# Knowing enough



## The_Traveler (Jan 9, 2015)

Jenny Diski, the writer, wrote this in an essay entitled 'Doris and me' in the London Review of Books (Vol. 37 No. 1 · 8 January 2015, pages 21-23).  She was growing up as a long term house guest in the home of Doris Lessing, the novelist, and was included in Lessing's circle of literary friends who had intelligent and informed opinions about a wide range of work - plays, movies, art, literature - all springing from a deep background that Jenny, at 15, did not have. 



> For weeks I listened intently to the table-talk, not daring to join the conversation, not having anything to say, and wondering where and how one acquired opinions, so many and that seemed to come so easily. We left cinemas and theatres, Doris and her friends and me tagging along, and before we were out in the street, they were sharing their judgments of what they’d seen. It was a matter of whether things ‘worked’, how exactly they had failed or succeeded. Nothing was expected to be perfect, so the conversation was about the way in which things worked and didn’t and a judgment was made on the balance. Details of mise-en-scène and dialogue were picked out and weighed.


..................................................................


> I listened furiously, trying to take all this in and find out how it was done. To start with, I couldn’t understand how it was so easy for them to have a point of view, to know how and why things ‘worked’. ‘Working’, the pivotal valuation, was never defined. There seemed to be too much to learn. I picked up quickly that having opinions wasn’t enough and that it was necessary to have a basis – from reading, from study, from hard conscious _thought_ – from which the opinions were formed. But more important than all the theory, behind and beyond it, there was some ineffable _taste_ or intuitive understanding (_emphasis by Lew_) implicitly agreed on by these talking, always talking, people. I couldn’t imagine ever acquiring the all-important _taste_. Did you have it or not, from birth? Could you acquire it with diligent study?



I think this describes well the feelings I had when I first started looking at pictures in some organized way and still have when I try to read books on criticism.

For me, I think it is enough to be somewhere just past the center on this continuum of knowledge and experience, knowing enough to understand one's own work and direction and yet not so 'educated' that the nuances overtake the art.


----------



## Ilovemycam (Jan 9, 2015)

The_Traveler said:


> Jenny Diski, the writer, wrote this in an essay entitled 'Doris and me' in the London Review of Books (Vol. 37 No. 1 · 8 January 2015, pages 21-23).  She was growing up as a long term house guest in the home of Doris Lessing, the novelist, and was included in Lessing's circle of literary friends who had intelligent and informed opinions about a wide range of work - plays, movies, art, literature - all springing from a deep background that Jenny, at 15, did not have.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Too much bull. When your on the street it is a microsecond to shoot. Your trying to talk a great pix rather than shoot one.


----------



## Fred Berg (Jan 10, 2015)

I think a little foundation to build upon is important and would recommend that anyone who is new to photography and who has't had any or much formal education or contact with the visual arts might do well to take an art appreciation course. But in fact, as your example shows, a little understanding of the arts in general is adequate. 

Understanding the relationship between form and function is useful.


----------



## pgriz (Jan 10, 2015)

I'm finding that the process of critique sharpens the awareness and gives better understanding to interpreting images.  This in turn gives me more to think about and work with when I make images.  The process of discussion that you quote in Jenny Diski's writing, is important in bringing various viewpoints and sensibilities into play, so that one can have a more rounded appreciation.  Taking images, looking at images, and appreciation of images are all elements of learning a culture and a language - it takes time.  Thank you for that post, Lew.  

@ lovemycam:  the moment of picture taking can be a microsecond, but the there's much more prep involved prior to the moment of clicking the shutter and after.  "Talking a great picture" is actually a good skill because it previsualizes what one hopes to achieve.  Athletes often do an entire race or routine in their minds before they actually do the race or routine.  Photography (or at least many branches of it) benefits from some prior thought.

@ Fred Berg.  Agreed.  Although visual expression has its culture and language and dialects.  I feel that learning the relationship between form and function is a form of awareness that requires both doing and discussing, which is why the critique (whether by you of other's work, or others of your own) is an important element in this process.


----------



## photoguy99 (Jan 10, 2015)

Daniel, I think you've made it clear that you think the only wordy posts should be your repeated posts about your own half dozen pictures on wikimedia, which you scatter like snowflakes across unrelated threads.

Is it permissible to make a long post of my own, as long as it talks mainly about how great you are, or should I remain silent and allow you to do the work?


----------



## Designer (Jan 10, 2015)

Daniel?


----------



## photoguy99 (Jan 10, 2015)

Designer said:


> Daniel?



Ilovemycam


----------



## bribrius (Jan 10, 2015)

i think this is all dangerous ground. Are we speaking of photography or the subset within photography that can be considered actual art?  when speaking of learning about arts we are setting a milestone achievement where apparently we believe we know enough to make such assumptions of a art work? How many are really educated in art? you read four books and take a art 101 course does this really qualify you in critical thinking of a artwork or leading others toward such critical thinking? seems more a arm chair lawyer with limited knowledge or the blind leading the blind.  Careful observations in practice should be observed here. There is a difference between photography 101 and art. They often cannot be thought of critically from the same vantage point. This, has, and does, lead to some basic confusion. As the tests for basic photography (which most concentrate on here) and art are of completely different worlds. It is not correct to judge a artistic photo based on basic photography principles of focus, exposure, subject etc. etc.
Nor is it correct to judge a technical photograph on some principles of art. There are TWO different measures here, with a lot of gray in between. But often it seems, especially on here, people tend to to try to merge them into a one size fits all cookie cutter approach. And most of us (including myself many times) are not qualified to make such judgments at all. so i guess my question would be, what is being used for a basis?


----------



## Buckster (Jan 10, 2015)

bribrius said:


> i think this is all dangerous ground.


Oh, yeah.  Personal opinions are SO dangerous!  Every time I see one, I fear for my very life.


----------



## bribrius (Jan 10, 2015)

Buckster said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > i think this is all dangerous ground.
> ...


i think when teaching others, much of what happens here. They can be. when i first joined here i had wished they had a ranking system for years of experience and formal education in photography and the arts. A person with thirty years and eight years of formal art study gets five stars. someone who read a few books and has only four years experience gets two stars.  Biography and proof of education required to move up in stars.


----------



## KenC (Jan 10, 2015)

I agree that some knowledge base is essential to an informed discussion.  Beyond that, I'm not sure about "taste or intuitive understanding."  There are some who seem better at applying the principles of art to critique and to their own work, but whether this is just a matter of practice or something inherent is not clear, at least to me.  I've always thought that reading about painting and looking at paintings can teach us a lot about photography.  Books written by photographers are a little less reliable, imo, because some photographers seem to learn only within the world of photography, which often is more formulaic and less open to different ways of doing things than the art world in general.  For example, from some in photography you hear only the same tired half-dozen or so cliches, like ROT, "don't center things", an image has to have a center of interest, blown-out highlights or anything less than a razor-sharp image are automatic disqualifiers, etc.  Camera club judges and members are particularly prone to this.  I've read several books on composition not written specifically for photographers and they look at things in an entirely different way.


----------



## photoguy99 (Jan 10, 2015)

I think Lew is taking about a kind of meta-game involving a lot of detail only the players of that game care about.

There is an argument to be made that understanding the meta game helps with the game itself (actually making art) but the more meta the game the more tenuous the argument.

Mainly the players think the meta game is fun. And it is.

Orthogonal to the meta game issue is taste, which is horribly underrated by photographers. Taste is vastly more important than technical details, but photographers have it the other way around. Just watch this thread...


----------



## Buckster (Jan 10, 2015)

photoguy99 said:


> I think Lew is taking about a kind of meta-game involving a lot of detail only the players of that game care about.
> 
> There is an argument to be made that understanding the meta game helps with the game itself (actually making art) but the more meta the game the more tenuous the argument.
> 
> ...


I think that's exactly right.  The "Critique Game" often has very little to do with what real, average, individual people find to be pleasing or "good", and that's true for anything and everything that has "educated critics" weighing in.  It seems that the more "educated" the critics is, the less in tune they are with what real, regular, average, individual people think.

I first noticed this in my teens growing up in Detroit and reading Creem Magazine and the critiques by one Lester Bangs, who loved and praised the works of music that few, including me, appreciated, and panned popular music that everyone else, including me, loved.  Much of that popular music from 40+ years ago is now revered and loved and appreciated classic music of that genre that has survived and thrived for nearly half a century, while the stuff he loved can hardly be found, let alone heard.

We see it all the time from "professional" movie critics as well, who seem to all too often love the stuff we hate, and hate the stuff we love.  I've agreed with many, MANY people over the years that if the critics hate it, I probably want to see it and am likely to enjoy it, and vice-versa.

It seems that the professional critics, especially those who are VERY educated in the thing they're critiquing, can't seem to see the forest for the trees.  Their "game" is to focus on and babble about the obscure details that professional, trained, genre-educated people like them use to praise or condemn the work overall; Details that NOBODY but them seems to care about.

