It's not really about Isaac showing or not showing, nor is it about Russ having an interesting and enviable library. What it is really about is the utter futility of the exercise known as 'critique', a miserable, pretentious word that doesn't even have the attraction of sounding right.
Nobody has the ability to understand at any deep level what the artist whose work is under the searchlight truly feels or seeks. This precludes meaningful comment on the success or otherwise of the image. Worse, one can never escape the reality that some can do 'art' and some never will have that pleasure, however good a mechanic they learn to be. And that's about it: if it clicks with the viewer it's cool, and if not then it's not.
You can instantly see the problem, can't you? One has introduced the self. That's a filter that no external input can manage without contamination or, at the very least, distortion. So, in the end, critque isn't about the image under the glare of the kliegs, it's about the critic, poor sod.
Some claim to have been helped by the process; better help would come from looking at collected works, at websites and almost any medium other than a chat show like this particular section has to be. Though I never post in this area, I do look and read; I have to say, I learn nothing about photography here, in this specific slot, but lots about people. Not the same thing, though possibly an elephant.
Rob C
