Re: Evaluating Photographs - long
Perspicacious, eh? Sweaty? grin. No one's mentioned photography's magic dirty little secret: What you choose to show is vital. What percentage of your shots would you show on PUG, for example? For me, right now, selecting shots to scan/keep is the real magic. I mean, you should see some of the rejects. mike wilson wrote: Hi Frank, You wrote: First, I think one should remember that one doesn't simply become an artist. It's a journey; an ongoing process. Especially with photography, where anyone can pick up a point and shoot and snap a pic, it's possible that art can be (even unwittingly) produced with no thought whatsoever. The thing about the monkeys at the typewriters eventually doing Shakespeare's plays applies much more so to photography. I daresay that a chimp with an automatic camera may eventually take a meaningful photograph, even without knowing what they're doing. Does that make the photograph in question any less art than any other photograph? I don't think so. So, you like fishing then? Because that's a bigger jar of worms you've opened there than even film vs digital as Bob W. has so well illustrated. I am really looking forward to some of the responses from the more perspicacious members of this list. mike p.s. this email is a work of art.
Re: Evaluating Photographs - long
Hi, Lon, From a post of mine from last night, on another thread: I'm gradually learning that taking photographs is only a small part of this endeavor. Choosing what to show is just as important. Ha!! Seriously, you're right. When one shoots a coupla rolls a week, the photos add up. It's really hard to critique one's own work. It's also hard to ask friends to sit through a couple of thousand frames of contacts, to pick the best 6 or 10 shots to go into a show or whatever. If I narrow it down to a dozen or two, at least that's more digestable (assuming that ~any~ shots of mine are digestable g). I use photo.net a lot for that, which is why among my folder there, one will find several with blurry shots of questionable exposure; they're from contact sheets. I guess what I'm saying in a long-winded way is that, yes, choosing what to show - whether one shot on PUG, a gallery of snaps to send to grandma by e-mail, or a show - seems sometimes to the the ~real~ art to this. And, for me, the input of friends/peers/colleagues is most helpful. cheers, frank cheers, frank Lon Williamson wrote: Perspicacious, eh? Sweaty? grin. No one's mentioned photography's magic dirty little secret: What you choose to show is vital. What percentage of your shots would you show on PUG, for example? For me, right now, selecting shots to scan/keep is the real magic. I mean, you should see some of the rejects. -- What a senseless waste of human life -The Customer in Monty Python's Cheese Shop sketch
Re: Evaluating Photographs
I like to hear both pro and con of the pictures i send in.This helps me in deciding if i need to change a framing or lightinng for that particular style of subject matter,or keep things the way they are for the time being.I have pretty thick skin.although Shel came close to breaking it on ocassion.vbg I think the general comments stopped coming at the level they did after one submitter was ripped apart (by the above)and a pretty long flame came out of that IMSMC. Dave aol Me too! /aol Well said. chris On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That's silly. There are no qualifications needed to comment on photographs. All you have to do is write down how you felt or experienced looking at it, and maybe why. This isn't judging a photo competition where you have to look for all sorts of arcane details. BR From: Kathleen [EMAIL PROTECTED] I love looking at all of the PUG monthly photos, but I do not feel qualified to comment on the photos insofar as offering praise, criticism, or suggestions for improvement.
