> I have to apologize. I assumed in my own unthinking way that my posting > would be recognized as a joke. In reviewing it, I see that the smiley was > missing and it wasn't funny anyway. Jeff Indeed, if it was meant as a joke, I missed it. At least, even on a re-read I still can't find that aspect of it. However, there was certainly no need to apologise as, as a serious post, there was value in it. The form you linked us to was, yet another, example of how various people have tried to codify interpretation of photographs. Indeed, for me the act of attempting to come up with a scheme (in my case hampered by the choice of acronym) was a learning experience in itself. In the case of your example - as unBob noted - it was targeted as students. Some of the questions, about WHY the photographer took the picture, may not have been intended to be part of a general "appraisal" scheme but more to encourage the students to think about the wider picture (I don't mean Mr Zinn's panoramas either ;o). The holy grail of a photographic review scheme would be to be (all IMO) 1) memorable 2) concise 3) non-exclusive Points 1 and 2 are fairly self-explanatory. If you can't remember the scheme (that is if you need a written form) chances are it is too detailed / long. Point 3 however, IMO, is open to much more interpretation. IMO a perfect scheme would be all encompassing. That is, all genres would be covered. Landscape, abstract, nature, portraiture, creative, snapshot, mood, scientific, reportage, "postcard", street, "pseudo street" <G> .... I'm not sure such a perfect scheme is even possible because, largely, the value criteria in one may not equate in any way with those in another. The optimum scheme (falling short of perfect) for me is one where, whilst not all parts may apply to all genres, you can be prompted to find something good and something "constructive" to say about any image .... Bob In another post Jeff wrote ... >>Who cares what the photographer was thinking? >There's an assumption here that photographers think. In another post unBob noted: <The intent of an artist's statement is clearly to free the public from the shackles of having to think for themselves! And this is what the public demand!!!> Indeed. And if you can remove that burden of thinking, without the individual realising they have been freed of it, you have the perfect consumer. Will believe anything they are told about the project and go away satisfied. Bit like a voter in a 21st century election methinks ....
