# Criticism..is it good, or bad to argue with taste?



## Photorob (Sep 3, 2011)

Everyone has their idea of what a 'good' photograph should be like, but I tend to view photographs as the same as looking at Artwork. You can't argue with taste, ideas or creative viewpoints as realistically a good photograph to one person might differ to another. The striving for perfection in my opinion only puts off the majority in seeking to become photographers, you could argue the equipment they use could be better enhanced and thus opens up more doors to exploit, but when someone is excited about a picture they've just taken. Only for a handful of people to say 'its too dark' 'its too pixelated' 'the colors don't equilize' 'too much noise/grain' and so on, why do you wonder these same people then just give up and go on to do other things.
It's supposed to be a hobby unless your being paid for it which is a different subject matter. But in terms of the hobbyist seeking subjective images for their own aesthetic pleasures what gives one person the subjective rights to say the picture is rubbish is good?


----------



## kundalini (Sep 3, 2011)

At the precise moment you click the submit button to upload an image on the internet, all bets are off.  If you have done this on a photography forum and asked for C&C, multiply that by one hundred fold.  If you've added a garish watermark, expect to be trounced upon.


----------



## bazooka (Sep 3, 2011)

Agreed with Kundalini.  If you submit to a forum for C&C, you are no longer asking how you like the piece, but you are asking how everyone else likes it.  At the very best, the submitter might specify if they want C&C only on technical aspects or composition, or pose, etc....  I think there are two reasons people submit photos for C&C.  1.  They like the photo and they just want to hear about how everyone else likes it too.  2.  They aren't satisfied with the photo and they want to know how they can get better.  Perhaps there are more reasons, but these two seem to prevail.


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 3, 2011)

if they ask for critique, they will probably get it. If they don't ask.. usually not, unless it is posted on a forum that generally critiques everything it sees. Art is indeed subjective... and what one likes may break all the rules.. and it doesn't matter. However, there is a loose set of rules, that have evolved over centuries... that tend to dictate what most people find acceptable. In general, those rules are (hopefully) what most of the critique in question is based on.

a picture taken of someones grandkid, underexposed, grainy, slightly out of focus, with a sharp tree growing out of his head (the tree is probably in sharper focus than the kid) maybe look wonderful to the grandmother that took the picture, or the mom of the kid.. but to those with no emotional content in the photo.. it looks like crap.

there are a lot of forums out there for the "wonderful picture, I love it" kind of comments.. where the above described photo would receive adulation. That is not the TPF forum... (even though I am fairly new here, that is rather obvious! lol!). 

Most of the critique is supposed to be constructive and informative...(not always, unfortunately) and allow a photographer to "grow" and see how to improve their photography (or at least conform a bit more to the rules previously mentioned.. which hypothetically should help to produce a photo that is more aesthetically pleasing to all).


----------



## imagemaker46 (Sep 3, 2011)

Some interesting points were made, photographs like beauty is in the eye of the beholder.  I make my comments based on my experience and skills as a long time working professional, if someone posts a photo that isn't good, I won't say that it's good, I may or may not comment on it. If I offere a suggestion how to improve it through a crop, then I will, if the photo can't be fixed without re-shooting it, there is no point in saying it can't be fixed, but in the future you might try this instead.

If a photo holds some great personal meaning to the photographer but is a poor quality photo, they open themselves up for heartbreak if the photo gets trashed, if the photo means that much, don't post it unless you have thick skin.

I am honest with my comments, I get dumped on for saying a photo isn't good, I read other comments that make the statements, "wow great shot" or "amazing pic"  That's not being honest, that's being kind, it doesn't help the person that posted the picture.  At times what I say comes across as sounding superior, it is not meant to. 

Some people don't want to hear honesty, they just want to be praised for what they do, and praise for being mediocre doesn't help.


----------



## Photorob (Sep 3, 2011)

Which then begs the question, why bother posting on a photography forum if artistic value has no merit, and it's only egotistical pride that drives those who want to perfectionise the quality of images uploaded onto ANY internet photography boards. When did egotism replace the merit of actually going out there into the world to take images that would be appreciative.