And, in the end, it's still ALL just opinion, nothing more.  And you know the old saying: Just like A-holes, everybody's got one.  

Do we allow the opinions of others decide for us if WE INDIVIDUALS like or appreciate or enjoy something?  I know I don't.  The whole world can like a thing, but if I don't, I simply don't, and I don't care how many "experts" disagree with me on it.  I like it or I don't, regardless of what other people, including "experts" think about it.  The end.

If anyone likes something because other people like it, and not because they have their own opinion of it; their own tastes and preferences, then I don't even know what to think about them, except that they must be some kind of mindless sheep, and I simply have no use for that mentality.


----------



## bribrius (Jan 10, 2015)

Buckster said:


> photoguy99 said:
> 
> 
> > I think Lew is taking about a kind of meta-game involving a lot of detail only the players of that game care about.
> ...


it is easy for me really. i start from the premise that 90 percent of the population is stupid and get more dumbed down as time goes on. i care about what i think first, and what the other ten percent i might have respect for think second. The other ninety percent i consider popular opinion and toss whatever they think into the trash barrel.  Kind of like i never really got into american idol. chances are whatever popular opinion is i am on the opposite side of that. Just based on what that ninety percent find favorable in popular tv programming i really just cant look at them seriously. we are talking about a population that has a large majority that doesnt even understand the concept of unit price when shopping for household items. They arent exactly rocket scientists the average iq i think is only a hundred and when you toss in cultural influence they probably operate in the eighties range.


----------



## photoguy99 (Jan 10, 2015)

Critics have a second order effect, often.

Nobody agreed with Lester Bangs, except a few weirdos who started bands. And some of those bands went on to be pretty big deals.

High Art, for want of a better term, filters in to society. Ideally it makes us better, in some hard to define way.


----------



## Buckster (Jan 10, 2015)

bribrius said:


> i care about what i think first


News flash: That's true for everyone, which is why "expert" opinions don't mean crap to most of us.  

Why you seem to think they matter and NOT giving them the credit you seem to think they deserve is "dangerous" is beyond me.


----------



## bribrius (Jan 10, 2015)

Buckster said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > i care about what i think first
> ...


i have no doubt i could build a log cabin. However if a engineer passing by stopped to make suggestions am i to ignore his input? Isn't much of life in general admitting what you DONT know and deferring to those that do who specialize or have distinct and recognized knowledge in that field? I built part of my house post and beam construction. was i wrong to take advice from someone experienced with post and beam construction? should i have just picked someone randomly off the street and asked them what they thought of my plans? while i am fairly adept at mechanical things, i have a experienced mechanic i defer to who comes over and gives me suggestions and advice if i get "stuck".  Unless you can specialize in everything, there are others that know more than you do. One would ignore that input at their own detriment. However it isn't the "popular opinion" that matters when i am doing something. But the "specialized" and knowledgeable opinion.


----------



## TCampbell (Jan 10, 2015)

photoguy99 said:


> Daniel, I think you've made it clear that you think the only wordy posts should be your repeated posts about your own half dozen pictures on wikimedia, which you scatter like snowflakes across unrelated threads.
> 
> Is it permissible to make a long post of my own, as long as it talks mainly about how great you are, or should I remain silent and allow you to do the work?



I'm not sure where that came from but it looks like an Ad hominem attack.  See:  The Baloney Detection Kit: Carl Sagan&#8217;s Rules for Bullshit-Busting and Critical Thinking | Brain Pickings

If you disagree with his argument (and everyone is allowed to disagree) the conversation is so much more interesting when you articulate the reasons why you disagree with the point of view... rather than just attacking the person.

It turns out I disagree with Daniel's point of view in this situation too.  But here's why:

There are numerous "guidelines" we learn ("rules") that improve our photography.  Rules of exposure.  Rules of composition ("rule of thirds"), rules of lighting ("inverse square law") and we could go on and on.  

I think Daniel is advocating for the "decisive moment", but to make that work, you've still go to know some rules to "make it work".  

When I did weddings, I had to anticipate what was about to happen next.  As I'm thinking about what's supposed to happen next, I'm dialing in my camera settings to be optimal for the type of shot I'll want to use for "what happens next".  That way, when the "decisive moment" happens, I'm capturing the shot and not fiddling with the equipment.  When you learn to anticipate and pre-set the gear, the wedding becomes much easier.  But weddings follow rather nicely arranged and highly predictable patterns and that makes them rather easy to anticipate.

A good athlete, like a good chess player, learns to anticipate what their opponent might try next -- so they're already thinking about how they'll deal with that if and when it happens.

Decisive moments may be happening all around you, but you may be missing them because you haven't learned to watch for them.  A nature photographer might be stalking a nest so that they're ready for the "decisive moment" when the parent returns to the nest with food and the chicks become eager to eat.  I'm not much of a nature photographer, but I have friends who are, and I've noticed they seem to know a LOT about their subjects... they know how the animal behaves and the "read" the signs to anticipate what they're likely to do next.  They also learn how best to behave themselves if they want to capture the shot (otherwise their own behavior is likely to change the observed outcome.)

While I agree with the decisive moment, I still think any photographer needs to learn the "rules" about what works and what doesn't work.  If they don't, they're reduce their chances of capturing an impactful "decisive moment".

I can walk into a theater and enjoy a show without knowing anything about how that show was made -- and be thoroughly entertained.  But I'm not the content creator... I'm the content consumers.  If I switch rules and try to become the content creator, it'll really help me if I learn more about "what works" to improve my chances of a more successful outcome.


----------



## Buckster (Jan 10, 2015)

To equate the opinions of media critics with the knowledge and skills of building engineers is quite a leap of logic when we're talking about whether such opinions by media critics really matter, even for you.

What next?  The opinions of media critics should be taken just as seriously as the knowledge and skills of brain surgeons?


----------



## Buckster (Jan 10, 2015)

TCampbell said:


> photoguy99 said:
> 
> 
> > Daniel, I think you've made it clear that you think the only wordy posts should be your repeated posts about your own half dozen pictures on wikimedia, which you scatter like snowflakes across unrelated threads.
> ...


Many of us have noticed over the years that the bulk of Ilovemycam's posts appear to be opportunist in taking whatever he's responding to, in any thread he decides to participate in, and constructing a post to toot his own horn under the thinly veiled guise of responding to the actual subject.


----------



## TCampbell (Jan 10, 2015)

Buckster said:


> Many of us have noticed over the years that the bulk of ilovemycam's posts appear to be opportunist in taking whatever he's responding to, in any thread he decides to participate in, and constructing a post to toot his own horn under the thinly veiled guise of responding to the actual subject.



Thanks Buckster.  I understand.  My statement wasn't intended to defend him (or anyone).  

I thought Daniel had a weak argument too.  A weak position is better exposed by a well-reasoned counter-position.  That's why I linked to the article on Sagan's "Baloney Detection Kit".


----------



## bribrius (Jan 10, 2015)

Buckster said:


> To equate the opinions of media critics with the knowledge and skills of building engineers is quite a leap of logic when we're talking about whether such opinions by media critics really matter, even for you.
> 
> What next?  The opinions of media critics should be taken just as seriously as the knowledge and skills of brain surgeons?


They both specialize in their chosen fields. if someone chooses to spend a good portion of their life, gaining skills and knowledge and study in the arts. i have no qualm at all with giving them credit for that. Not only because of the time and effort involved on their part would they deserve such credit, but their knowledge would equate to far above anyone i could randomly pull off the street. Does it mean they are ALWAYS correct? No. Do you have to take their opinion as the be all and end all of everything pertaining too? no.  It means like anyone else who specializes they have a much more valid reason and educated opinion in most cases, and are much more likely to be correct (as this IS what they do).  And much like structural engineers input in writing building codes, the more educated in the arts offer a higher level of input as well.  suppose you could ignore all that if all you plan on building is a dog house...


----------



## Buckster (Jan 10, 2015)

bribrius said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > To equate the opinions of media critics with the knowledge and skills of building engineers is quite a leap of logic when we're talking about whether such opinions by media critics really matter, even for you.
> ...


How valid can it be when media critics don't agree with one another?  Further, if they don't necessarily agree with one another, why should any of us agree with any of them?  How do you establish which of the expert's opinions is "valid"?  By what measure can one make such a determination?



bribrius said:


> And much like structural engineers input in writing building codes, the more educated in the arts offer a higher level of input as well.  suppose you could ignore all that if all you plan on building is a dog house...


Ignoring some experts is actually "dangerous", as you put it.  Here's a clue: Media critics as "experts" don't fit into that category.  If I ignore a structural engineer when I go to build a house or a bridge or a skyscraper, what could go wrong?  Now - same question about ignoring the opinion of a media critic.

Go ahead and tell me they're the same.

Structural engineers and brain surgeons agree with their peers because of the facts and science that are the basis of their advice.  Media critics disagree with one another because it's all based on nothing but opinion, even if those opinions are the opinions of those who came before them and the professors whom they studied under.