Re: Evaluating Photographs - long
Holy cats, you're pushing all my buttons tonight, Marnie. :-) TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ I think you possibly you may have missed the ironic tone in my post and missed my other comments in other posts. Unless you are being ironic also. ;-) Or very deliberately making a point. Such as IMHO, it is art is if the creator thinks it is art. And Art is so subjective that discussions about what it is, whether it is good, etc. are sort of pointless. And I think that is the whole point. (I was referring to the shared story re the artist who had his painting corrected.) And and Visual art can hit us right where we live, in our gut, by-passing the brain to go straight to the emotions and/or senses. (But I've said that before.) But being judging, discriminating creatures, we want to explain and intellectualize why this is so. I think when we do that, use words to try to encompass a visual media, a lot of it is truly BS. Sure we can do it to some extent, but do words REALLY do that much? As far as the popularity system of art and art critics, I was saying what I thought happened regarding the ranking of art. What actually does happen in the real world, the reality of it -- I was not saying that I think that is A GOOD THING. Actually, I thought the above comments I made made it clear how I feel about it. But I am the first to admit that my touch-in-cheekness and/or irony is does not always come across well in writing. Marnie aka Doe ;-)
Re: Evaluating Photographs
The composer is always right, no matter how far of historically he may be. :-) Paul Delcour From: Bill Owens [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 14:13:41 -0400 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Evaluating Photographs Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 14:13:44 -0400 We had a unique experience in our community band last February. The local historical society commissioned a work for us to play as part of a local celebration. Our last 3 rehearsals were attended and critiqued by the composer. We played it as per the wishes of the composer and, if I may so myself, we did a good job with it. Now, what if there were a professional critic there who were to disagree with the way we played the music. Who would be correct, the critic, or us, who had the benefit of the composer's desire for how it should sound? Seems to me the same would apply to a photographer's interpretation of his image. Bill
Re: Evaluating Photographs
I thought you meant Louis... Idea is the same. :-) Paul Delcour From: Dr E D F Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 21:30:22 +0300 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Evaluating Photographs Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 14:31:08 -0400 I distinguish between performers and composers and I should have written the latter. However, I meant Johnny Cash. He could not read music but wrote great stuff, and performed it, for more than 40 years. Don ___ Dr E D F Williams http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams Author's Web Site and Photo Gallery See New Pages The Cement Company from HELL! Updated: August 15, 2003 - Original Message - From: Paul Delcour [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 8:21 PM Subject: Re: Evaluating Photographs There's ton of musicians who cannot read a note: choral singers for one and folk music makers for another. In fact for thousand of years people made music purely by ear, not sight. But to get on topic: I'm sure wonderful photographs have been made by completely ignorant people. It's just a pitty they probably never knew... :-) Paul Delcour From: Dr E D F Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 20:11:35 +0300 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Evaluating Photographs Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 13:12:28 -0400 True. I enjoy music but don't claim to understand it -- especially the twelve tonal stuff. However, one of the most successful musicians of our time could not read a note of music. I'm sure you all know who that was. Don ___ Dr E D F Williams http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams Author's Web Site and Photo Gallery See New Pages The Cement Company from HELL! Updated: August 15, 2003 - Original Message - From: Paul Delcour [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 7:58 PM Subject: Re: Evaluating Photographs O well, this brings up a lot. The story then states we shouldn't judge work by others unless we can produce the result we criticised. I do not agree. Any audience can say what they want about any work, no matter what their skills are in the particular field. The audience is the aim of the work in most cases, so why should they not speak their minds and hearts? A woman once said she couldn't say anything about a concert, because she didn't know the first thing about music. My dear lady, I said, please enjoy the music to your hearts content and let your ignorance play no part in that. Otherwise nobody would ever be able to enjoy anything anymore. There's few folk about that can judge a work of art with exceptional knowledge and experience. I remember discussing auditioning for the music conservatory. How do you judge someone to be musical and make it through to a diploma? There's no one set of fixed guidelines available. Even in photography no set of rules can be the perfect judging instrument. Technically two or more photographs could be close to perfection, but if the composition is not pleasing anyone, what good are they but perhaps to the maker only? Now however, being criticised by someone who thinks he has knowledge and understanding is terrible. There's no arguing with such a person. Happens in music a lot, must be so in any form of art. Lately a lady said the choir sang a hymn too fast as in Germany it was sung much slower. I knew immediately this was no historic argument, purely a being used to one. I try to be as open as I can possibly be about what I know and when I simply don't. But when a choir demands leadership sometimes I have to play know-all. In the end it is only the beholder and the beholder alone who judges anybodys work. The maker chooses to aim at pleasing the beholder or simply doing what he or she sees fit to make. And in between lies the whole fascinating world called life, where as a musician I aim to please, but also try to fulfill my own musical dreams which may never please anyone but me... :-) Paul Delcour
Re: Evaluating Photographs
However, one of the most successful musicians of our time could not read a note of music. I'm sure you all know who that was. Errr...Bob Dylan? (A cultural imbecile writes) Peter
Re: PUG comments-was:Re: Evaluating Photographs
I love looking at all of the PUG monthly photos, but I do not feel qualified to comment on the photos insofar as offering praise, criticism, or suggestions for improvement. What I think would work, if it would be possible, is if there were some sort of a rating system (number 1-5, 5 being the best) for the technical components such as composition that one could rate each photo as they viewed it. Perhaps there could be 2 or 3 different technical things, and then there could be a place for people to check if the photo is one of their top 3 or 5 favorite photos. This would not take long and could be done while viewing the photos. Probably that would be hard to set up. The scoring would be something that just PUG members could access, and the end of each month, the ratings for the top 10 or so could be posted. Just a thought . . . probably not doable. Kathy L.