----------



## willis_927 (Sep 3, 2011)

Generally if a person puts a picture on a photography Forum and asks for C&C, they are looking for ideas on how to better themselves as a photographer from people who have more experience. Its not about putting down pictures, atleast it shouldnt be.


----------



## dxqcanada (Sep 3, 2011)

Example, this thread dealt with an obvious artistic usage of photography: http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/photography-beginners-forum-photo-gallery/254674-my-first-few-rolls-any-feedback-appreciated.html



Photography as art ... like this whole Lomography thing?

Most of the time the requests for C&C have to do with technical and compositional aspects of the image ... so it tends to be automatic that we give that kind of reply.
Very few OP's state that the images they post are "Artistic" ... that they wanted the OOF effect, or extreme exposure (HDR comes to mind with that one).
On the topic of HDR's, looks like the photographs are more Artwork than Photograph ?
Hmm, I am rambling here without a point now.


----------



## clanthar (Sep 3, 2011)

Photorob said:


> Everyone has their idea of what a 'good' photograph should be like....



A photo offered as "art" can be judged in multiple ways.

1. Objective technical standards exist and are agreed upon by the professional discipline. It is possible for the sake of expression to occasionally deviate from those standards, however it is risky and success is rare. These objective technical standards are well defined.

2. Standards for design are more difficult to objectify but they also exist. These are more difficult to objectify since they will change somewhat with fashion -- "taste." Still professional members of the discipline will tend toward agreement.

3. Success requires satisfying items one and two above and furthermore having something to communicate. In the event that the content of the communication is awesome then some degree of failure with items and 1 and 2 can be forgiven.

If everyone had their own idea of what a 'good' photograph should be like then all photos would be good and no photos would be any good. It's an old fallacy.

Joe


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 3, 2011)

Photorob said:


> Which then begs the question, why bother posting on a photography forum if artistic value has no merit, and it's only egotistical pride that drives those who want to perfectionise the quality of images uploaded onto ANY internet photography boards. When did egotism replace the merit of actually going out there into the world to take images that would be appreciative.



who defines "artistic value"????  Some people consider "Rap" music to be art.. I hardly consider it to even be music, since it seldom meets most of the defined rules for "music".  

If a crappy artist defines what they produce as "art".. does that really make it art? When a six year old draws a picture with their crayons, and states that it is "art", does that make it so?

Speaking of ego.. I find it interesting when someone tries to justify what they do, as "Art".. even though everyone else disagrees with them.....


----------



## mjhoward (Sep 3, 2011)

Photorob said:


> But in terms of the hobbyist seeking subjective images for their own aesthetic pleasures what gives one person the subjective rights to say the picture is rubbish is good?



The First Amendment


----------



## kundalini (Sep 3, 2011)

mjhoward said:


> The First Amendment


The OP is British.  The First Amendment does not apply in this case.


----------



## Overread (Sep 3, 2011)

TPF in particular gets a lot of newer photographers - people who have just gained their new camera and are lost, both technically and (most) also artistically. As a result the majority of their posts and critique they ask for (and receive) is in the form of technical commentary - pointers on what to do next time to get the shot to come out right. 
Of course because these people have little to no artistic desire of their own, save to emulate photos made by others, at this stage in their learning they are often pushed down typical style paths - for example macro photos are often advised to use flash/tripods and to use small apertures - as if small apertures are the only way to take such photos. 

It takes a bit more maturity in the learner and the teacher to open up the possibilities a little more to be more generalistic about getting the correct exposure, whilst also tempering that against not limiting creative freedom by being to draconian with the technical critique on a given subject/situation. 

Add to that the fact that many people don't get a constant education from select members through forums; the rather haphazard interface means that many will get bits here and bits there and will have to, in their own time, link it all together and also make up their own minds somewhat. Some will and some won't - others will take longer to release the shackles and be a bit more experimental than others. It's a risk of self-teaching, but can equally be the result of only learning entry level courses which tend to focus on repeating  tried and tested methods in the aim of producing good results (once done more advanced courses branch out to allow more freedom, the learners already having a confidence in their own base skills from their earlier success).