Can you make out ANY difference between the weight of media critics and the other "experts" you're trying to compare them to, especially when you're going to use words like "dangerous"?


----------



## photoguy99 (Jan 10, 2015)

Actually, engineers disagree a lot. Sure it's all physics or whatever underneath, but there's a lot of judgment involved, as well as wildly varying standards.


----------



## Buckster (Jan 10, 2015)

photoguy99 said:


> Actually, engineers disagree a lot. Sure it's all physics or whatever underneath, but there's a lot of judgment involved, as well as wildly varying standards.


So, you're saying it's just fine and dandy to ignore structural engineers and just build stuff any way you please?  You know - the POINT of comparing them with media critics and the DANGERS involved.

Or are you just applying your giant hair splitter again?

By the way, as someone whose career was as an engineer, it was not my observation that my fellow engineers disagreed, especially not "a lot" with one another over how things should be built by the construction teams who were tasked with building what we came up with, nor that we had "wildly varying standards".


----------



## photoguy99 (Jan 10, 2015)

I did not say that you should ignore the structural engineer.

Also, personal anecdotes are not evidence.

In any large project with some risk in it, there will be a surprising degree of variation in opinion. Is this structure sufficient to hold the bridge up in the event if a magnitude 7.0 earthquake?

Well, I've got a model that says yes. That other chap has a model that says no. She's got an analysis that is inconclusive.

There are variations in models, in codes, in written standards. There are variations in unconscious assumptions.

The point being that engineering involves a lot of opinion as well. You're not the only engineer here.


----------



## bribrius (Jan 10, 2015)

[/QUOTE]
Ignoring some experts is actually "dangerous", as you put it.  Here's a clue: Media critics as "experts" don't fit into that category.  If I ignore a structural engineer when I go to build a house or a bridge or a skyscraper, what could go wrong?  Now - same question about ignoring the opinion of a media critic.

Go ahead and tell me they're the same.

Structural engineers and brain surgeons agree with their peers because of the facts and science that are the basis of their advice.  Media critics disagree with one another because it's all based on nothing but opinion, even if those opinions are the opinions of those who came before them and the professors whom they studied under.

Can you make out ANY difference between the weight of media critics and the other "experts" you're trying to compare them to, especially when you're going to use words like "dangerous"?[/QUOTE]well, how important is your work to you? or the work in the art world in general? That is what we are really discussing here. some would rather see the sky scraper fall than aspects of their work or art world go to trash. Far as critics, there is more and less reputable in any lot just as anything else. with varying degrees of education and proficiency.  Not all dentists are the same, some might outright suck. Nor all critics. They denote certain reputations over time just as anything else.  You just stated critics are all just opinion. i would like to think at least many of those opinions are based on learned knowledge, experience. If someone donates their life to studying the arts i wouldnt even consider putting their input into the category of "just another opinion" or even consider it as having no foundation. i mean really, what do you think they were learning when studying and being engaged in art for all those years? nothing? You just cant reason that someone can specialize in art is that the problem? For me personally, i like the idea that the art world has at least SOME guardians at the gate with some knowledge to set standards and give a clearer picture to us on what we might not totally understand. Just as many groups and/trades have time honored learned principle and foundations so does the art world to a minor degree. i sure wouldnt want joe bob down the street pumping gas deciding what went into the museum or established fine art galleries. But according to you, joe bob has enough credentials for this.


----------



## The_Traveler (Jan 10, 2015)

KenC said:


> Books written by photographers are a little less reliable, imo, because some photographers seem to learn only within the world of photography, which often is more formulaic and less open to different ways of doing things than the art world in general.  For example, from some in photography you hear only the same tired half-dozen or so cliches, like ROT, "don't center things", an image has to have a center of interest, blown-out highlights or anything less than a razor-sharp image are automatic disqualifiers, etc.  Camera club judges and members are particularly prone to this.  I've read several books on composition not written specifically for photographers and they look at things in an entirely different way.


----------



## Buckster (Jan 10, 2015)

photoguy99 said:


> I did not say that you should ignore the structural engineer.
> 
> Also, personal anecdotes are not evidence.
> 
> ...


The National Electrical Safety Code was the instant and final word if two engineers in my field had ANY doubts.  There was no disagreement after a quick trip to the NESC, which we all kept a personal copy of for instant reference.

But again, you're missing or intentionally ignoring the POINT surrounding the "dangerous" aspects of ignoring "expert opinions" and then someone actually trying to compare ignoring the "expert opinions" of media critics with ignoring the expert opinions of structural engineers, which is just patently silly, putting it nicely.  Ignoring the "expert opinions" of media critics has no possibility of a disaster than could cost lives, whereas ignoring the expert opinions of structural engineers or brain surgeons certainly can, and has.

What's the point of having both Siskel AND Ebert weighing in on whether a movie is good or not?  If they're both "experts", how can their opinions be 180 degrees apart from one another, and what are we supposed to do with that?  Which opinion should we treat as "valid" and "valuable", and how do we make that determination?

Why should we CARE what they think, when we can form our own opinion about whether or not WE enjoyed the movie or not, no matter what they thought about it, especially when they so often disagree?  Why do we need an expert to tell us if we SHOULD enjoy it or not?  Can't we enjoy it WITHOUT being an expert?  Is our opinion really invalid because someone else says we don't know what we SHOULD or SHOULD NOT like, since we're not "experts"?

THOSE are the POINTS of the conversation.


----------



## Buckster (Jan 10, 2015)

bribrius said:


> > Ignoring some experts is actually "dangerous", as you put it.  Here's a clue: Media critics as "experts" don't fit into that category.  If I ignore a structural engineer when I go to build a house or a bridge or a skyscraper, what could go wrong?  Now - same question about ignoring the opinion of a media critic.
> >
> > Go ahead and tell me they're the same.
> >
> ...


It's as important as:

1st: The people who pay me to consume it.
2nd: My own aesthetic tastes and endeavors.



bribrius said:


> or the work in the art world in general?


Not at all, other than the art I enjoy on some level.  The "art world" and it's "expert critics" are playing a game about their own self-importance, for the most part, from my point of view.  As previously noted, they are playing the game for the sake of the game itself.  It neither makes nor breaks my own existence or appreciation in any way whatsoever.



bribrius said:


> You just stated critics are all just opinion. i would like to think at least many of those opinions are based on learned knowledge, experience. If someone donates their life to studying the arts i wouldnt even consider putting their input into the category of "just another opinion" or even consider it as having no foundation. i mean really, what do you think they were learning when studying and being engaged in art for all those years? nothing? You just cant reason that someone can specialize in art is that the problem? For me personally, i like the idea that the art world has at least SOME guardians at the gate with some knowledge to set standards and give a clearer picture to us on what we might not totally understand. Just as many groups and/trades have time honored learned principle and foundations so does the art world to a minor degree. i sure wouldnt want joe bob down the street pumping gas deciding what went into the museum or established fine art galleries. But according to you, joe bob has enough credentials for this.


So, given that they were both educated in the genre, who was correct - "Expert" Siskel or "expert" Ebert?  Who's right now that Siskel is dead - "Expert" Ebert or "expert" Roeper?  Why?


----------



## The_Traveler (Jan 10, 2015)

photoguy99 said:


> I think Lew is taking about a kind of meta-game involving a lot of detail only the players of that game care about.
> There is an argument to be made that understanding the meta game helps with the game itself (actually making art) but the more meta the game the more tenuous the argument.
> Mainly the players think the meta game is fun. And it is.
> Orthogonal to the meta game issue is taste, which is horribly underrated by photographers. Taste is vastly more important than technical details, but photographers have it the other way around. Just watch this thread...





Buckster said:


> I think that's exactly right.  The "Critique Game" often has very little to do with what real, average, individual people find to be pleasing or "good", and that's true for anything and everything that has "educated critics" weighing in.  It seems that the more "educated" the critics is, the less in tune they are with what real, regular, average, individual people think.



I don't have much of an idea what these two posts are about.
The original quote of Jenny Diski's essay had nothing to do with critics.  What it did talk about was that an uninformed opinion doesn't mean much. Her role models, who were all well known artists of one genre or another, had the ability to formulate well verbalized opinions because they had a great deal of experience and knowledge. Their opinions differed because their backgrounds and tastes were were different.

Too many times, people who talk about photographs here rely too much on their own tastes and too little on any acquired knowledge. Secondly, too much criticism, as Ken C said, is based on technical issues and too little on the concepts behind the picture. 
Rules often don't help because pictures are often too complicated to be broken down into rule-bound issues and the 'Rules' themselves are only crude ways of summing up more difficult and ephemeral concepts.

I am sort of amazed that Photoguy99 went off on Bribius. My impression is that Photoguy99's only contribution is vague use of words and ambiguous references that don't mean much about the subject at hand. I would have more respect for what he says if he actually applied some of his self-professed expertise to helping people with their development.


