursuit for pleasure): but if someone wants to engage with the public in any way (whether that is by exhibition, selling, uploading on a public website or wherever), then I suggest that the work he produces should do something positive to any viewers if it is to be judged a success: make them happy, sad, serene, angry, think hard or whatever. If it only makes them bored or cross because it is clumsily executed, or baffled because the idea/vision doesn't come across, then I think we have every right to articulate that reaction in the public arena.

Of course, he has a point about us unwashed masses with no fine art education critiquing photos by those who have high reputations and/or sell work for lots of money: but I do think you can be a bit too precious about this.
Title: From the Big House to the Outhouse
Post by: Scott_H on November 22, 2006, 10:50:46 am
Criticism is as dependeant on the recipient, maybe more so, than the person offering criticism.  Feedback can be useful, but the process of seprating what is useful from what is not can be difficult.

Somehow a person has to improve, and it often takes other people looking at their work and offering feedback to do that.  At some point though, that person needs to find their own way, and criticism will probably not be much help.

I see circles of photographers where work is put up for comment, and over time the end result is that all of their pictures look the same.  A lot of critcism is the critic telling you how to make your picture look like their picture, and that isn't really helpful.

Ultimately I think an artist needs to get to the point where they recognise what is good about their work and what isn't so they can be their own critic.
Title: From the Big House to the Outhouse
Post by: BernardLanguillier on November 22, 2006, 11:53:52 am
Quote
I see circles of photographers where work is put up for comment, and over time the end result is that all of their pictures look the same.  A lot of critcism is the critic telling you how to make your picture look like their picture, and that isn't really helpful.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=86579\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Good point. Online sites based on the exchange of comments are another example of this. It is clear that issuing a criticism that is helpful in letting the photographer grown is extremely challenging a task.

Asian philosophies, and in particular that deriving from the way of the bow in Japan, could help understanding the reflexion that could potential result in the work of the most talented man on earth looking like that of a beginner.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: From the Big House to the Outhouse
Post by: alainbriot on November 22, 2006, 12:18:44 pm
Hi Bernard,

Quote
It is clear that issuing a criticism that is helpful in letting the photographer grown is extremely challenging a task.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=86587\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Good point.  It is one of the foundational aspects of effective teaching.

Quote
Asian philosophies, and in particular that deriving from the way of the bow in Japan, could help understanding the reflexion that could potential result in the work of the most talented man on earth looking like that of a beginner.

Cheers,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=86587\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Can you expand on that, in particular on how you see "the way of the bow" applied to photography?

Thank you.

Alain
Title: From the Big House to the Outhouse
Post by: Ken Tanaka on November 22, 2006, 12:22:17 pm
Quote
Criticism is as dependeant on the recipient, maybe more so, than the person offering criticism.  Feedback can be useful, but the process of seprating what is useful from what is not can be difficult.

Somehow a person has to improve, and it often takes other people looking at their work and offering feedback to do that.  At some point though, that person needs to find their own way, and criticism will probably not be much help.

I see circles of photographers where work is put up for comment, and over time the end result is that all of their pictures look the same.  A lot of critcism is the critic telling you how to make your picture look like their picture, and that isn't really helpful.

Ultimately I think an artist needs to get to the point where they recognise what is good about their work and what isn't so they can be their own critic.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=86579\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Bulls-eye, Scott!  Yours reflect my thoughts on the subject precisely.
Title: From the Big House to the Outhouse
Post by: dbell on November 22, 2006, 01:18:54 pm
Something about the article that hasn't been discussed much here: the association between success and money.

I think there's a lot of validity to the idea that an artist needs to keep himself distanced from people who will criticise his work based on its financial "success." I have personally encountered people who will say "What makes you think you're a good artist if you aren't mkaing lots of money doing it (for whatever THEIR value of "lots" is...)?."

 IMO, this sort of remark isn't actually criticism in any valid sense, and it CAN be destructive to someone who isn't confident enough in their work to brush it off.