Re: Evaluating Photographs - long
Doug, I am going to postscript myself to be very, very clear. Sometimes I am not clear. Despite the fact that I think art is very, very subjective -- in both the creation and the response to it, I think people like feedback. And some critiquing can be of real value. And the creator can always reject a part of a critique and only accept those parts that ring their bells -- those parts that address something that they themselves may have already wondered about. Or the creator can reject all of it. When it comes to photography, because so much of it is purely technical, that gives some less subjective parameters for critiquing: sharpness, DOF, a desirable focal length for a particular shot (I can't think of them all, since I not that experienced or that good a photographer and not that good at photography critiques). Also, when Chris, as he had, offers some fairly firm parameters for critiquing, that makes it easier, rather than just flailing around trying to think of things to say about something that could be very subjective otherwise. So I support the idea of more critiques for PUG submissions by PDML members. Things I said previously might have sounded contradictory and that I didn't support critiques in general -- just on principle. It's just that I think art is so subjective that sometimes people have a great deal of difficulty dealing with that very same subjectivity. They want to rank it, classify it, make it more objective, less subjective -- fit it into some kind of mold that will help them define it. Help them see some kind of universal standard that will hold up over time and be applicable to all kinds of art. It can be done, it is done, sometimes doing it is even valuable, such as in giving creators feedback -- but it does not really change the fact that art is very subjective. I think that is as clear as I can be. Marnie aka Doe Maybe. Maybe I can never be that clear. ;-) And what the hell does it matter what I think, anyway? LOL. It's subjective, so what you think matters.
Re: Evaluating Photographs
Sinatra made the same claim, yet he spent a lot of years rehearsing with other people using sheet music. not knowing the names of the notes or the key may be incapable in some books, but he looked a lot and knew roughly what was coming. that's the same position i put Cash in. Herb - Original Message - From: Dr E D F Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 1:55 AM Subject: Re: Evaluating Photographs I doubt it was a claim Cash made himself. It was most likely something others knew about him.
Re: PUG comments-was:Re: Evaluating Photographs
I don't know how comfortable I feel with that. I've never liked scoring art. It's hard, for instance, to score composition, since no one seems to be able to agree if there are even rules of composition, and even those who say there are such rules admit that sometimes they have to be or can be broken. I like subjective comments. If anyone making such comments wants to take it upon themselves to use their own scoring system, then so be it. But, if we have scoring for everyone, then we have winners and losers, and I don't think PUG's about that. If someone wants their photo rated that way, they can submit it to photo.net. My 2 cents, anyway... cheers, frank Kathleen wrote: I love looking at all of the PUG monthly photos, but I do not feel qualified to comment on the photos insofar as offering praise, criticism, or suggestions for improvement. What I think would work, if it would be possible, is if there were some sort of a rating system (number 1-5, 5 being the best) for the technical components such as composition that one could rate each photo as they viewed it. Perhaps there could be 2 or 3 different technical things, and then there could be a place for people to check if the photo is one of their top 3 or 5 favorite photos. This would not take long and could be done while viewing the photos. Probably that would be hard to set up. The scoring would be something that just PUG members could access, and the end of each month, the ratings for the top 10 or so could be posted. Just a thought . . . probably not doable. Kathy L. -- Hell is others -Jean Paul Sartre
Re: PUG comments-was:Re: Evaluating Photographs
like camera clubs, continued critique leads pretty soon to polarization and conformity. the ones that don't conform will stop going/participating. an experienced and successful photo director learns to avoid this, but inviting random critique invites conformity. i was in a photo contest once where at the last moment, the participants in the contest were asked to be the judges. it was done by blind judging where no-one else could see the rankings of anyone else, but the results were predictable. Herb - Original Message - From: frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 7:20 AM Subject: Re: PUG comments-was:Re: Evaluating Photographs I don't know how comfortable I feel with that. I've never liked scoring art. It's hard, for instance, to score composition, since no one seems to be able to agree if there are even rules of composition, and even those who say there are such rules admit that sometimes they have to be or can be broken.