----------



## Buckster (Jan 10, 2015)

The_Traveler said:


> photoguy99 said:
> 
> 
> > I think Lew is taking about a kind of meta-game involving a lot of detail only the players of that game care about.
> ...


I thought it quite plain to see in her description that her "expert" friends were actively critiquing the works of art they were seeing, based on their "expert" backgrounds to form their "opinions" about the works.


----------



## The_Traveler (Jan 10, 2015)

Buckster said:


> I thought it quite plain to see in her description that her "expert" friends were actively critiquing the works of art they were seeing, based on their "expert" backgrounds to form their "opinions" about the works.



You can think what you like but her role models were all working and successful artists and those artists were able to form intelligent informed opinions about the art they saw because they had knowledge and experience and taste.

It had nothing to do with critics or any received wisdom or the world-shaking evil of people who talk without doing. 
It had to do with the realization that an opinion is nothing without substance to inform it.

In photography, in the short term, one can get by only with technical skills and by copying other people's work but to get past that, a photographer must learn and know and develop taste. Without talent, taste and interest, a photographer will always be copying other people's work and ideas.

edited:
these are the artists she mentioned:
Alan Sillitoe and his wife, the poet Ruth Fainlight, 
Arnold Wesker and his wife Dusty. 
Naomi Mitchison. 
Ted Hughes, 
Christopher Logue 
Lindsay Anderson, 
Fenella Fielding.
R.D. Laing 
Robert Graves.​


----------



## photoguy99 (Jan 10, 2015)

Utilities generally work to very detailed standards, yep. It's quite handy! I don't know the electrical one at all, but I spent some time with the corresponding one for phones, lo these millions of years ago.

Those standards are developed by experts, usually experts in a room, arguing and disagreeing, until finally some common ground comes out and gets written down. This is the same way that earthquake resistant bridges get built to be, hopefully, earthquake resistant.

Which is how we come back around to the point. That conversation between disagreeing parties is where knowledge comes from. Siskel and Ebert were great not because of the silly thumbs, but because of the conversation about the film. Whether I agreed with one or the other, I learned from their repartee.

The competing models for earthquake damage to bridges, on good days, inform the discussion separately and together, and allow the designers and contractors to, ultimately, combine the best expertise, the best ideas and opinions, to produce a bridge that doesn't fall down.

The conversation, be it 5 sweaty guys in a room, or everyone in the society reading the paper and writing angry letters to the editor, is the point.

This is how engineering standards are developed.
This is, on good days, the point of art criticism.
This is, on good days, how the state of human understanding moves forward.

Where's the danger? I honestly cannot recall what bribrius was going for with the use of the word. But I can use it myself, and point out that there is danger in ignoring the conversation. If we listen only to one voice -- be that our own voice, or the voice of some charismatic leader, of whatever, we miss the conversation.

We miss the important part, where our own work as well as society as a whole moves ahead.


----------



## bribrius (Jan 10, 2015)

Buckster said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > > Ignoring some experts is actually "dangerous", as you put it.  Here's a clue: Media critics as "experts" don't fit into that category.  If I ignore a structural engineer when I go to build a house or a bridge or a skyscraper, what could go wrong?  Now - same question about ignoring the opinion of a media critic.
> ...


the one that has the most foundation and explanation for the conclusions they came too. similar to weighing the opinions of two commoners you pulled off the street for merit. Except now it is brought to a much higher level with much more involved in knowledge and thinking. It matters because it decides what goes in our schools, our text books, our galleries, our museums, our future courses of study, and at its core it elevates us as human beings. which is exactly why joe bob isnt qualified. The objective is to elevate.. 

consider it this way. At one point the "popular culture" couldnt read and write. The higher culture could. The trickle down from the higher culture led to the populace at large to be able to read and write. It is the top percent, that lead humanity. Not the general consensus.. It is the top percent in the art world that are capable of elevating the arts and in that elevation it trickles down to all of us and perhaps even does effect our basic sense of humanity on some levels.  joe bob, is not a good precedence setter.


----------



## Buckster (Jan 10, 2015)

The_Traveler said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > I thought it quite plain to see in her description that her "expert" friends were actively critiquing the works of art they were seeing, based on their "expert" backgrounds to form their "opinions" about the works.
> ...


And yet, they most certainly often disagreed.  I grew up around professional artists and saw it for myself.  So then, when they disagree, what's the takeaway, given that they all have the "knowledge and experience and taste" to "form intelligent informed opinions about the art they saw"?  What's the actual value then? 

It's like if one says, "blue is the best color based on (pontificate here)" vs another who says, "No, you're wrong - red is the best color based on (pontificate here)", and a third says, "No, you're both wrong - Yellow is the best color based on (pontificate here)".  Okay, they all have the "knowledge and experience and taste" to "form intelligent informed opinions" about colors, state their "expert" opinions and make their "expert" cases regarding the subject, and we get from those "experts" exactly - what?

Seriously, explain the actual value of it to me in plain terms.



The_Traveler said:


> It had nothing to do with critics


Yeah, it did, since that's what they were doing, and what Jenny was observing and describing.



The_Traveler said:


> It had to do with the realization that an opinion is nothing without substance to inform it.


Except that, even then, it may still be nothing but an opinion - that other "experts" disagree with, so what is the actual value of it then?



The_Traveler said:


> In photography, in the short term, one can get by only with technical skills and by copying other people's work but to get past that, a photographer must learn and know and develop taste. Without talent, taste and interest, a photographer will always be copying other people's work and ideas.


Luckily, there's a place for that in the world of photography.  Not every photographer is required to come up with something Earth-shatteringly new and never seen or tried before, in order to be validated as a photographer. 

The same has been true for every form or art and expression.  Recognized artists of every genre throughout history have copied or built upon previous works by others.  Agatha Christie didn't have to invent the murder mystery from scratch.  The Dutch masters didn't have to invent painting portraits from scratch.  Michelangelo didn't have to invent sculpting figures in marble from scratch.  Most famous modern photographers haven't invented anything new from scratch either.  They're just doing what others who came before them did, and doing it very well.

And that's okay, believe it or not.


----------



## The_Traveler (Jan 10, 2015)

Buckster said:


> Seriously, explain the actual value of it to me in plain terms.



In actual plain terms below:

*It is not enough just to have an opinion.*
*What is important is to have an opinion and know why you think so.*

In more specific situations, like here, saying 'I like that' without knowing why is useless to you unless you know why and can figure it out.


----------



## Buckster (Jan 10, 2015)

The_Traveler said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > Seriously, explain the actual value of it to me in plain terms.
> ...


Again, two or more "experts" who "know why" they think what they do, disagree.  One says, "it's GREAT!".  The other says, "it SUCKS!".

Tell me the benefit of that to YOU.


----------



## bribrius (Jan 10, 2015)

i'm out of this. I am just a guy that likes to take photos. That is it. i am joe bob. Think joe bob made his case in admitting what he doesnt know here and why he defers to those of higher understanding. Time for joe bob to move on. He would rather just go take photos...


----------



## Buckster (Jan 10, 2015)

By the way, inherent in the idea that you must be a "expert" to form a valid opinion is the idea that nearly all of the critiques and opinions written on this forum are worthless.

Golly, that would include yours.  Here.  Wow.


----------



## Buckster (Jan 10, 2015)

photoguy99 said:


> Where's the danger? I honestly cannot recall what bribrius was going for with the use of the word. But I can use it myself, and point out that there is danger in ignoring the conversation. If we listen only to one voice -- be that our own voice, or the voice of some charismatic leader, of whatever, we miss the conversation.


Ah, but that's not at all what I'm driving at, that we should listen to only one voice - our own.  

I'm pointing out that when these so-called "experts" disagree with one another and come to different conclusions, it's no better than listening to anyone, including non-experts who come to different conclusions.  In the end, they're all just opinions, so-called "informed" or not.

When one "expert" says that a particular photo uses the wrong color palette and argues his point for 20 minutes with "valid" reasoning based on his "expert" knowledge and training, and another expert looks at the same photo and argues for 20 minutes with his own "valid" reasoning based on his "expert" knowledge and training that it uses the exact correct color palette, I interpret that it's all pretentious BS created to think that the "expert opinion" overall has any actual validity to it.


----------



## The_Traveler (Jan 10, 2015)

Stop putting up straw men just to try and make a winning comment.
I didn't say one must be an expert, just that the path to really getting better requires understanding your own work and why you think it is good. 

I don't care about what the experts say (and I do wonder why you get so exercised about what others say).
I only care that I know why I like or dislike - or am neutral - about something.

I had this epiphany slowly but I think that everyone who is serious about their own work eventually acquires enough of a basic load of skill and experience that they can have informed opinions.