db

--
Daniel Bell
Title: From the Big House to the Outhouse
Post by: Jack Flesher on November 22, 2006, 01:19:56 pm
Quote
Ultimately I think an artist needs to get to the point where they recognise what is good about their work and what isn't so they can be their own critic.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=86579\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I think this was part of Pete's point.  I think the other part was that art is a communication of what the artist feels or felt and hence the artist his/herself is probably the best critic to decide if the work has actually succeeded in that...
Title: From the Big House to the Outhouse
Post by: Mark D Segal on November 22, 2006, 01:45:35 pm
Quote
I think this was part of Pete's point.  I think the other part was that art is a communication of what the artist feels or felt and hence the artist his/herself is probably the best critic to decide if the work has actually succeeded in that...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=86605\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Jack, because communication is normally bi-directional one measure of success needs to be the impact on the "communicatee". That much said, there is an underlying question about whether ALL art necessarily needs to communicate something to anybody. There is art that is intended to communicate, and art that is done for its own sake - say exercises in formal structure which communicate nothing more than a concept of a formal structure. In the latter case, successful communication is a non-issue, but not in the former.
Title: From the Big House to the Outhouse
Post by: Herkko on November 22, 2006, 02:58:28 pm
Quote
Somehow a person has to improve, and it often takes other people looking at their work and offering feedback to do that.  At some point though, that person needs to find their own way, and criticism will probably not be much help.

I agree. At start you should have some guidance to point out obvious errors you are too inexperienced to notice. On the other hand if you after ten years of active shooting let people at forums and clubs tell you how you will shoot next time, you have missed the point totally, at least in my opinion.

Most experienced photographers can point out a few flaws and room for improvment on their own work. And you can bet they are not asking my opinion for modifications either..

Learning by shooting and looking for the opportunity is the name of the game. There are propably 1000000 different opinions of how this one should have been  cropped, lighted or composed better, but you got it *your* way and got the best of what the situation allowed. If you are considering every sound looking advice, your work can get very sound, but it propably will not be looking your work anymore.

Quote
I see circles of photographers where work is put up for comment, and over time the end result is that all of their pictures look the same.  A lot of critcism is the critic telling you how to make your picture look like their picture, and that isn't really helpful.

I agree even more. For a total novice they are good places to get rid off the grand errors and understand basics. After you have looked around a while, it is better run away and go somewhere else. Nothing is more hilarious than a going on competition of whose work will most please the forum big guys.


http://www.jussivakkala.com (http://www.jussivakkala.com)
Title: From the Big House to the Outhouse
Post by: Rob C on November 22, 2006, 03:34:37 pm
Good article, Pete, but perhaps published in the wrong space. On the other hand, perhaps published in just the right space.

I think that it comes down to the individual 'artist' and his own sense of self-worth whether or not he choses to subject himself to criticism from others. I also believe that it makes a great difference if the 'artist' is in the amateur, as opposed to the professional world. Why so? Possibly because the amatuer has an interest in the opinions of his peers whilst the professional probably has not - his interest lies in the opinions of his market, something usually very different.

Before I became a pro I had a very brief flirtation with a camera club as a means to using a darkroom; the experience was not memorable in the finer sense: I was criticised, at least my photography was, for looking too 'commercial' (something I vaguely remember having mentioned here before) and I sensed at a very early stage that there was little common ground. Anyway, my heroes were clearly defined in my own mind and I knew it was going to be a little harder than just tough to join them. And no, in my own estimation I never did get to their stratospheric level of fame/achievement /money (but who really knows about the latter?) and whatever success I did have kept me and my wife and kids alive, housed and well fed if it didn't quite make it to the satisfaction of my own ego.

So what does this mean? I think it means that we are, indeed, our own best critics and also that we do not all march to the same drummer and nor can we. We may like, even obsess to similar visual ideals but that's about as homogenised as we can get - our personalities take care of that and the end product of our working is always something other than a copy of whatever has inspired us. Even blatant plagiarism doesn't always get close to the spirit of the exercise in plagiarism!

Pete, I think you are right; you speak from a pro point of view and that is going to be different to the view of a teacher whose remit is something else; different, again, to the view of a wannabe. I do believe you have to close your ears to the blandishments of the rest of the world, you have to follow your star or just sit down and watch television...

Ciao, and thanks for the article.

Rob C
Title: From the Big House to the Outhouse
Post by: NeilFiertel on November 22, 2006, 03:48:23 pm
regarding The Big House