Then we come to individuals - some can give crits and some can't - and likewise some can take it and other can't. This becomes the quagmire of the confusion that can rise up fast when you get those that can't take and can't give mixing together - breeding rants and raves as they end up grinding insults on each other more than commentary about the photos.


My own view is that it is not wrong to question the commentary one gets on their photos and that indeed such questions are ripe for producing a good dialogue - since often comments don't go into full depth until later in a conversation on the net. There is nothing wrong with debating tried and tested methods - trying to work against them and indeed working with them -- the key however is to show that you have understood what is being said and then also manage to explain why you disagree and want to go the other way. 

However this is tempered against inexperience and sometimes its good to show the humble side and prove that you can do what the "tried and tested" methods show and then show the "artistic" direction you want to go in (since often a lot of people will use "its artistic" as an excuse to cover a lack of ability/experience)


----------



## mjhoward (Sep 3, 2011)

kundalini said:


> mjhoward said:
> 
> 
> > The First Amendment
> ...



Once its on the internet, I can view it in the US.  So, at least for 300 million people, the First Amendment does apply.


----------



## kundalini (Sep 3, 2011)

mjhoward said:


> Once its on the internet, I can view it in the US. So, at least for 300 million people, the First Amendment does apply.


Semantics.  Right, so 300 million people *may *know what you are referring to, but I highly doubt it.  Quick..... What is the capital of New York?  

There are 196 countries in the world.  This includes the newest country South Sudan.  The Vatican and Kosovo are also included although they are independent and not a member of the U.N.  Should all of them be aware of what the First Amendment entitles a citizen of the US?  Should they be expected to know our Constitution and the First Amendment is actually a part of the Bill of Rights?  Having a broader perspective of the world, since this is an international website, may give you an opportunity to be seen less closed minded than you have just shown yourself to be.  Peace, out.


----------



## mjhoward (Sep 3, 2011)

kundalini said:


> mjhoward said:
> 
> 
> > Once its on the internet, I can view it in the US. So, at least for 300 million people, the First Amendment does apply.
> ...



I'm not closed minded at all.  The OP asked what gives one person the right... I gave just one example of what gives me, and 300 Million other people the right.  The OP asked because he/she clearly didn't know, as you've pointed out.  Now he/she does know, at least for US citizens, what gives one the right.  I don't see the problem with answering a simple question with a valid answer.  It also doesn't matter if ANY of those 300 Million people know what I'm referring to, they still have the same right regardless.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Sep 3, 2011)

Even in class our professor is brutal on critiques. We tape our 8 x10's to the wall and he fires away.

Does matter much to me my old arse is happy in my tech career and photography is a hobby. I appreciate every single tip he blasts me with.

However, the little 10-bomb timid gals act devasted.


----------



## clanthar (Sep 3, 2011)

cgipson1 said:


> Photorob said:
> 
> 
> > Which then begs the question, why bother posting on a photography forum if artistic value has no merit, and it's only egotistical pride that drives those who want to perfectionise the quality of images uploaded onto ANY internet photography boards. When did egotism replace the merit of actually going out there into the world to take images that would be appreciative.
> ...



Don't confuse what something is with whether or not you like it. You can dislike a work of art -- it's still a work of art. Art can be bad -- then it's bad art, but it's still art.



cgipson1 said:


> If a crappy artist defines what they produce as "art".. does that really make it art?



Yes.



cgipson1 said:


> When a six year old draws a picture with their crayons, and states that it is "art", does that make it so?



If the six year old understands what art is then, yes.

Joe


----------



## kundalini (Sep 3, 2011)

clanthar said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > When a six year old draws a picture with their crayons, and states that it is "art", does that make it so?
> ...


Even as young as 4 years old........


4-Year-Old Girl Takes NYC Art World By Storm | NBC New York


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Sep 3, 2011)

Some people think that a painting of Elvis on black velvet is high-art. I will argue that kind of taste... 