Over a good period of time, I looked at so many pictures of all types and deconstructed my feelings about them.
For pictures on forums like this, I would often download them and edit them to see if my initial impression of what would make them better was right.
When I go to galleries and see some work I like at first, I try to dredge up other work by the same artist to understand if they were just lucky and hit me in a right spot, was their vision consistent and 'meaningful' in some way - and not just a trick to get attention.

I'm at the point now where I am completely confident in my own ability to know why I like something or not - and in a smaller subset of that - if I look at a work in progress here, I see essentially instantly what (I think) stands between what it is now technically and what it can be.


----------



## pgriz (Jan 10, 2015)

Hmmm.   Getting a little tense here.  Experts are not created equal.  In the technical (and medical) fields, there are patterns that are observed over and over again, and represent our knowledge base.  Part of the skill of an expert, is to see whether a given situation is already similar to one that has occured before, since the solution and outcome are known.   Experts in those fields typically have years of training followed by practical experience.   In the arts, the notion of "expert" is more fluid, and it is wise to understand where the "expert" is coming from before accepting their opinion as "expert" opinion.

Coming back to Lew's original post, Jenni Diskie remarks that the opinions were more powerful because they were informed by knowledge and taste.  I seem to read that it is the thinking and feeling behind the opinions that Jenni found to be most illuminating.  And yet, it takes skill to be aware of why any one of us thinks or feels as we do, and then articulate it so that we convey the "why" to others who may not share the same background.


----------



## photoguy99 (Jan 10, 2015)

Well, BS is BS.

if one expert argued that the color palette was a simple complementary structure and was therefore correct, while the other argued that it was predominantly cold blue with a splash of undersaturated yellow leading to a cool feeling inappropriate to the scene, well, might not they both be right, in some sense?

And might we not learn something by listening?

I find midst disagreements by informed people tend to be arguments not about the apparent issue, but about underlying assumptions. Or sometimes they're just talking past one another.


----------



## The_Traveler (Jan 10, 2015)

Again, it has nothing to do with experts or critics.
You have read into this something that isn't there and can't let that go.

It has to do with each individual understanding the path to improvement is only marginally due to skill but more to acquiring knowledge and understanding to be able to exercise whatever talents they might have.


----------



## rexbobcat (Jan 10, 2015)

I think there needs to be more discernment between "I don't like it" and "It's not very good."

Also; why is there so much yelling in this thread? Christ.


----------



## photoguy99 (Jan 10, 2015)

rexbobcat said:


> Also; why is there so much yelling in this thread? Christ.



No, no, I'm pretty sure his name is Buckster, not Christ.


----------



## rexbobcat (Jan 10, 2015)

photoguy99 said:


> rexbobcat said:
> 
> 
> > Also; why is there so much yelling in this thread? Christ.
> ...



The louder I yell and the more quotations I use to signify sarcasm, the more right my position becomes.

It's just science.


----------



## Buckster (Jan 10, 2015)

The_Traveler said:


> Stop putting up straw men just to try and make a winning comment.


No, I'm actually presenting real-world situations about how these revered "experts" disagree with one another, and what that means to us, given that they're supposed to be "experts" with "valid" opinions because they're "informed".  If those "informed expert opinions" are 180 degrees apart from one another, there's no way they can be considered "valid" and "expert" and "informed" enough to consider as something we can rely on as any of those things, and certainly not in any way conclusive, IMHO.  And since they're not conclusive, I don't see how they can inform me in any measurable way.



The_Traveler said:


> I didn't say one must be an expert, just that the path to really getting better requires understanding your own work and why you think it is good.


You stated, and I quote, "an uninformed opinion doesn't mean much" and you and bribrius have been defending that idea throughout.  Obviously, "the INFORMED opinion" is that of the "experts".  THAT idea, that "an uninformed opinion doesn't mean much", is what I'm questioning.



The_Traveler said:


> I don't care about what the experts say


And yet, you've been defending that very idea with each post you've made up until now.  I can copy and paste several of your own quotes, if you need to be reminded.



The_Traveler said:


> (and I do wonder why you get so exercised about what others say).


"Exercised"?  Lol, I don't get it, but okay.  



The_Traveler said:


> I only care that I know why I like or dislike - or am neutral - about something.


To you, that's important, and that's okay.  To others, it may or may not be important to know "WHY", and that's okay too.  Some folks are content to enjoy or like something without having to know or fully understand "WHY", and THAT's okay too.  Some folks are content to simply enjoy some things at face value, without feeling any need for deeper understanding and, again, that's okay too.



The_Traveler said:


> I had this epiphany slowly but I think that everyone who is serious about their own work eventually acquires enough of a basic load of skill and experience that they can have informed opinions.


I think that's probably true, but I still don't think that "an uninformed opinion doesn't mean much", especially not to the person holding that opinion, and especially when it comes to media, like photography, which is subjective in any case.



The_Traveler said:


> Over a good period of time, I looked at so many pictures of all types and deconstructed my feelings about them.
> For pictures on forums like this, I would often download them and edit them to see if my initial impression of what would make them better was right.
> When I go to galleries and see some work I like at first, I try to dredge up other work by the same artist to understand if they were just lucky and hit me in a right spot, was their vision consistent and 'meaningful' in some way - and not just a trick to get attention.
> 
> I'm at the point now where I am completely confident in my own ability to know why I like something or not - and in a smaller subset of that - if I look at a work in progress here, I see essentially instantly what (I think) stands between what it is now technically and what it can be.


Good for you!  Give yourself a gold star or pat on the head or whatever it is that helps you feel recognition for your achievement.

And please pardon everyone else who is obviously below you and the experts for still having and sharing their uninformed opinions.


----------



## Overread (Jan 10, 2015)

*glares at the thread* behave you lot!!


----------



## photoguy99 (Jan 10, 2015)

Two informed opinions can disagree and yet both be worthwhile. Both are worth more than an uninformed one, how NOT?

Even when the disagreement is real, not some artifact of semantics.

I think surely the onus has to be the other way around, to demonstrate that an uninformed opinion is as valuable.


----------



## bribrius (Jan 10, 2015)

Overread said:


> *glares at the thread* behave you lot!!


part of this is my fault, i am sure of it. No worries it is all good. i am going to argue the opposite position next week. Mostly for entertainment value. i just take photos i know nothin else i just go around hitting my shutter and am pretty content with that it is fun and i like to look through my photos.  But i can usually put up a decent argument for about any viewpoint when i am not doing that. Far as concern over any of this i am more concerned of making sure i carry a extra battery and my lens is clean.


Overread said:


> *glares at the thread* behave you lot!!


yeah i know, right!  why can't they all just get along and take photos and have fun? This is supposed to be fun.


----------



## Buckster (Jan 10, 2015)

photoguy99 said:


> I think surely the onus has to be the other way around, to demonstrate that an uninformed opinion is as valuable.


Feel free to demonstrate that your opinion that we should now shift the burden of proof is informed enough to even warrant a response.

Assuming for the moment however that those of you who agree that an uninformed opinion doesn't mean much, be sure to let everyone know that they should ignore the vast bulk of the critiques and opinions made on this forum as worthless, for all practical purposes, since they're not made by those who qualify as informed enough to make them.

Please pardon me also for engaging in the conversation, and for using punctuation to emphasize certain points.


----------



## photoguy99 (Jan 10, 2015)

Oh, I'm already on the record as not placing a whole bunch of weight on the c&c here.


----------



## Overread (Jan 10, 2015)

The weight of an opinion is measured by many variables; but the most important is that of the individual who is exposed to the opinion. EACH individual will weigh up the pros and cons and come to their own conclusion as to how they rate the opinion. They might agree or disagree or any one of a multitude of other reactions and feelings toward it. 

We can present arguments, science, data etc... we can present all kinds of things to add value to an opinion - the addition of information - examples - reasoning. All that adds to the possibility of increasing the chances that more people will accept and even agree with the opinion. IT still does not mean that everyone will.


In the end this argument is trying to some how come to some kind of overall "RULE" that everyone can use to measure opinion. It's then trying to impose that rule upon a huge and diverse segment of the population. It's not going to work. All that will happen is that people will argue in massive circles at each other - each group making points that will be torn into by the others as each point is a general attempt at a statement which is torn apart by specific examples. 


You can't dictate how others should rate opinions - you can advise, you can inform, you can present your argument and justification and your own reasoning. But in the end that in itself is an opinion and thus will be measured and weighed by each individual who cares to read.


----------



## Overread (Jan 10, 2015)

photoguy99 said:


> Oh, I'm already on the record as not placing a whole bunch of weight on the c&c here.



You've never posted any photos soooo its somewhat hard for you to prove your point. You've never had any to start with


----------



## photoguy99 (Jan 10, 2015)

What do my photos, if any, have to do with it? Or with anything else?