The writer is an artistic conservative. That we knew before the article.. from the series of images posted over the years..he is also clearly has a very thin skinned artistic temperment. His friends and admirers seem to suffer that dermatological problem as well if they agree that art schools universally suffer from a wet blanket syndrome.
Criticism is not a wet blanket...it is how one learns to be a better artist, poet, writer and so forth...being a friend to an artist is to to give them a true appraisal of the good and the not so good...anything else is patronising and worse, working against that person's improvement. A fine art instructor gives both the positive, if that exists, and the negative in as fair a manner as one can. Being human, one can give the colleague or student artist one's perceptions based upon experience along with context, other artists to look at, ask questions about intent and try to help the student or colleague to visualise more clearly or understand their own intentions more coherently...nothing more. A professor of art based upon my long and close professional experience with colleagues try to do much the same. They are not wet blankets, but they might very well rain upon the parade of egoistic types such as this author.
He would not prosper in an art school as he clearly has his way or the highway. Cosed minds do not expand with new ideas and those who lack the courage to grow and the humility to listen to other artists.
One must try to hone one's artistry to a higher level through feedback, positive and negative. Without this one will stagnate and do nothing really to push the art anywhere other than where it was in 1880. Alas..but it is harmless for the most part other than the defensiveness of the attitude. It is sad, really, to write off the hard work of teacher/ artists who choose to give back to their society with their immense knowledge and abilities as wet blankets. As a retired professor of nearly 40 years I can say that I have had the pleasure of many, many students of years past thank me for my honesty and integrity and, in turn, I bow to my teachers long dead for their dedication to me. They gave me critiques that could and did feel painful at the time but from them I became able to objectively look at my work and I believe improve it. I still give and receive crits from colleagues. I welcome honest critiques of my work and learn from it to this day. Artists do this. It is a normal thing and it is a fine way to sharpen one's ideas and keep them fresh. They are not always positive but they are always honest. It is a tradition that goes back thousands of years. Perhaps not the only way to learn to make art but surely a valid one. I better go out and hang up my blanket for the next call.
Title: From the Big House to the Outhouse
Post by: John Camp on November 22, 2006, 04:17:32 pm
The problem with the article is that it's more of a rant than an essay, and, like most rants, seems to be fired by anger rather than logic. For example, how can the author have known scores of artists who had the creativity choked out of them as students? Did they somehow get their creativity back (so it wasn't actually choked out of them, but simply misplaced?) Or were they wannabe artists who now claim the creativity was choked out of them (and if that's the case, how do you know that they had any in the first place?)

There's a difference between teaching and criticism. A good teacher is priceless, even if some of the teaching is couched as criticism. Though I've never really been a teacher, I've had several good ones. And if you don't have the simple courage to blow off pointless, irrelevant criticism, how are you going to make it as an artist, even if it's only in your own eyes? I have a feeling most good artists represent what's left after the bullshit has been burned off.

As to Bernard's comment about the way of the bow, the Zen-related arts incorporate some of the harshest, most unrelenting criticism to be found in any teaching system on the face of the earth. One of the fundamentals of most Asian art systems is that the student has a lot learn before he/she can become truly expressive. A master's art might be simple, but he'd never be mistaken for a beginner. The one thing they do have in common is freedom; the beginner is free because of his ignorance, the master is free because of his learning.

Americans/Europeans, on the other hand, have in the past few decades seemed to take the view that intention is good enough, and if one is sincere about his/her art, then it's art, no matter how poor the underlying skills or how little vision is involved. I disagree with that point of view. Genuinely valuable art is the result of unrelenting work.

JC
Title: From the Big House to the Outhouse
Post by: pss on November 22, 2006, 05:34:08 pm
it is the right of the artist to put out his art the way he/she wants it...it is the right of the audience to have an opinion and it is also their right to share this opinion....
it is up to the artist how to deal with this opinion and how to read it.....
art is about evoking an opinon...but saying "i want you to only respond positive to this" is completely ridiculous....
is an artist without an audience an artist?

i think that most high end art galleries around the world laugh all the way to the bank if some "regular people" wonder in, look at a canvas with paint splattered on it, say to themselves "my kid can do better" and leave....and that canvas is by some "important" artist and sells for one million....does that make it art? are the "ignorant people" stupid or really smart?
the art world is full of smaller markets and you have to know how to play them if you want to succeed....does not matter if you sell your prints on the boardwalk or at the hippest gallery in chelsea...
but either way you have to face critics....anyone looking at your work is a critic, if they tell you or don't....the important thing is to get the important critics in your market on your side....

there is nothing worse then your aunt looking at a photo you have up on the wall and says "how nice"...or even worse, your uncle (who owns a camera) starting to talk about the technical merits or what f-stop you were shooting at....they obviously did not get the "feeling" or "essence" or whatever "makes" a shot and it is up to you to put that reaction into perspective....do i care what they say? are they my audience? more wine please!
if you can't handle what people might say, don't put it up....
there is nothing better IMHO then good, hard, constructive critizism... hard to find but essential to   artistic development...  