Re: Evaluating Photographs
That's silly. There are no qualifications needed to comment on photographs. All you have to do is write down how you felt or experienced looking at it, and maybe why. This isn't judging a photo competition where you have to look for all sorts of arcane details. BR From: Kathleen [EMAIL PROTECTED] I love looking at all of the PUG monthly photos, but I do not feel qualified to comment on the photos insofar as offering praise, criticism, or suggestions for improvement.
Re: PUG comments-was:Re: Evaluating Photographs
Why not, it is important that only follow the advices you agree with. Otherwise, you become the slave of everybody else, and loose any personal expression. DagT På tirsdag, 23. september 2003, kl. 17:34, skrev Herb Chong: mostly by leaving and ignoring anything others say. Herb - Original Message - From: Chris Brogden [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 9:45 AM Subject: Re: PUG comments-was:Re: Evaluating Photographs The opposite could happen, though. While some people will gradually change their style to accomodate the criticisms of others (and probably never succeed), others will come to appreciate the existence and merits of their own style.
Re: PUG comments-was:Re: Evaluating Photographs
Quite easily doable, technically. In fact it would be fairly straightforward to automate the procedure, and use dynamic HTML scripting to add sliders and a button you could click on to submit your ratings to a PUG database. But it still might not be all that good an idea. If you rate my image 6/10 is that because you don't like this sort of image, or because you *do* like them but feel I didn't execute well on the concept? The number doesn't tell me, but a freeform comment does. Even more important, though, would be to hear what you might have done differently. I may or may not agree with you. But if I don't hear your ideas I'll never get to improve my photography. I'm not qualified to comment on the photographs, either. And you'll rarely see me comment on some types of photographs (such as street candids) because I don't have any alternative suggestions to make. But there are usually more than enough images I *could* comment on, if only I could overcome my inertia. I love looking at all of the PUG monthly photos, but I do not feel qualified to comment on the photos insofar as offering praise, criticism, or suggestions for improvement. What I think would work, if it would be possible, is if there were some sort of a rating system (number 1-5, 5 being the best) for the technical components such as composition that one could rate each photo as they viewed it. Perhaps there could be 2 or 3 different technical things, and then there could be a place for people to check if the photo is one of their top 3 or 5 favorite photos. This would not take long and could be done while viewing the photos. Probably that would be hard to set up. The scoring would be something that just PUG members could access, and the end of each month, the ratings for the top 10 or so could be posted. Just a thought . . . probably not doable. Kathy L.
Re: Evaluating Photographs - long
Hi, Tuesday, September 23, 2003, 4:31:55 PM, you wrote: Time to get into the fray. I have long disagreed with the concept that something is art simply because someone calls it art. The lady urinating in the bucket would be a good example of it. I'm slowly revising my position. People can call whatever they like art, but in the same sense I do not have to accept it as art simply because someone else declares that it is. it is, in my opinion, even better to ignore the notion of art altogether. Forget it. It's a painting, or a sculpture, or a performance. Evaluate it in relation to other paintings, sculptures or performances you're familiar with. What difference does its status as art make to you, or to the work in question, or to the painter, sculptor or performer, or indeed to anyone or anything? If the lady pissing in the bucket thinks it's art, what difference does it make? If you think it's not art, what difference does it make? She's still a lady pissing in a bucket, she (presumably) intends somebody to interpret this in some way. Calling it art or not-art makes no difference to anything, as far as I can see. Confronting the Art Question is the most spectacularly irrelevant waste of time that I can think of. -- Cheers, Bobmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Evaluating Photographs - long
Well, Bob, This is at least the third post you've made on these threads. Maybe it is a waste of time, but I find it interesting and somewhat seductive. Watching Monday Night Football is a spectacular waste of time, too, but millions do it anyway! vbg Yeah, we're arguing Angels on the Head of a Pin, but I still think it's fun. cheers, frank Bob Walkden wrote: snipConfronting the Art Question is the most spectacularly irrelevant waste of time that I can think of. -- Cheers, Bobmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Hell is others -Jean Paul Sartre
Re: Evaluating Photographs - long
Hi, I entirely agree. Bob Tuesday, September 23, 2003, 10:32:11 PM, you wrote: Well, Bob, This is at least the third post you've made on these threads. Maybe it is a waste of time, but I find it interesting and somewhat seductive. Watching Monday Night Football is a spectacular waste of time, too, but millions do it anyway! vbg Yeah, we're arguing Angels on the Head of a Pin, but I still think it's fun. cheers, frank Bob Walkden wrote: snipConfronting the Art Question is the most spectacularly irrelevant waste of time that I can think of.
