To critique any work of art you first need to just react to it on an emotional level.
Some great works of art are the result of careful planning and meticulous execution. Others are just happy accidents which are discovered on the editing screen. Which method produces the result isn\'t really important and often isn\'t obvious. In fact some of the most effective messages are presented in images carefully planned and skillfully executed to look like unplanned slices of life candidly frozen in time.
But beyond the emotional reaction leading to an opinion of whether you like it or not, if you are curious and want to know WHY you reacted to the image as you did and want to create the same reaction in photos you take in the future you need to apply some form of analysis.
Art criticism, as taught academically in schools and books, follows two basic methods: historical and analytical/perceptual. The historical approach compares the work with those which have preceded it and likely influenced the author of the new work. In that context you might compare a photo similar in style to Diane Arbus or Ansel Adams to specific examples of their work. The analytical / perceptual method tries to discover what created the reaction to message of the image by making an inventory of its elements and examining how they relate to each other.
Being able to react emotionally to an image and also remember what attracted and held attention and when you grasped the intended message are not mutually exclusive. I\'m known to give rather detailed and analytical critiques, but they are based completely on how I react on an emotional level to the image. My comments are usually focused on ways different technique could deliver the INTENDED message in a clearer, less ambiguous way by eliminating unnecessary distractions from what is responsible on a perceptual / emotional level in the human brain for converting a pattern of contrast on a screen or print into the illusion of a real 3D object or living, breathing person.
How we react to content is subjective. Show a photo of a pretty girl to 100 people and most will react and say \"I like it\" for no other reason that the girl is pretty. Odds are excellent the fewer clothes she is wearing the more enthusiastic the praise will be. But take that same girl, send her to the tattoo parlor for some artwork on face and body and an even dozen body studs and rings and shoot her in the same exact pose and lighting. Poll those same 100 viewers and reactions will vary depending on their views on body modification. But in either case their brains will process the images in similar ways both image-to-image and person-to-person because all people - within a range of variance - have nervous systems which work the same way to react to visual stimulation and connect the image captured by the eyes to stored memories of similar content.
In both cases the photo could be either technically flawless or have much room for improvement without really affecting the emotional reaction to the content. A pretty girl is no less pretty because an unskilled photographer blew the highlights in the skin tones or captured the face at a less than flattering angle. So its very possible to react on an emotional level and really like the content and creative thought behind a message and also see ways the delivery of the message can be improved.
I\'ve been taking photos seriously for over 40 years now and can count on my fingers and toes the number of shots I would consider flawless and without some opportunity for improvement out of the camera. Back in the \"good old days\" of B&W we\'d manipulate contrast relationships with filters during capture and film development then tweek them with dodging, burning and retouching on the print. Today we do the same things in Photoshop.
Sometimes editing is done to correct things which couldn\'t be controlled or were overlooked when shooting. But the act of analyzing, self-critiquing and seeing ways to possibly improve the last photo I took is what allows me to that the next one better and grow in the the craft. That same philosophy underlies the tutorials I write and critiques I provide: the assumption that there is always opportunity for improvement and growth, if only just to try something different to see if it works more effectively or not.
The act of critiquing a someone else\'s photo is mutually beneficial. I\'m more verbal than visual so I very often see and comment on images I would never in a million years think of or bother to take. But taking the time to understand why I liked it, and what make it resonate for me gets filed away and eventually incorporated at some point in a photo I take, helping to make my work more creative: not in the sense of imitation but rather just opening my mind to consider different ways to deliver messages in photos. That\'s exactly what makes the work of some of the regular posters here so much fun to look at and comment on.
Some people, regardless of skill level and experience take criticism of craft aspects and differences of opinion on reaction to content well, and others don\'t. In some cases its because they have a clear artistic vision which accepts and incorporates technical imperfections as part of the artistic expression of the message and others are just rude and clueless. It usually one takes only one critique to discover if someone is rude and clueless. Grasping that less than perfect technique is an intentional part of photographer\'s artistic approach requires seeing a pattern in a body of work.
Being able to put a single work in to context of an overall style is what differentiates artists like Jackson Pollock from a 2 year-old with his first box of Crayons: the end result might look similar but the creative intent and intended message are radically different. When does a photo transcend from slice of life \"snapshot\" to art? When it resonates emotionally with enough viewers in both a positive and negative way to attract critical acclaim and financial remuneration. The quickest path to fame as an artist was formerly to be recognized by a patron or recognized critic. Nowadays its how many hits a web page has or how many people phone it to vote for the singer or dancers in the competition.
Nov 27, 2008 at 10:04 AM
Previous versions of cgardner's message #6425008 « Over analyzing.... »