about teacher and art:
i don't think you can teach art..teaching art is opening peoples mind to the world and teaching how to look at things in a different way, which can be anything from how to cook to how to fix an engine....looking at all the art books in the world will not make you an artist....
but technique can be taught and makes the difference between a lucky accident and a thought out concept with a certain technique applied which gets a point across (and makes the artist marketable for gallerists)
but like picasso said: it took me 5 years to learn how to paint like rembrandt, but it took me 30 years to learn how to paint like a child (i apologize if i butchered the quote, the meaning stays the same) of course it easy for picasso to say that, he had very serious technical training....
Title: From the Big House to the Outhouse
Post by: Ken Tanaka on November 22, 2006, 06:02:12 pm
Quote
The problem with the article is that it's more of a rant than an essay, and, like most rants, seems to be fired by anger rather than logic. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=86626\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It is indeed more of a stream-of-consciousness "rant" than a carefully constructed essay.  The threads of money and insistence that artistic value does not equate to financial reward are also woven deeply throughout the piece.  I do not know Mr. Myers or his situation but I couldn't help wondering if we weren't actually eavesdropping on a self-lecture conducted through the keyboard.

"Financial success" eludes most artists I've known.  At some point, usually well before middle-age, life's realities usually sublimate higher objectives in favor of a more comfortable and predictable life.   What many, maybe most, artists seem not to realize or to acknowledge is that the art world has a very well established business structure.  Behind every "financially successful" artist is an aggressive, savvy, well-connected gallery owner and/or agent arranging public and private showings, planting articles, and generally creating opportunities to build a long-term market for the artist.  

One of the many, but essential, keys to establishing a productive relationship with such a person is, frankly, not to be a prick.  Be honest, be creatively interesting, perhaps be quirky, always be flexible and open-minded.  But there are just too many talented, marketable "artists" out there for a gallery owner or agent worth a darn to put up with a nauseating egocentric.  (I am not suggesting that Mr. Myers fits such a profile, just making this general observation.)  Of late I've come into contact with more and more gallery owners and museum curators, many or whom seem to have many "gee, s/he is talented but impossible to deal with" stories.
Title: From the Big House to the Outhouse
Post by: Jack Flesher on November 22, 2006, 06:24:23 pm
Quote
Jack, because communication is normally bi-directional one measure of success needs to be the impact on the "communicatee". [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=86608\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Fine, but on whose time scale does that communication need to take place???  I use the cave paintings in Chauvet Pont d'Arc as one example.  They were painted thousands of years ago and who knows why.  Maybe they were nothing more than bored cave-kids winter kindergarten work...  Regardless, today they are protected and viewed as very significant art treasures.

Another more contemporary example might be Van Gogh. He sold like one painting while he was alive and for the most part his work was scorned by the critics of the day as childish and unimaginative.  A little over a hundred years later now and we all know how that story ended...
Title: From the Big House to the Outhouse
Post by: BernardLanguillier on November 22, 2006, 07:55:30 pm
Quote
Hi Bernard,
Good point.  It is one of the foundational aspects of effective teaching.
Can you expand on that, in particular on how you see "the way of the bow" applied to photography?

Thank you.

Alain
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=86591\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Alain,

OK, I'll give it a try. This is only my personnal understanding based on a limited knowledge of both photography and Kyuudou. Just a step along a multi-dimensioned learning curve.

Kyuudou (made up of 2 Chinese characters kyuu - the bow - and dou - the way), usually called Japanese archery in English, attempts to reach the effortless achievement of a perfect form.

One of the reasons why it is the "way" of the bow, is because the important part is more in the learning process that can result - or not - in reaching that perfect form.

I feel that the whole process pertains to photography at 3 levels at least:

- The personnal nature of the experience mostly away from any competitive aspect,
- The metrics used to measure excellence is essentially the true piece of mind that lets one express himself beyond the mastery of technique. The outcome is a naive genious that produces amazing work in a "natural", intuitive way. Using another analogy, a rainmanlike approach to performance where an extremely complex task end up being synthetized in a fraction of a second,
- Teaching is an essential part of learning in Kyuudo, even beginners that have started just a few weeks ago are already encouraged to teach to others. I feel that in photography also, teaching helps learning in that teaching requires a certain form of formalization that helps taking "luck" out of the equation.