RE: Evaluating Photographs
Not quite keeping up, but spotting occasional messages here and there. This jumped out at me: Now, what if there were a professional critic there who were to disagree with the way we played the music. Who would be correct, the critic, or us, who had the benefit of the composer's desire for how it should sound? Seems to me the same would apply to a photographer's interpretation of his image. Don't have time right now to go dig up the link I want to post here (I'm in the middle of something with a deadline), but Google for intentional fallacy if you're interested in seeing writings on this question. I'll try to find the good essay I read a while ago, later. -- Glenn
Re: Evaluating Photographs
Wow! This little parable raises so many issues, I don't know where to begin. I'll likely think about this for a while before responding (if I do choose to respond at all) directly to the initial post. But, at first blush, I think I find Paul's response to be more meaningful to me than the initial parable. It is patently obvious that art (or anything else for that matter) can be criticized by those who aren't practitioners of that particular art or skill. Otherwise, the applause of an audience would mean nothing! Now, it's true that ~meaningful~ criticism may more valuable if it comes from one with knowledge, and one with knowledge is often (but not always or necessarily) one who participates in the endeavor to an extent. That's the reason some of us post photographs here for the criticism and comment of our peers. Knowing many people here as I do, it means much more to me to hear, for better or worse, what list members think of my work. My mother, on the other hand, basically says that's pretty, or why the hell would anyone want to look at a coffee machine (the latter being a direct quote g). She doesn't or can't say much more than that, but her criticism is still of some worth. I guess what I'm getting at, is that there are many types of criticism. We value those types of criticism for different reasons. One relevent reason is the knowledge of the critic. Another may be just that the critic likes it without a stated reason. (nothing wrong with getting your ego stroked once in a while - it's an incentive to continue) As I've only recently started showing my work in public, I'll tell a little story. I was sitting at the front of the counter of a cafe in which my photos were displayed, along with some other photographer's work. A patron, who I didn't know, while paying for her coffee, said to the counter person, I really like those photos in the back (meaning mine). She didn't elaborate. I was thrilled, because I knew that her comments were unsolicited, and were said without the knowledge that I could hear her, and therefore weren't said just to make me feel good. So, even though she's not a photographer (I introduced myself, and we chatted a bit), her comments were meaningful. The other thing, of course, is that any artistic endeavour is going to be liked and appreciated by some, but not by others. Any artist understands that, I would think. The farther out a piece of art is, the more polarized opinion tends to be, I'd think. Those are my thoughts for now. I'll ponder this some more, and bore you all at a later time with more musings. cheers, frank Paul Delcour wrote: O well, this brings up a lot. The story then states we shouldn't judge work by others unless we can produce the result we criticised. I do not agree. Any audience can say what they want about any work, no matter what their skills are in the particular field. The audience is the aim of the work in most cases, so why should they not speak their minds and hearts? A woman once said she couldn't say anything about a concert, because she didn't know the first thing about music. My dear lady, I said, please enjoy the music to your hearts content and let your ignorance play no part in that. Otherwise nobody would ever be able to enjoy anything anymore. There's few folk about that can judge a work of art with exceptional knowledge and experience. I remember discussing auditioning for the music conservatory. How do you judge someone to be musical and make it through to a diploma? There's no one set of fixed guidelines available. Even in photography no set of rules can be the perfect judging instrument. Technically two or more photographs could be close to perfection, but if the composition is not pleasing anyone, what good are they but perhaps to the maker only? Now however, being criticised by someone who thinks he has knowledge and understanding is terrible. There's no arguing with such a person. Happens in music a lot, must be so