I CC from the point of view of both a working artist (photo, painting and more) and a working commercial photog with many years of experience (and sales) in both. However, I am intelligent enough to recognize that what I say is, to a certain degree, only valid for myself, ie it is my own personal taste.

You are however on a forum which, like most, has a lot of people who have no idea what they are doing but who have no problem voicing their opinions with the result that a painting of Elvis on black velvet is high-art. I see plenty of crap photo getting amazing positive responses while 90% of what I think is truly good barely gets a nod...

But you have to realize that as an artist (commercial or otherwise) you are always being judged by people whose taste is not the same as yours. Live with it or get out of the kitchen.


A long, long time ago, a friend of mine went to a concert and the opening band was an unknown called Police. This friend wrote and told me that Police was not a band we needed to remember as they would never amount to anything. History proved him wrong although I, based on MY taste, would have totally agreed with him. Actually, I still thing they and Sting suck big time :lmao:


----------



## abraxas (Sep 5, 2011)

Photorob said:


> Which then begs the question, why bother posting on a photography forum if artistic value has no merit, and it's only egotistical pride that drives those who want to perfectionise the quality of images uploaded onto ANY internet photography boards. When did egotism replace the merit of actually going out there into the world to take images that would be appreciative.



Internet forums have no merit. Develop your own tastes and style and venture out into the real world.


----------



## The_Traveler (Sep 5, 2011)

Whatever the stated reason that persons, usually beginners, post here, it isn't our responsibility to make a value judgement whether their picture is good or bad in the absolute. I think that if we approach any response with the attitude that this pictures works for me or doesn't work for me and this is why and these are the technical issues that the OP might want to consider then we get away from the issue of making a value judgement about 'good' or 'bad'. 

It is the viewers who make a value judgement, without being able to state why he or she thinks that way, who provide the least benefit to the poster.


----------



## guardianelectronics (Sep 5, 2011)

Photography, is you do it right, is an art. Criticism is good is you use it to improve your work and is bad is you can not assimilate it.


----------



## bennielou (Sep 6, 2011)

What a cool discussion, and another reason I love this place.  I love what Overread had to say.  That was pretty cool.  And nice.

Here is my personal opinion on the matter:

You post it, you take the punches.  You don't have to like taking the punches, and you might argue that the punches were unfair, or harsh, but it is what it is.

You also have to realize that there are people on the net, horribly stupid people, who are just mean for no other reason but being mean.  I'm talking about the ladies/gents who come on here and troll the place only to say everything sucks.  The funny part is they probably don't even own a camera, or if they do, they are really awful with it.  Most times they are kids, or really unhappy adults.  You have to learn how to figure out who has a valid point, and who is just being mean.  You will know this instinctively if you really give it some thought.  Not every bad crit is a mean crit.  It might seem harsh sometimes.  But think about it.  Is there some truth in it?  Or is it just mean?

As for the subject of art, and this is not going to be a wildly popular view on the matter:  
EVERYTHING A PERSON CREATES IS ART.  EVERY SINGLE THING.  That could be a cookie that they just baked, or tying their shoes a certain way.  Art becomes ART when others value it.  If they value it enough to pay money for it, even better.  Art isn't art just because you made something.  We ALL make something all day long, every single day.  That is what people do.  What makes art truly ART is when other people tell you it's ART.


----------



## Mocha13 (Sep 6, 2011)

mjhoward said:


> Photorob said:
> 
> 
> > But in terms of the hobbyist seeking subjective images for their own aesthetic pleasures what gives one person the subjective rights to say the picture is rubbish is good?
> ...



Someone reeks of Tea Bagger. 

The First Amendment doesn't give you the right to deem something good or bad in terms of artistic merit. 

It gives you the right to offer your subjective opinion. It also gives others the right to tell you you're being a jerk. You still can't yell "Bomb!" on an plane, sorry. ;P

The criticisms of the OP were a bit harsh... I just checked out his post. The forum he posted in didn't say it was a C&C forum and he didn't ask for opinions. However, yes, it's the internet, so individuals who want to post their work and are sensitive to critique shouldn't post in the first place, because you're opening yourself up to everything.