----------



## bribrius (Jan 10, 2015)

Buckster said:


> photoguy99 said:
> 
> 
> > I think surely the onus has to be the other way around, to demonstrate that an uninformed opinion is as valuable.
> ...


i was actually hoping you would win this debate. you losing it causes me a problem. As i wouldnt even engage in a debate unless i get benefits from it (self centered i can be). Being somewhat more concerned for myself i never have the goal of swaying anothers opinion toward mine, as that really does me no good.
1. entertainment value, it is the internet after all and most arguing is a exercise in futility. But it can have some mild entertainment value. 
2. that i would be shown incorrect, or at least incorrect on some counts. so i have would have learned something.

so you losing (or at least not doing so well in) this debate leaves me with nothing but entertainment value and puts me real close to that exercise in futility. i mean really, why would i want to be able to convince you i am correct? i care as much about whether you think i am correct as you care about critics opinion. you are correct on this. My opinion doesnt matter either. Beautiful thing isnt it?


----------



## Ilovemycam (Jan 10, 2015)

rexbobcat said:


> I think there needs to be more discernment between "I don't like it" and "It's not very good."
> 
> Also; why is there so much yelling in this thread? Christ.




#1 artists and photogs esp are a jealous bunch. It eats them up when they get out shot by others.

People are entitled to their opinion. I was told I'm not a very good photog before by people here. Well, they are right. I'm not a very good studio or fashion or portrait or phony baloney photoshop photog. But...when it comes to social doc work...I've never seen anyone on any  forum that can hold a candle to me. Only the big well known names can compete.

Loads of negative comments about my pix. Does not matter a bit. If you know what your doing you keep on keeping on in the face of negative criticism. All are in museum and public collections. I just let the critics flap their jaws or in this case work their frantic fingers to the bone trying to tear me down.


----------



## Buckster (Jan 10, 2015)

bribrius said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > photoguy99 said:
> ...


Yes, if you think I lost, it means that your uninformed opinion about that and anything else doesn't mean much and thus has no weight.  Enjoy basking in your own declaration that your opinions have no credibility and are easily ignored.


----------



## snerd (Jan 10, 2015)

Buckster said:


> Yes, if you think I lost, it means that your uninformed opinion about that and anything else doesn't mean much and thus has no weight.  Enjoy basking in your own declaration that your opinions have no credibility and are easily ignored.









Heehee......... thanks all for a very interesting read!


----------



## The_Traveler (Jan 11, 2015)

Buckster,

I treated your responses as fair argument at first but that degenerated into the kind of 'making points' thing that is only fun if one is bent on taking out their own unhappiness on the world.
I'm not certain what stirs you to be so aggressive, unpleasant and totally disrespectful of anyone else's ideas or feelings, but I'm not interested in participating in any discussion with you.

Feel free to be unpleasant on your own.


----------



## Buckster (Jan 11, 2015)

The_Traveler said:


> Buckster,
> 
> I treated your responses as fair argument at first but that degenerated into the kind of 'making points' thing that is only fun if one is bent on taking out their own unhappiness on the world.
> I'm not certain what stirs you to be so aggressive, unpleasant and totally disrespectful of anyone else's ideas or feelings, but I'm not interested in participating in any discussion with you.
> ...


I didn't realize that only one side was allowed to share their thoughts, points and counterpoints.  My mistake.

Also, you seem to be reading some sort of snarling hostility into what I wrote, when that was never my intent, and the words themselves don't convey it unless you intentionally read them that way, which is not something I can control.  You don't see me name-calling or flaming.  If you could see me when I'm writing, you would note that my body language and facial expressions have no animosity at all.  I just tend to be very direct and attempt to be very clear about what I'm trying to convey when I write.  I use quote marks extensively to be clear about the actual quotes I'm responding to, in order to avoid ambiguity and to avoid the mistake of putting words into someone's mouth that they didn't say, which is a pet peeve of mine when others try to do it to me.

Anyone who expects me to just lay down and play dead so that they can have the final word on a subject and avoid extended dialogue about whatever is being discussed has misunderstood the idea of what conversation is about.  Where I come from, it's not a one-way street.

In the end, all I've written can be summed up as, "I disagree with this idea or with what you've specifically said about it, and here's why".  If you can't handle someone disagreeing with you, then maybe two-way conversations aren't something you should have with others.


----------



## photoguy99 (Jan 11, 2015)

Buckster, for reference, Lew is not the only person who views your responses as consistently hostile and angry. As opposed to simple disagreement.


----------



## Overread (Jan 11, 2015)

photoguy99 said:


> What do my photos, if any, have to do with it? Or with anything else?



Well maybe nothing, but now I'm worried if all your photos are only in theory and not in practice cause - well - reasons. 


Though could be the primary point that since you're not here to get CnC on your own work then you must be hear to read it as it relates to others work - yet you say that the view points on the site at large don't suit you. So if you're not here to take you're here to give right? So if you don't agree with the CnC then surely you must polity debate and counter points raised - at which point though you're giving CnC on the site so you're part of the site so you just discredited your own CnC. 


*is going to go play Red Alert now after all this CnC talk*


----------



## Buckster (Jan 11, 2015)

photoguy99 said:


> Buckster, for reference, Lew is not the only person who views your responses as consistently hostile and angry. As opposed to simple disagreement.


I can't help it if some of you read into my words emotions that aren't there.


----------



## ratssass (Jan 11, 2015)

hahaha...........thank you all for reinforcing the reasons I just cruise right on through


----------



## photoguy99 (Jan 11, 2015)

It's not fair of me to leave it write there, so, apologies for the hijack:.

TPF does give excellent technical c&c. I allowed brevity to trump reality in my earlier remark on this point. I've received c&c in a wide variety of venues over the years. I do not personally have any use for technical critique, these days.


----------



## soufiej (Jan 11, 2015)

I'll never get back the time I spent reading this thread.  

To quote from the op, "To start with, I couldn’t understand how it was so easy for them to have a point of view ... "  Might I add, and for the most part self serving blahblahblah.

Have a nice day, gentlemen.


----------



## photoguy99 (Jan 11, 2015)

soufiej said:


> I'll never get back the time I spent reading this thread.
> 
> To quote from the op, "To start with, I couldn’t understand how it was so easy for them to have a point of view ... "  Might I add, and for the most part self serving blahblahblah.
> 
> Have a nice day, gentlemen.



Now THAT is some comedy right there!


----------



## soufiej (Jan 11, 2015)

photoguy99 said:


> soufiej said:
> 
> 
> > I'll never get back the time I spent reading this thread.
> ...




No, THAT'S ART!

(Place snarky comment here.)


----------



## Designer (Jan 11, 2015)

The_Traveler said:


> For me, I think it is enough to be somewhere just past the center on this continuum of knowledge and experience, knowing enough to understand one's own work and direction and yet not so 'educated' that the nuances overtake the art.



There's so darn much arguing on this thread that I had to go back and re-read the OP.

IMO, why wouldn't you want to attain a higher level of education, whether you consider it necessary for offering criticism, or just evaluating your own work?  And how would you know when you had attained the half-way point?  And what "nuances" would "overtake the art"?  And what would that look like?  

I suppose that someone could spend a lot of time studying art and not have enough time left for enjoying art or even having much of a life. But realistically, no sane person is going to spend his entire life studying something that doesn't yield a return of some kind.  So either you like it well enough to immerse yourself in it, or you don't.


----------



## snerd (Jan 11, 2015)

I just went back and reread the first page. I think Buckster pretty much said what I feel in post #13.


----------



## photoguy99 (Jan 11, 2015)

One way nuances could overtake art would be, just as a for instance, an endless discussion of influences and antecedents.

One could waste years trying to emulate Walker Evans with a hint of Adams. Our discussing how one might achieve that perfect mix.

You can always lose the forest if you fixate on trees. If you're interested in the forest, you need to be aware of where your personal limit is. Some people love trees.


----------



## Designer (Jan 11, 2015)

So now we're suppose to go back and re-read Buckster's posts and post #13?  

o.k.  Be back in a  bit.


----------



## snerd (Jan 11, 2015)

Designer said:


> So now we're suppose to go back and re-read Buckster's posts and post #13?
> 
> o.k.  Be back in a  bit.


Dude, you give my view way too much importance. I'm simian.


----------



## Designer (Jan 11, 2015)

Dude!  Wait.  What?  

Being able to appreciate art or music, or whatever usually requires some point of reference.  

For instance:

"I like this photograph because it's better than others I have seen."  

( so how would someone know that unless he had seen other photographs?)


----------



## robbins.photo (Jan 11, 2015)

Designer said:


> So now we're suppose to go back and re-read Buckster's posts and post #13?
> 
> o.k.  Be back in a  bit.



Could you give me a brief synapses?  The readers digest version?

It's sort of an interesting discussion, I guess my own thoughts go to movie critics.  Take a guy like Roger Ebert - he's got a wealth of knowledge about the film industry, movies, etc.  He's been a professional reviewer for.. well, as long as I can remember.

When Ebert goes to a movie and truly enjoys it and gives it a very high rating, odds are good when I watch the movie I'll fall asleep within the first 10 minutes if I'm lucky.  The stuff he loves, well frankly I usually think it sucks.  Almost no entertainment value to it whatsoever.