Obviously, it would be possible to draw such parallels between kyuudo and other domains besides photography, but I have always found the connection itself to be rather natural.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: From the Big House to the Outhouse
Post by: alainbriot on November 22, 2006, 09:30:50 pm
Quote
I feel that the whole process pertains to photography at 3 levels at least:

- The personnal nature of the experience mostly away from any competitive aspect,
- The metrics used to measure excellence is essentially the true piece of mind that lets one express himself beyond the mastery of technique. The outcome is a naive genious that produces amazing work in a "natural", intuitive way. Using another analogy, a rainmanlike approach to performance where an extremely complex task end up being synthetized in a fraction of a second,
- Teaching is an essential part of learning in Kyuudo, even beginners that have started just a few weeks ago are already encouraged to teach to others. I feel that in photography also, teaching helps learning in that teaching requires a certain form of formalization that helps taking "luck" out of the equation.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=86648\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Bernard,

Thank you.

Alain
Title: From the Big House to the Outhouse
Post by: Geoff Wittig on November 22, 2006, 10:44:30 pm
Photographer/writer Roger Hicks has a great line in one of his books on the subject of exposing oneself to criticism. The gist of it is that it's fun to produce stuff that pleases you personally, but eventually it's time to "lift your head above the parapet". Only by seeing if your work can withstand the scrutiny of a visually/photographically sophisticated audience will you ever know if...well, if it's any good, or if it's crap. We are often lousy judges of the quality of our own work. Its ability to survive informed criticism, or even attract some praise, is a powerful incentive to keep improving. Just because my work makes me feel good is no indication that I'm on to anything.
Title: From the Big House to the Outhouse
Post by: Herkko on November 23, 2006, 01:25:21 am
Quote
Just because my work makes me feel good is no indication that I'm on to anything.

I thought that this was the very idea and utmost goal in amateur photography: to feel good about your pictures and the process? Personally I don't want to feel bad about my work, nor alter my style more acceptable for critique forums.
If you are working pro looking for an assignment or going to enter into high-art gallery society, I understand your point.

Quote
Another more contemporary example might be Van Gogh. He sold like one painting while he was alive and for the most part his work was scorned by the critics of the day as childish and unimaginative.  A little over a hundred years later now and we all know how that story ended...

In my country many successfull, and later largely accepted, artists have been many times first rejected (or should I say assasinated) by major newspaper critiques. These critiques are educated and true professionals, but they are not immune to conservatism or subjective attitudes hidden in well polished objective sentences. After the artist has established, the bell is ringing very differently.
Title: From the Big House to the Outhouse
Post by: Nick Rains on November 23, 2006, 04:43:59 am
The only way to avoid all criticism is to never show the work to anyone - and then what is the point?

Therefore any artist must be prepared to deal with criticism, no matter what form it takes. If they fail to take something from the process then they are the ultimate loser.

This is also only relavent to amateurs - professionals are subjected to criticism daily,  and from the most demanding critics of all - clients! If you have ever shown your book around ad agencies then you will know what I mean...

Anyone who has a really serious problem with criticism will find it hard to make a living in photography.
Title: From the Big House to the Outhouse
Post by: Rob C on November 23, 2006, 05:12:07 am
Quote
The only way to avoid all criticism is to never show the work to anyone - and then what is the point?

Therefore any artist must be prepared to deal with criticism, no matter what form it takes. If they fail to take something from the process then they are the ultimate loser.

This is also only relavent to amateurs - professionals are subjected to criticism daily,  and from the most demanding critics of all - clients! If you have ever shown your book around ad agencies then you will know what I mean...

Anyone who has a really serious problem with criticism will find it hard to make a living in photography.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=86686\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Absolutely, Nick, exactly what I underlined in my post earlier: the pro/am fields are totally different and the shamateur fits neither - messing about with the odd sale does not a pro make.

Also, there is a hell of a lot more truth to the old 'those who can do, those who can't teach' than some would care to admit. I have seen this in my own experience via photography school (an obligatory diversion for me due to employer ignorance during a very early stage of my life) where, the classic quotation arose through my mentioning, somewhat devil's advocate-wise, that I admired David Bailey's oeuvre. The tutor responded that if his photography was similar, he'd get out of the business... oh dear! I have also seen another problem which I doubt is unique: the clever art student who leaves art college to move instantly into teaching. That is not a measure of talent, more a measure of confidence, or the lack of it.

As far as Pete Myers is concerned, I think he is entitled to his views as the rest of us are; he would seem to have a route to personal success as valid as Alain's for Alain; perhaps rather than discounting his writing we should be pleased that he has given us food for thought or, at the very least, for discussion. Do we all want to spend life talking only f-stops and pixels? I would far rather read what makes your souls tick!