But as a photography forum, I don't think it's helpful to say "tough ****, you posted them, deal with it." This should be an environment that encourages people to grow. It's not helpful to just outright trash a picture. A watermark isn't arrogant - I've seen people steal the crappiest of Naruto anime sketches off deviantART. If you find it distracting, then offer some other suggestions and explain why it's a better option. A good critique compliments something, then criticizes... and if you can offer some tips to help the person prevent that issue in the future, then even better.

My 2 cents.


----------



## manaheim (Sep 6, 2011)




----------



## bennielou (Sep 6, 2011)

Mocha13 said:


> mjhoward said:
> 
> 
> > Photorob said:
> ...



Oh good god...the tea party against the dems again.  Will it ever end?  WHEN DID PEOPLE LOSE THE ABILITY TO DEBATE?


----------



## fossilboy (Sep 9, 2011)

The moment you enter something on the internet you are looking at a multitude of opinions led by different upbrinings, interests and personal tastes. No matter how we view a picture, personal is always intertwined. The best thing you can do is to take it as constructive criticism and strive to improve all the time.


----------



## Forkie (Sep 9, 2011)

When I critique or give advice, I only ever suggest what *I* may have done had_* I*_ taken the photo.  That way, the OP can take it or leave it.  

Also, if I'm critiquing I try not to say whether I actually like the photo or not, just how they could've improved what _they_ did.  

Whether I like it or not is not related to whether the photo was well taken.  I don't particularly like photos of flowers, that's not to say that a photo of a daisy is not good.  I love photos of wildlife, but it doesn't mean I like any photo just because it has wildlife in it.  In these situations, critique or advice must me given without prejudice or bias to your own tastes and purely on the merit or non-merit of the photo itself.


----------



## The_Traveler (Sep 9, 2011)

IMO, to go at a picture from the point of view of what the critic would have done is just substituting your own artistic judgement and taste for the OP's. 

I try to deal with the picture as posted, respecting the OP as an artist, and say why it works or doesn't work for me. Technical issues of taking or PPing the picture may come into it but as one of possible methods to improve what the OP has done to make the picture better in my eyes.


----------



## manaheim (Sep 9, 2011)

The_Traveler said:


> IMO, to go at a picture from the point of view of what the critic would have done is just substituting your own artistic judgement and taste for the OP's.
> 
> I try to deal with the picture as posted, respecting the OP as an artist, and say why it works or doesn't work for me. Technical issues of taking or PPing the picture may come into it but as one of possible methods to improve what the OP has done to make the picture better in my eyes.



What he said.

What I like or don't like in a picture is essentially irrelevant for purposes of "critique".   There are plenty of pictures I see that I don't "like", but that are amazing pictures.  

I try to focus on whether or not the image had an impact for me, whether or not I got the impression that the artist delivered the impact that I believe was intended, and how effective the technical execution of any such impression was.

That said, I will generally also comment on whether or not I like it because it's probably interesting for the photographer to hear... but it not the focus.


----------



## Derrel (Sep 9, 2011)

Subway and McDonalds are two of the MOST-SUCCESSFUL "restaurants" in the USA...Gallo jug wine sells the most wine in the USA in most years...Kraft individually-wrapped processed American "cheese" slices are a top seller every year...Jersey Shore is a hit TV show watched by millions...popular taste has a lowest common denominator whose belly scrapes along the sidewalk when it slithers...so, first one must consider the source of the "taste" that is being evaluated for its usefulness,correctness, or its appropriateness.


----------



## manaheim (Sep 9, 2011)

Derrel said:


> Subway and McDonalds are two of the MOST-SUCCESSFUL "restaurants" in the USA...Gallo jug wine sells the most wine in the USA in most years...Kraft individually-wrapped processed American "cheese" slices are a top seller every year...Jersey Shore is a hit TV show watched by millions...popular taste has a lowest common denominator whose belly scrapes along the sidewalk when it slithers...so, first one must consider the source of the "taste" that is being evaluated for its usefulness,correctness, or its appropriateness.