So, who's "right" and who's "wrong" between Roger and I?  He's got tons of training and experience and views movies a certain way.  He's a professional movie critic.

Me, I'm the schmo who buys the ticket - IE, the person the movie is supposed to appeal too in the first place.  No, I'm not a professional and I don't view movies the same way Roger does, but it's my money that ultimately funds these endeavors.  I'm the one they are trying to get to come to the theater and watch the movie.

Sort of interesting, when you stop and think about it.


----------



## robbins.photo (Jan 11, 2015)

snerd said:


> Designer said:
> 
> 
> > So now we're suppose to go back and re-read Buckster's posts and post #13?
> ...



But you take a heck of a selfie.  Don't sell yourself short.. lol


----------



## Designer (Jan 11, 2015)

I could review movies too, but for my general distaste for them.  I basically stopped paying for movies over 30 years ago.  Roger Ebert continues to watch, but if he doesn't like them at least he is being paid for it.


----------



## Designer (Jan 11, 2015)

You guys and your simian talk.


----------



## photoguy99 (Jan 11, 2015)

Roger's dead, folks.


----------



## snerd (Jan 11, 2015)

Designer said:


> You guys and your simian talk.


Smile when you say that, pardner!


----------



## runnah (Jan 11, 2015)

photoguy99 said:


> What do my photos, if any, have to do with it? Or with anything else?



Because posting photos lends credibility to what you say. I listen to and respect those folks on here who post quality work. For all I know you could be full of hot air and just parroting what others say.


----------



## bribrius (Jan 11, 2015)

robbins.photo said:


> Designer said:
> 
> 
> > So now we're suppose to go back and re-read Buckster's posts and post #13?
> ...


Roger is right. you are wrong. they want your money though. so they make lots of b fliks and pure entertainment fliks.  Eventually almost all the movies that come out get degraded to a pure entertainment level. when the arts were left in the higher echelon of society it wasnt such a problem. I am all for every day people having art (i am one afterall). But when it comes to controlling and critiquing art (critique can easily be control) it poses a serious problem.

To play it out. you go online and rate the movie you see, you think it is fun, entertaining, exciting and you give it four popcorn boxes. In fact not only do you do that, but ten million others do to. Now eberts movie as he watched something else, he draws up a long crtique from acting to , originality, irony in film, maybe some parts done in the tradition of previous notable films, story line etc etc etc. on how brilliant this film is. you or someone decides it sucks in the first five minutes, not entertaing fun or whatever. you rate that one no boxes or stars. You and ten million more of the general populace.  And there is you or me  even, and ten million others spending money, rating our fun film with four popcorn boxes. who is right? well ebert is more than likely. His opinion is informed. Our opinion is shortsighted and not informed. so eventually, why would the movie houses even want to make a brilliant or great film when they can just make a fun entertaining one and be more profitable?  It effects, in the end, the art.

Over time, a new standard is set in the movie industry or whatever industry. in what they support, promote, show, what artists, all based on you buying that ticket uninformed.   Ten years goes by, you pick up a book on theatre one day, start flipping through it with mild interest. Then you watch that movie ebert raved about you gave no stars one night on late night cable. suddenly , you understand why he said it was brilliant. "wow, that was pure genius" you think to yourself. Ebert was right.   But alas! They stopped making movies like that now. too late.  two cents.


----------



## Buckster (Jan 11, 2015)

And when the expert sitting in the seat next to Roger on the show disagrees and politely informs us that Roger is full of it and the film has no worthwhile merit at all, what's the takeaway?

Edit: 12 hours later, no answer, which pretty much sums up my point.


----------



## photoguy99 (Jan 12, 2015)

runnah said:


> photoguy99 said:
> 
> 
> > What do my photos, if any, have to do with it? Or with anything else?
> ...



Well you'd have to find at least one person who agrees with me on a single damn thing to prove the parrot theory.


----------



## runnah (Jan 12, 2015)

photoguy99 said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > photoguy99 said:
> ...



Well the simple way to shut the nay-sayers up is to post work.


----------



## The_Traveler (Jan 12, 2015)

photoguy99 said:


> What do my photos, if any, have to do with it? Or with anything else?



Somewhere previously you say both that you don't do critique because 95% of the pictures don't have a concept and that would be your response and that you don't post pictures because you don't need any critique yourself.

Since technical critique speaks for itself, it isn't important that you post pictures to make sense but you chose only to participate by random, pretty much content free comments when you do participate.

Obviously this is the Internet and you can participate or not as you like but the impression you give is that you think you are too good to do any of the heavy lifting by helping people who need help.

I post for two reasons - an occasional reality check on my own impressions of my work and, more importantly, as social dues to the community.

So your presence here engenders some hostility in some people who actually do work or put themselves out for the community. My guess is that you have done this a lot because you are fairly skilled at deflecting questions.

There is the kind of person I think of as 'the drive-by @$$h0le', someone who drives by a scene and yells something cutting out the window. The actual contribution is nothing and the yelling is only to attract attention to themselves.
While that may give the shouter some glow of self-satisfaction, everyone actually working is happy when they're gone.


----------



## photoguy99 (Jan 12, 2015)

I'm flattered, but this thread's not about me. I'm frankly offended that you think my comments are content free, though.


----------



## Ilovemycam (Jan 12, 2015)

runnah said:


> photoguy99 said:
> 
> 
> > What do my photos, if any, have to do with it? Or with anything else?
> ...


 

When I never posted photos here, Traveler and some others said I could not take photos and was all hot air. When I did post photos (links) Traveler and some others said I was trying to build traffic to my website or a troll. Bottom line...most forum photog are camera fondlers (98%.) All they talk about is what to buy next or how to pimp out their cam or their next god-awful boring shoot.

You don't need pix to go by the truth. On the other hand, some truth is subjective. Now, one anonymous knucklehead over at Eric Kims blog said this about my work...

"I think somebody should tell you: your shots are very boring, nothing is happening there, just very normal snapshots, and you are trying to make them look interesting by shooting with a wide angle and HDR...they are all trash."

He offered no photos of his work, not even a fake screen name. But, even if it was Bresson it would not mean a thing to me. When your secure in your work you don't need others approval or disapproval. Approval is for the camera fondler.


----------



## robbins.photo (Jan 12, 2015)

bribrius said:


> Roger is right. you are wrong. they want your money though. so they make lots of b fliks and pure entertainment fliks.



Interesting.  So in order to be "good" a movie has to be dull, boring, plodding, predictable and pretty much devoid of anything entertaining, and those of us who don't understand that are just neophytes.    



> well ebert is more than likely. His opinion is informed. Our opinion is shortsighted and not informed.



Informed?  Have you stopped and asked yourself, by whom?  A small group of other people who more or less trained him in what is "worthy" and "not worthy" in this regard?  Those people themselves being trained by another small group of people who were trained by an equally eclectic group... ad infinitum.  Sure, they have a lot of great sounding buzzwords and they all talk a pretty good game, but when it comes right down to it none of these movies get made without my box office dollar.  In fact without my box office dollar, Roger and everyone else in this line of work are out delivering pizza's instead.

Yes, I have watched some of the stuff he thought was brilliant.  In my humble opinion most of it sucked.  Contrary to popular belief it wasn't that I didn't understand what it was he found appealing.  It was in fact easy to figure out what it was that he loved so much about the movie.  Wasn't all that difficult.  But if I'm going to watch a movie I don't want to sit through hours of mind numbing crap for one subtle nuance.

So is it coincidence that the critics always seem to pick the movies they know no one else watches as the ones worthy of critical acclaim?  Or might it possibly be that they do so merely to perpetuate this myth that they have a higher level of understanding that the rest of us lack?


----------



## Designer (Jan 12, 2015)

Oh, you're right; both Siskel and Ebert are deceased.  Maybe we should talk about currently active movie critics.

When I am listening to a movie critic, one thing that stands out to me is the fact that they are completely invested in the movie business.  Either they realize where their paycheck is coming from, or they simply grew up liking movies, they just LIKE THEM. 

 A LOT.  

ANY DARN MOVIE.  

Some they like a little less, but they are very careful to not ruffle any important feathers.


----------



## photoguy99 (Jan 12, 2015)

The idea that critics always disagree with popular culture is common, almost widely accepted, and completely wrong.

Ebert loved plenty of blockbusters.


----------



## runnah (Jan 12, 2015)

Ilovemycam said:


> When I never posted photos here, Traveler and some others said I could not take photos and was all hot air. When I did post photos (links) Traveler and some others said I was trying to build traffic to my website or a troll. Bottom line...most forum photog are camera fondlers (98%.) All they talk about is what to buy next or how to pimp out their cam or their next god-awful boring shoot.
> 
> You don't need pix to go by the truth. On the other hand, some truth is subjective. Now, one anonymous knucklehead over at Eric Kims blog said this about my work...
> 
> ...



