Evan Baines
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.2 #4 · Cinzia {Maternity in the Red Rocks} | |
anthonysemone wrote:
Evan,
help me out here, in pursuit of dmacmillan's goal about elevating the level of discourse: why the hell should it be Lisa's, or my, or your goal in your photography to avoid "being repetitive?" When in hell is "variability" in work a criterion for competence? Presenting a body of work is NOT about fricking "entertaining" a viewer. Viewer is bored? Get the F out and go look at something that "entertains" you. Are there not "Genre's" of work? Can it not be said of Cezanne, Monet, Winogrand, HCB, etc. that at some level or another their works were "repetitive?" I mean, cryin' out loud, how many frickin' apples, pears, etc. can you paint 
Head over to M2A2, hundreds of photographs of aircraft of all kinds - good grief, not once have I heard the critique of "oh my gosh, Jan Arie, Jim Wilson, Rodolfo Paiz, you guys are so repetitive." Damn right, not at all It's the artistic brilliance of each of these photographers that captures an essence of aviation in each presentation they offer up.
Or, check out the MF board within Nikon SLR's, how many flowers have been captured by the many contributors on that thread? Exquisitely, and not once have I read anyone say "by gosh, Lt. Z, you are so repetitive." I'll bet Curtis Grindahl has got half a dozen pics of the SF Bay bridge, each one is of the bridge - oh my god, how repetitive!! Yet each one is unique in its own right. Perhaps the viewers who complain of boredom haven't learned how to look past the superficial presentation of the image.
FWIW, I'm not at all into being politically correct, so if the Brazilian commenter's are hamstrung by their ESL, if that's what it is, well, tough shitsky. You gonna play in the game, get up to speed....Show more →
Anthony,
Forgive me if I do not address your points in the order posed, but rather in the order most easily answered.
1. I presented the "(ESL?)" not to excuse the post, which I don't really feel needs excusing, but rather to explain why the critique might not have been more terse than those without the benefit of a boot camp experience are used to. I simply wanted to point out that the economy of language in the post did not necessarily equate to ill-intent.
2. In order to answer your question as to the legitimacy of "repetitive" as a critique, one must determine the basis by which a critique may be legitimate. I would argue that the most legitimate roles of a critic are to identify and share work that deserves a broader audience, and to facilitate artistic growth in an artist that critic believes has the potential to progress. By the second standard, it would be entirely reasonable for a critic to push an artist to continue his/her development rather than to rest on his/her laurels in repeating a known formula. An artist who is not continuing to push his/her limits of expression will stagnate. Whether or not you feel that this case applies here, I am curious as to whether you feel it is inappropriate in general for a critic to push an artist toward continued growth. If you do not feel this is the case, I would be curious as to your opinion on the legitimate role of critique.
3. Whether or not the critique was useful or well presented, it was directed at the work itself. It did not warrant the critic being called "pathetic," his behavior "ignorant," or the application of the label "troll." In general, quality work is its own defense against invalid or incorrect critique, and will outlast it. As such, invalid or incorrect critique (if that is what you feel this is) needs no response other than that which common courtesy demands. Attacking a critic only diminishes the artist.
Edited on Sep 24, 2013 at 06:07 PM · View previous versions
|
) 