Wow.  That was a sledgehammer of truth if I ever saw one.

Welcome back, Derrel.


----------



## The_Traveler (Sep 9, 2011)

Derrel said:


> popular taste has a lowest common denominator whose belly scrapes along the sidewalk when it slithers



Although the mixed metaphors hurt a bit.


----------



## manaheim (Sep 9, 2011)

The_Traveler said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > popular taste has a lowest common denominator whose belly scrapes along the sidewalk when it slithers
> ...



Are you saying you don't _like_ his choice of words, or are you critiquing his technical execution of them? *grin*


----------



## The_Traveler (Sep 9, 2011)

manaheim said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > Derrel said:
> ...



yes


----------



## pgriz (Sep 9, 2011)

Albany.

Next?

edit: gotta start reading to the end of the thread...:banghead:


----------



## The_Traveler (Sep 9, 2011)

When we assume that popularity is necessarily a mark of low taste or intelligence, we have to deal with lots of popular things.
Like for instance, over half of the household in the US own guns; is that a mark of poor taste and the hitherto denominator belly slinking and scraping?

I think that we should not try to make over-general statements but treat every issue, as we should do pictures, on its merits, popular or no. 
Of course that means we lose the chance for bombast but ........


----------



## manaheim (Sep 9, 2011)

The_Traveler said:


> When we assume that popularity is necessarily a mark of low taste or intelligence, we have to deal with lots of popular things.
> Like for instance, over half of the household in the US own guns; is that a mark of poor taste and the hitherto denominator belly slinking and scraping?
> 
> I think that we should not try to make over-general statements but treat every issue, as we should do pictures, on its merits, popular or no.
> Of course that means we lose the chance for bombast but ........



I suppose that's a fair statement.  I wasn't actually reading the implication that popularity necessarily meant low-quality or poor or whatever... so much as just popular.  And where I tend to get annoyed at things that are popular just because everyone constantly rattles on about them, I think I glazed over that it may have been implied.

What I read into it (and what I agree with) is that popularity does NOT imply quality, but many people do interpret it as such.


----------



## GeorgieGirl (Sep 9, 2011)

A result of a Herd Mentality.


----------



## toddmclosson (Sep 16, 2011)

Photorob said:


> Everyone has their idea of what a 'good' photograph should be like, but I tend to view photographs as the same as looking at Artwork. You can't argue with taste, ideas or creative viewpoints as realistically a good photograph to one person might differ to another. The striving for perfection in my opinion only puts off the majority in seeking to become photographers, you could argue the equipment they use could be better enhanced and thus opens up more doors to exploit, but when someone is excited about a picture they've just taken. Only for a handful of people to say 'its too dark' 'its too pixelated' 'the colors don't equilize' 'too much noise/grain' and so on, why do you wonder these same people then just give up and go on to do other things.
> It's supposed to be a hobby unless your being paid for it which is a different subject matter. But in terms of the hobbyist seeking subjective images for their own aesthetic pleasures what gives one person the subjective rights to say the picture is rubbish is good?



In the classes & groups I teach I utilize the Feldman Method of critique. Which allows a professional critique but allows for personal vision and freedom of subject matter. You CAN professionally critique an image even if you don't like the subject. You CAN use a professional judgement of the artists intent/execution, without touching on their subject. 

Here is an example of touching on a subject matter. The artists intends for the viewer to empathize with unwanted pet euthanasia - yet shows us a picture of a clown at a circus. We could begin to comment on effectiveness of the imagery for the stated intent. However, on a general professional critique...subject matter isn't critiqued. I like portraits, but I don't bash on landscapes. I CAN however professionaly critique the technique. Definitely Google the Feldman Method of critique!


----------



## pgriz (Sep 16, 2011)

Thank you for the above.  A good, structured way of approaching a critique.


----------



## Derrel (Sep 16, 2011)

pgriz said:


> Thank you for the above.  A good, structured way of approaching a critique.