Ciao - Rob C
Title: From the Big House to the Outhouse
Post by: alainbriot on November 23, 2006, 02:53:37 pm
There is nothing more apt to deceive us than our own judgment, in deciding on our own works; and we should derive more advantage from having our faults pointed out by our enemies, than by hearing the opinions of our friends, because they are too much like ourselves, and may deceive us as much as our own judgment.
Leonardo da Vinci
Title: From the Big House to the Outhouse
Post by: Jonathan Wienke on November 23, 2006, 03:00:04 pm
Quote
There is nothing more apt to deceive us than our own judgment, in deciding on our own works; and we should derive more advantage from having our faults pointed out by our enemies, than by hearing the opinions of our friends, because they are too much like ourselves, and may deceive us as much as our own judgment.
Leonardo da Vinci

Bravo!
Title: From the Big House to the Outhouse
Post by: Mark D Segal on November 23, 2006, 03:17:47 pm
Quote
There is nothing more apt to deceive us than our own judgment, in deciding on our own works; and we should derive more advantage from having our faults pointed out by our enemies, than by hearing the opinions of our friends, because they are too much like ourselves, and may deceive us as much as our own judgment.
Leonardo da Vinci
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=86754\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Alain, with all due respect to Leonardo - and I support the intent of the comment - there is an underlying presumption that only enemies criticize or that critics are enemies - an inference I have a bit of trouble with. True friends are people who  offer constructive criticism knowing that it will be received as well-intentioned and worth considering.
Title: From the Big House to the Outhouse
Post by: Jack Flesher on November 23, 2006, 04:06:28 pm
Quote
There is nothing more apt to deceive us than our own judgment, in deciding on our own works; and we should derive more advantage from having our faults pointed out by our enemies, than by hearing the opinions of our friends, because they are too much like ourselves, and may deceive us as much as our own judgment.
Leonardo da Vinci
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=86754\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Great quote!  Thank you for sharing it.

It leaves me to wonder if through art (and/or criticism), enemies could eventually become friends?

Regards,
Title: From the Big House to the Outhouse
Post by: alainbriot on November 23, 2006, 04:08:08 pm
Quote
Alain, with all due respect to Leonardo - and I support the intent of the comment - there is an underlying presumption that only enemies criticize or that critics are enemies - an inference I have a bit of trouble with. True friends are people who  offer constructive criticism knowing that it will be received as well-intentioned and worth considering.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=86759\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

There is no underlying assumption on my part.  I agree with you that friends --and teachers as well-- can provide very valuable feedback.

Alain
Title: From the Big House to the Outhouse
Post by: Mark D Segal on November 23, 2006, 04:28:37 pm
Quote
There is no underlying assumption on my part.  I agree with you that friends --and teachers as well-- can provide very valuable feedback.

Alain
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=86774\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Alain - quite correct - I wasn't attributing the underlying assumption to YOU - rather it was to Leonardo! (Unfair I guess because he's not quite in a position to defend himself!)  

Cheers,

Mark
Title: From the Big House to the Outhouse
Post by: alainbriot on November 23, 2006, 04:33:41 pm
Quote
Alain - quite correct - I wasn't attributing the underlying assumption to YOU - rather it was to Leonardo! (Unfair I guess because he's not quite in a position to defend himself!)   

Cheers,

Mark
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=86781\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Agreed... and funny :-)

Here's another interesting quote:

You have to learn to disregard people who do not like you.  As far as I am concerned those who do not like you fall in two categories: the stupid and the envious. The stupid will like you in 5 years time. The envious will never like you.

Johny Depp playing the Earl of Rochester in The Libertine.
Title: From the Big House to the Outhouse
Post by: 32BT on November 23, 2006, 04:34:19 pm
Quote
Alain, with all due respect to Leonardo - and I support the intent of the comment - there is an underlying presumption that only enemies criticize or that critics are enemies - an inference I have a bit of trouble with. True friends are people who  offer constructive criticism knowing that it will be received as well-intentioned and worth considering.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=86759\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Besides the fact that this begs the question how many true friends we really have, I believe your observation about an underlying presumption is otherwise incorrect: note how "deception" can go both ways: you can criticize yourself too harshly and produce stunning work by all other standards, but never follow through with it or be content as even your closest friends judge equivalently. Like minds apparently are not your best tour guide in the deepest dungeons of your soul...
Title: From the Big House to the Outhouse
Post by: alainbriot on November 23, 2006, 04:41:18 pm
Quote
Besides the fact that this begs the question how many true friends we really have, I believe your observation about an underlying presumption is otherwise incorrect: note how "deception" can go both ways: you can criticize yourself too harshly and produce stunning work by all other standards, but never follow through with it or be content as even your closest friends judge equivalently. Like minds apparently are not your best tour guide in the deepest dungeons of your soul...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=86785\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It is an acknowledged fact, that we perceive errors in the works of others more readily than in our own... It will be well for the artist to have a looking-glass by him, when he paints,to look often at his work in it, which, being seeen the contrary way, will appear as the work of another hand, and will better show his faults.

