-------- Original message --------
From: James Schenken <jds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 06/25/2013 7:34 AM (GMT-05:00)
To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students <photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: Photo critiques.
Right on!
Criticism of art and of photographic art should be intended to help the original artist to understand whether or not they achieved the communication of the idea they had to the viewer. After all, a photograph, a painting, or a book is a way of communicating an idea that the artist has to the audience. The feedback they get about how successful they were is what the critique should be about.
Describing how you would have made the image is less helpful than describing what you see in the image. If you see a dark and gloomy scene and the artist intended it to convey a light and airy feeling, that’s helpful. If you “like” it or “dislike” it, that’s not helpful.
Describing how you would have done the image by changing the cropping, changing the contrast range, etc. to get the picture you would like might be helpful but it is talking about a different image than what the artist has created. It may be that you see in the actual image exactly what the artist intended or maybe you didn’t, but the artist doesn’t know that. All they get is a description of a different image that you do (or maybe don’t) like better.
From: owner-photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Randy Little
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2013 11:18 PM
To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students
Subject: Photo critiques.
A very wise man by the name of Allan Vogel once said to Class I was in. Now I am paraphrasing as its been a few years buts its what I remember him saying.
"Photographers don't know how to critique art only technique. Painters would never discus a painting the same way many photographers seem to want to critique photographs."