Yes, the Feldman Method is a good way to critique art. Unfortunately, it also requires training in the arts. It requires that the person doing the evaluation understand the elements of art, as well as design principles. And therein lies the rub; the vast majority of McDonald's-eating, Gallo-guzzling, Jersey Shore-watching Americans have absolutely ZERO training or education in any of the fine arts, and are blissfully ignorant of the underlying principles that experienced, educated artists and critics are fully aware of. My first post, which was misunderstood by some (obvious, based upon replies it garnered) was made to cause people to reflect upon the wisdom of listening to the vast majority of uneducated people and their opinions on matters of taste. Is a guy who eats McDonald's and Subway for lunch every day likely to be a good evaluator of French cuisine? Is the Gallo jug wine drinker going to be well-schooled in the differences between various 1990's vintages of California whites? Will the typical Jersey Shore viewer be able to appreciate the subtle humor found in an old episode of Upstairs Downstairs, or a play by Moliere, or a play written by Shakespeare? The answer to all three questions is, "probably not". I know the word "uneducated" gets peoples' hackles raised, but there is no other word for it: if one has studied art and or design, one has educated himself about that field. If one has NOT, he is "un-educated" about that field. Arguing with the uneducated about matters of taste, in ANY field, is not a worthwhile pursuit.

I see people quite frequently state that my point of view about art and design education is snobbish. Yet, who among us would pretend to offer opinions on a heart surgeon's techniques, methods, and approaches on a three-way heart bypass operation? No uneducated regular Joe or Jane in his/her right mind would pretend that his/her layman's opinion about surgery methods was worth a tinkered damn. And yet, at the same time, I have seen people spend countless effort and make multiple posts defending tacky, kitschy crap as artistically "valid", or "pleasing" or "good".  "Good shot! Nice colors! What lens did you use? Is that with flash?"


----------



## bentcountershaft (Sep 16, 2011)

Derrel, I agree with you almost one hundred percent.  Probably close to ninety five.  The other five percent of my opinion has to scream out that McRib's are delicious.


----------



## manaheim (Sep 16, 2011)

HAHAHAH...

bent's post was basically extra cheese on the post that was derrell's double quarter pounder.

or I guess maybe I should say bent's was the rolled chocolate on derrel's petit foir?


----------



## bazooka (Sep 16, 2011)

Derrel, if your words are true, then does that mean that art is not meant for the general public, but only for other educated artists?

I'm a Subway-everday-for-lunch non-art-educated kind of guy. There are photos that I enjoy, photos that I don't. There is French cuisine that I like (not much to be true), and probably better quality french cuisine that I wouldn't touch. I like what I like. If an artist makes a piece of work that other educated artists are googly over but noone else appreciates (and noone at the local art festival buys), is the artist reaching his intended audience? Is it a decision of the creating artist between quantity of audience vs a deeper appreciation? (Hoping interesting discussion follows...)


----------



## bazooka (Sep 16, 2011)

Expanding a bit further and on my post....

If we use food as an example. I like cheap chinese buffets. It tastes great to me. It's absolutely filling. I could go to a gourmet Chinese restaraunt and find small serving sizes, and things that look, feel, and taste awful to me, but expect to pay 10x more. Perhaps the food took longer to prepare, more thought and effort were put into it, more composition was studied to arrange it on the plate.... Perhaps the chef spent 10 years in cullinary whereas at the cheap buffet, the chef learned from his mom, but I do not appreciate any of that. And judging from the success of fast food chains, many others don't either.

I'm not saying gourmet restaraunts are doing anything wrong. They are catering to a specific group of people. I don't think an artist has to cater to other educated artists, do they? If they do, does that make them less expressive, less authentic, or less of an artist?


----------



## The_Traveler (Sep 16, 2011)

Just a little in-line question.
Suppose the expensive food tasted OK but not any different than the cheap food?


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Sep 16, 2011)

GeorgieGirl said:


> A result of a Herd Mentality.



The Internet "herd mentality" is not a theory


----------



## analog.universe (Sep 16, 2011)

bazooka said:


> is the artist reaching his intended audience?