Leonardo da Vinci
Title: From the Big House to the Outhouse
Post by: alainbriot on November 23, 2006, 04:57:49 pm
Quote
Great quote!  Thank you for sharing it.

It leaves me to wonder if through art (and/or criticism), enemies could eventually become friends?

Regards,
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=86773\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It would certainly help make the world a better place.

ALain
Title: From the Big House to the Outhouse
Post by: Ben Rubinstein on November 23, 2006, 04:58:20 pm
HA! I don't need a mirror, I have a wife!

Seriously though she is my best critic in that she knows that I trust her judgment and do not get upset at her frank and accurate criticisms. No man can truly go on fooling himself when he has a wife who will happily burst all his bubbles for him!

When I shoot Landscape I have a personal criteria, would I purchase that photo, is it good enough for my wall. If the answer is no then I don't bother taking the photo. When processing at home my wife adds the next stage - will anyone buy it. If the answer is no then I don't put it up for sale.

Contrary to that article I do think that the publics purse can be the greatest criticism of your work. If no one buys it then it is not something that appeals to the public at best, and just not good enough at worst! If you make the viewer look again, if your vision has invoked the emotions you yourself aimed for when making the photograph (as talked about by Alain in his last essay) then you have succeeded in your art.

What else is the point of art if it is not to provoke a certain reaction from the viewer? If you deny that reaction or the validity of that reaction then you are fooling yourself in calling your work art.......in my humble opinion.
Title: From the Big House to the Outhouse
Post by: Mark D Segal on November 23, 2006, 05:02:12 pm
Quote
HA! I don't need a mirror, I have a wife!

Seriously though she is my best critic in that she knows that I trust her judgment and do not get upset at her frank and accurate criticisms. No man can truly go on fooling himself when he has a wife who will happily burst all his bubbles for him!

When I shoot Landscape I have a personal criteria, would I purchase that photo, is it good enough for my wall. If the answer is no then I don't bother taking the photo. When processing at home my wife adds the next stage - will anyone buy it. If the answer is no then I don't put it up for sale.

Contrary to that article I do think that the publics purse can be the greatest criticism of your work. If no one buys it then it is not something that appeals to the public at best, and just not good enough at worst! If you make the viewer look again, if your vision has invoked the emotions you yourself aimed for when making the photograph (as talked about by Alain in his last essay) then you have succeeded in your art.

What else is the point of art if it is not to provoke a certain reaction from the viewer? If you deny that reaction or the validity of that reaction then you are fooling yourself in calling your work art.......in my humble opinion.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=86790\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Pom, yes - BUT as I mentioned above, there is also art for art's sake, where the artist simply isn't interested in communicating anything to anybody, but doing things in their own right for his/her own reasons.
Title: From the Big House to the Outhouse
Post by: Boghb on November 23, 2006, 06:48:41 pm
Quote
Pom, yes - BUT as I mentioned above, there is also art for art's sake, where the artist simply isn't interested in communicating anything to anybody, but doing things in their own right for his/her own reasons.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=86793\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


The point of such art is for the artist to look at him/herself.  Art is the mirror.
Title: From the Big House to the Outhouse
Post by: Boghb on November 23, 2006, 06:55:14 pm
At the moment the artist thinks of what someone else might like, the flow of the subconscious into the object of art is interrupted.  Then it is no longer an endeavor to paint the purely subjective.
Title: From the Big House to the Outhouse
Post by: John Camp on November 23, 2006, 09:03:56 pm
Quote
At the moment the artist thinks of what someone else might like, the flow of the subconscious into the object of art is interrupted.  Then it is no longer an endeavor to paint the purely subjective.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=86800\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Rembrandt painted many of his greatest works as direct commissions -- and his career faltered badly when he painted a portrait that was not accepted because it was not liked.

