I completely agree on critics, and books of criticism often don't
include much photography.
What I was referring to was practical advice. I don't bother with
practical advice from people who can't show the ability to use
it. How can I trust what they say? What I get from this list in
terms outside of critique is always from people who show the ability
to know what they are talking about, not the ones that just talk talk talk.
At 10:09 AM 2/5/2006, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
Jeff Spirer <jeff@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Nobody that is a terrible photographer would be viewed as a
> source of good advice on photography.
That's generally true, I think, if you ask a bunch of random people or
even random photographers. But in literature, and I think in art
including photography as well, being a *good* critic, while rare, is
pretty much independent of being a good *artist*. They're not the
same skill-set at all; a few people have both, but not very many.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@xxxxxxxx>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/>
<http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
Jeff Spirer
Photos: http://www.spirer.com
One People: http://www.onepeople.com/