This is it for me.

Has the photo affected someone?  Has the photographer reached someone?  Did it matter to someone?  If yes then it's good art, end of story.  It's certainly worth understanding the nuances of design and technique, because those are the tools we have to reach people.  Critiquing based on technique, and based on how to improve what the photo is communicating, is absolutely worthwhile.  Deciding whether or not it's art is impossible, and unproductive.  Sometimes you can say, "yes this is art", because you've had an experience with it.  You can never say "no this is not art", because you have no idea what others' experience with it might be.


----------



## toddmclosson (Sep 19, 2011)

I am NOT trying to start a flame war, and I agree with you for the most part. I have a couple of thoughts. It does not require a degree to understand critique, just a sincere interest in the image. You don't need an education to understand basic principles, just someone to explain them to you. In my critique classes I always keep "cheat sheets" of art principles and explanations, because unless your a professional art critic, gallery owner, etc. there may never be a need to memorize those principles. I definitely consider it my job to teach anyone that wants to learn. 

I trust my auto mechanic because I don't have the desire to learn his job, but I can certainly still provide uneducated guesses as to the "pings, knockes or weird squirrely sounds" coming from my engine. On another note - I think we're talking about two different things. You keep mentioning taste, as in an aesthetic you prefer. I definitely don't think critique and taste are the same thing. I never understood Robert Maplethorpe's taste, but his technique and intent are powerful. My basic rule of thumb (educated or not) If you don't like, it's not going to hang in your living room. Even if I COULD get you to buy the image (becasue it may have future value) you'll just wrap it up and store in the closet. Everyone has that basic gut reaction, no education needed, that is taste. 
So if they don't have an education in the arts, they may not know how to appreciate the color saturation/lines/rule of thirds/and may just be limited to "It's pretty." That's ok too, let's just spread the word and educate our viewers!


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Sep 19, 2011)

toddmclosson said:


> I am NOT trying to start a flame war, and I agree with you for the most part. I have a couple of thoughts. It does not require a degree to understand critique, just a sincere interest in the image. You don't need an education to understand basic principles, just someone to explain them to you. In my critique classes I always keep "cheat sheets" of art principles and explanations, because unless your a professional art critic, gallery owner, etc. there may never be a need to memorize those principles. I definitely consider it my job to teach anyone that wants to learn.



That is fine but do you hang around museums and galleries teaching people?


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Sep 19, 2011)

c.cloudwalker said:


> That is fine but do you hang around museums and galleries teaching people?



I have been known to skool people in museums, when I hear them says things like "I could have done that."

That's how I roll.


----------



## mishele (Sep 19, 2011)

toddmclosson said:


> I am NOT trying to start a flame war, and I agree with you for the most part. I have a couple of thoughts. It does not require a degree to understand critique, just a sincere interest in the image. You don't need an education to understand basic principles, just someone to explain them to you. In my critique classes I always keep "cheat sheets" of art principles and explanations, because unless your a professional art critic, gallery owner, etc. there may never be a need to memorize those principles. I definitely consider it my job to teach anyone that wants to learn.
> 
> I trust my auto mechanic because I don't have the desire to learn his job, but I can certainly still provide uneducated guesses as to the "pings, knockes or weird squirrely sounds" coming from my engine. On another note - I think we're talking about two different things. You keep mentioning taste, as in an aesthetic you prefer. I definitely don't think critique and taste are the same thing. I never understood Robert Maplethorpe's taste, but his technique and intent are powerful. My basic rule of thumb (educated or not) If you don't like, it's not going to hang in your living room. Even if I COULD get you to buy the image (becasue it may have future value) you'll just wrap it up and store in the closet. Everyone has that basic gut reaction, no education needed, that is taste.
> So if they don't have an education in the arts, they may not know how to appreciate the color saturation/lines/rule of thirds/and may just be limited to "It's pretty." That's ok too, let's just spread the word and educate our viewers!



I would love to have a copy of your "cheat sheet"!!! Is there anyway I can get one from you?


----------