JC
Title: From the Big House to the Outhouse
Post by: Pete JF on November 23, 2006, 10:15:52 pm
I think i puked in my mouth a little bit after reading that article and this thread.

Happy Thanksgiving, I hope everybody had a nice meal with some good fellowship and that you didn't talk about photography in these terms during that meal.

My aunt would have hit me on the head with a spoon and might've said..."watch those cliches, you made me puke in mouth a little."
Title: From the Big House to the Outhouse
Post by: Boghb on November 24, 2006, 01:46:45 am
John

Making art as entertainment for others certainly does not invalidate it as art; it just changes the process from one of exploring the purely personal to one of pleasing others.
Title: From the Big House to the Outhouse
Post by: DiaAzul on November 24, 2006, 04:55:13 am
Quote
Great quote!  Thank you for sharing it.

It leaves me to wonder if through art (and/or criticism), enemies could eventually become friends?

Regards,
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=86773\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Friend or Enemy is a monika that you put on the other person  - rarely something they decide themselves. Same with criticism...it is usually the receiver and not the giver that decides whether they like the criticism or not (or whether they judge it good or bad).
Title: From the Big House to the Outhouse
Post by: Ben Rubinstein on November 24, 2006, 06:00:24 am
Quote
Pom, yes - BUT as I mentioned above, there is also art for art's sake, where the artist simply isn't interested in communicating anything to anybody, but doing things in their own right for his/her own reasons.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=86793\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

My point is that to deny that insight into the art when viewed by another person would be to deny an insight into your own soul. If you want to express yourself in a medium of art then to deny others reaction to that expression would be fooling yourself would it not?
Title: From the Big House to the Outhouse
Post by: Mark D Segal on November 24, 2006, 10:39:46 am
Quote
My point is that to deny that insight into the art when viewed by another person would be to deny an insight into your own soul. If you want to express yourself in a medium of art then to deny others reaction to that expression would be fooling yourself would it not?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=86836\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yes and no, depending on the purpose. There are artists who create things for the sake of creating them, experimenting with form, light, matter and composition in order to make discoveries about what "works" (in their view) and what doesn't. When these experiments reach a point that starts to seek acceptance amongst its peers and in broader society, of course it needs to emerge from the self-contained world of its creator - and face criticism!
Title: From the Big House to the Outhouse
Post by: Jack Flesher on November 24, 2006, 11:39:33 am
Quote
Friend or Enemy is a monika that you put on the other person  - rarely something they decide themselves. Same with criticism...it is usually the receiver and not the giver that decides whether they like the criticism or not (or whether they judge it good or bad).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=86832\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

We're getting way off topic, but I see it as a two-way street.  I agree it is usually the offended who assigns the term.  However, it is also usually the case that ones "enemy" has done something to deserve that moniker to begin with; they decided to be an enemy instead of a friend when they performed the negative action.  Action equal reaction, a two-way street.

Pete did address black & white versus gray areas in his article and I think this is pertinent and may steer it back on point here: It is difficult sometimes to walk a fine line when one is balancing being in business and making money with being a good friend.  Some people see anybody who is not a good friend as an enemy (black or white) while others see them simply as a friend but not a "close" friend (gray).  The gray zone can expand for one and turn black for the other and an enemy is perceived by one side whether or not it was truly the case.  Unfortunately, the cylce usually progresses in that the black "enemy" now takes additional negative action which pushes the gray "so-so friend" into his/her black zone, leaving both as enemies.

Another quote I like is, "As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another." I think this is where one can find the resolve to rise above petty differences and realize that enemies (or critics and artists) do learn from one-another and can become even stronger friends having gone through the experience of "sharpening" each other...  One can hope anyway

Cheers,
Title: From the Big House to the Outhouse
Post by: Ray on November 24, 2006, 01:02:35 pm
Reading this thread and Pete Myer's article, I'm reminded of a Somerset Maugham short story about a young man who wanted to be a classical pianist, against the wishes of his father. They came to an agreement whereby the son would take a year off to practise the piano to his heart's content, after which time he would be judged by a successful pianist of the day as to whether or not he had any talent. If the verdict was he didn't have 'real' talent, then it was agreed he would give up music and take up some soul-destroying position in his father's business.

When the day came for him to play his best pieces before the 'judge', an accomplshed and successful middle aged female classical pianist, his efforts were ridiculed. The verdict was clear. No talent.

The play ended wth the poor bloke committing suicide.

Perhaps the moral here is, the first requirement of any artistic talent is the talent and confidence to withstand criticism.