You are right in some regards. Yes there are hard truths that are technical in a nature that you don't need to be a master craftsman to understand. When it comes to concepts and execution (the artistic side) having a reference catalog of the person making a comment helps to understand where they are coming from and if you should take their advice seriously. 

Also do not confuse confidence in your work with being blind to the faults.


----------



## bribrius (Jan 12, 2015)

robbins.photo said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > Roger is right. you are wrong. they want your money though. so they make lots of b fliks and pure entertainment fliks.
> ...


well. For me at least i cant even take this seriously. Have you ever noticed what people like and how they rate things? it is downright scary.  IMDb: 100 CRITICALLY ACCLAIMED MOVIES - a list by spike  spiegel


----------



## The_Traveler (Jan 12, 2015)

Ilovemycam said:


> When I never posted photos here, Traveler and some others said I could not take photos and was all hot air. When I did post photos (links) Traveler and some others said I was trying to build traffic to my website or a troll. Bottom line...most forum photog are camera fondlers (98%.) All they talk about is what to buy next or how to pimp out their cam or their next god-awful boring shoot.
> 
> You don't need pix to go by the truth. On the other hand, some truth is subjective.



I might have said you were full of something but I doubt I said it was air.

My impression is that you find every possible opportunity to promote yourself at the expense of deflecting every discussion you enter.
The most valuable thing you can do is post pictures here to show others something new that encourages interest, get involved in the discussion without talking solely about yourself and do some actual technical critique to help others.


----------



## robbins.photo (Jan 12, 2015)

bribrius said:


> well. For me at least i cant even take this seriously. Have you ever noticed what people like and how they rate things? it is downright scary.  IMDb: 100 CRITICALLY ACCLAIMED MOVIES - a list by spike  spiegel



So because some people like movies that suck ergo no one is qualified to decide what movies they like for themselves and we should all only accept what is a good movie based on the opinions of an anointed few?

Interesting.


----------



## photoguy99 (Jan 12, 2015)

To dismiss the community of people who like modern art, foreign films, and all that pretty insulting.

It's also not true that only a handful of effete New York <Bundle of small sticks> like that fancy crap, while we're taking about things that are not true.

Lots of people like Cindy Sherman. Lots of people like Fellini. The fact that you do not is not some sign of a plot to force feed artsy fartsy crap to us all.


----------



## Gary A. (Jan 12, 2015)

bribrius said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > bribrius said:
> ...


I sorta feel the same way on the ranking. What I often do is look at the photosite of the opinion giver. The better the images on the photosite ... the more currency that photogs' opinion carries. Good photography doesn't make an opinion right or wrong ... but I find it a good barometer to measure an opinion which works more often than not.


----------



## robbins.photo (Jan 12, 2015)

photoguy99 said:


> To dismiss the community of people who like modern art, foreign films, and all that pretty insulting.



Your absolutely right, it would have been incredibly insulting.  I didn't do that of course, but if I had I would be chastising myself severely right about now.  Rest assured.



> It's also not true that only a handful of effete New York faggots like that fancy crap, while we're taking about things that are not true.



Not sure how a handful of cigarettes plays into this.



> Lots of people like Cindy Sherman. Lots of people like Fellini. The fact that you do not is not some sign of a plot to force feed artsy fartsy crap to us all.



So I guess I don't need that tinfoil hat after all?  What a relief.


----------



## photoguy99 (Jan 12, 2015)

Looking at other people's photos serves two main purposes, on internet forums.

The first is to judge whether they are likely to agree with you, based on whether they make photos that your like. It's not reliable, but it's a useful yardstick when you're trying to guys whether someone will be a helpful clique member or not.

The second is for when they've already demonstrated that they are bad people, by disagreeing with you. In this case you go examine their photos and determine that, indeed, they are terrible, and you still rule.


----------



## Buckster (Jan 12, 2015)

photoguy99 said:


> Looking at other people's photos serves two main purposes, on internet forums.
> 
> The first is to judge whether they are likely to agree with you, based on whether they make photos that your like. It's not reliable, but it's a useful yardstick when you're trying to guys whether someone will be a helpful clique member or not.
> 
> The second is for when they've already demonstrated that they are bad people, by disagreeing with you. In this case you go examine their photos and determine that, indeed, they are terrible, and you still rule.


Interesting.  So which of the two is your reason for being on this forum and looking at others' photos?  Or is it both?


----------



## pgriz (Jan 12, 2015)

If you are in a woodworking forum, giving advice and making comments, there is the presumption that you know enough about woodworking, by doing it, that you know what you're talking about.  Same on an auto mechanics forum.  Same on a kayaking forum,  Same on fishing forum.  Same on a photography forum. 

I don't think that the more capable people who post their here are necessarily looking for approval - more for a second opinion, and the opportunity to see own's work through another set of eyes.  That would be the case for Chris Crossley, or Majeed Badizadegan, or Lew, or Ed (oldhippy), or Joe (Ysarek), or Sharon Monet, or Emily McGinigle (e.rose), and a bunch more. Certainly, someone like Scott Grant (Imagemaker) doesn't need tips from us to improve his photography.  But the fact that they post reminds us how these people deal with the photographic topics, and give credibility to their opinions.

Then there are others who don't post much in terms of images, but know their field extremely well - Tim Campbell comes to mind.  

So if one of the individuals above make comments, the membership usually has a pretty good idea of the amount of knowledge or skill behind the comments.  When someone makes comments but offers no evidence of practical knowledge, then there's always the question of whether the person is truly sharing valuable information or is just blowing smoke.  Furthermore, if one reads controversial comments and a link to the person's web site, then it becomes a question whether the person is trying to attract clicks.  

Runnah's earlier point about posting one's work is relevant.  It makes it much easier to assess how much weight to give to someone's pronouncements.

As for agreeing with the "experts", it helps to know on what basis the experts have come to their opinions.  In my opinion, good experts can describe why they like or dislike something, and while you may or may not agree with their opinion, at least you can understand the thinking process that went into constructing an opinion.  If the "expert" cannot back up their opinion with some clear reasoning, then I tend to regard such an expert as someone better at self-marketing.


----------



## bribrius (Jan 12, 2015)

robbins.photo said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > well. For me at least i cant even take this seriously. Have you ever noticed what people like and how they rate things? it is downright scary.  IMDb: 100 CRITICALLY ACCLAIMED MOVIES - a list by spike  spiegel
> ...


people can like whatever they want clearly. But the nature of influence they have and their value of input is something else entirely. 
difference in background and knowledge, experience.  i went to see a play called "numbers" a few years back. i dont think a single person was there that would have thought the movie "dumb and dumber" was good. And far as plays go even it was much deeper than going to see the rocky horror picture show. Twenty years ago i wouldnt have thought the play was that good. But then i got a clue. Even the play houses have changed though. Unfortunately people that want to watch just a entertaining play can still cough up the extra dough for a ticket. i used to buy season passes, now i look at what is showing where and decide if i even still want to go at all. One i particuliar we used intermission and the afterward to discuss aspects of what we were seeing. It has all but turned into a gossip and facebook session now. Unfortunately these people have managed to cough up fifty bucks for a ticket.


----------



## sashbar (Jan 12, 2015)

I accept critique from everyone (even though I can be defensive), and if someone who knows sweet FA about photography says my photo is s**t, I think "Why does this guy who knows sweet FA about photography think it is s**t" ? Because sometimes this guy gives you an unburdened opinion unlike a photographer who knows that "it was a very difficult exposure, so in the circumstances...", etc...  Who cares about circumstances apart from us? 

I noticed that inexperienced critics would often praise a weak image, but would rarely dismiss a good photograph.

But this is just a side note. More often than not a better photographer's opinion carries much more weight to me.
And on top of that it is more useful. A have a female friend who does know sweet FA about photography but is very sharp in critique, probably due to her being an architect and a good painter. But her opinion, even though very good, is not useful in terms of practical photography, if you know what I mean. A good photographer often mention things that help you improve.

I found that the most "dangerous" advice comes from those who think they know it, whereas in fact they have very little experience in that particular area. Their opinion may sound quite convincing but can be quite misleading.


----------



## bribrius (Jan 12, 2015)

sashbar said:


> I accept critique from everyone (even though I can be defensive), and if someone who knows sweet FA about photography says my photo is s**t, I think "Why does this guy who knows sweet FA about photography think it is s**t" ? Because sometimes this guy gives you an unburdened opinion unlike a photographer who knows that "it was a very difficult exposure, so in the circumstances...", etc...  Who cares about circumstances apart from us?
> 
> I noticed that inexperienced critics would often praise a weak image, but would rarely dismiss a good photograph.
> 
> ...


i hope you are smart enough to take my own critiques with a grain of salt then..... i know no where near enough.  
on the bright side though i admit it, and will post about anything on here or anywhere so i sure don't hide.


----------