in any form of art. Lately a lady said the choir sang a hymn too fast as in Germany it was sung much slower. I knew immediately this was no historic argument, purely a being used to one. I try to be as open as I can possibly be about what I know and when I simply don't. But when a choir demands leadership sometimes I have to play know-all. In the end it is only the beholder and the beholder alone who judges anybodys work. The maker chooses to aim at pleasing the beholder or simply doing what he or she sees fit to make. And in between lies the whole fascinating world called life, where as a musician I aim to please, but also try to fulfill my own musical dreams which may never please anyone but me... :-) Paul Delcour -- Hell is others -Jean Paul Sartre
Re: Evaluating Photographs
I also enjoyed the original post and find it food for thought (and I am not finished thinking about it yet.)Anyway I have kept it in my files. Meanwhile, other comments -- frank mentioned comments-from-mother vs. comments-from-others and I just thought I'd share: My own mother used to just say that's nice (or not) and keep as many of my work prints as she could get her hands on. But more recently, she's started telling me WHY she likes a photo, or why she prefers it over another. I've found that rather nice, to realize my mother now puts more depth into how she comments on my work. Incidentally, every month she looks at the PUG and sometimes she remarks on whose images she liked. (No, I don't think I'll be able to persuade her to join the PDML and share with all. :-) Dr Williams -- despite Johnny Cash being in the news due to his recent death, I actually thought you might have meant Paul McCartney. He of course is very successful financially. By the time I read your follow-up, I had also remembered Irving Berlin. But I do miss the comments on the list about the PUG. I wonder, each month, whether my stuff is really that bad (so that there are no comments, out of politeness?) or whether it has just failed to stand out. I'd had comments in the past, when I guess certain people had more time to give us these great reviews, so at least I've had the experience of getting feedback from my fellow Pentax Users. My father and my husband each submitted a photo once and hoped to get some comments, and they didn't get any. I think they were disappointed.
Re: Evaluating Photographs
Hi, Monday, September 22, 2003, 7:39:34 PM, you wrote: Who would be correct, the critic, or us, who had the benefit of the composer's desire for how it should sound? Seems to me the same would apply to a photographer's interpretation of his image. Don't have time right now to go dig up the link I want to post here (I'm in the middle of something with a deadline), but Google for intentional fallacy if you're interested in seeing writings on this question. I'll try to find the good essay I read a while ago, later. I think you're talking about the anti-intentionalist theory of art. Something like it was raised here a few days ago in the Leni Riefenstahl thread. The theory is, very roughly, that we should only pay heed to intentions that are embodied in the work of art itself. Anything we learn from the artist's life, diaries, journals, manifesto etc. are irrelevant to critical interpretation. Anti-intentionalists say that the Intentional Fallacy is to rely on external evidence to criticise a work of art. -- Cheers, Bobmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Evaluating Photographs - long
Well, I now have a bit of time, so I can respond to the original post, with a couple of more thoughts that I didn't mention when I answered Paul's post directly. I'll try my best not to repeat anything (but no promises) g. First, I think one should remember that one doesn't simply become an artist. It's a journey; an ongoing process. Especially with photography, where anyone can pick up a point and shoot and snap a pic, it's possible that art can be (even unwittingly) produced with no thought whatsoever. The thing about the monkeys at the typewriters eventually doing Shakespeare's plays applies much moreso to photography. I daresay that a chimp with an automatic camera may eventually take a meaningful photograph, even without knowing what they're doing. Does that make the photograph in question any less art than any other photograph? I don't think so. Does it make the ape an artist? I don't think so either. Similarly, it's quite difficult, imho, to pinpoint when any practitioner in an art becomes an artist. Is it when one's annointed by one's teacher? By one's peers? By an audience? Critics? When one is satisfied with one's own work? Is it even a meaningful question? I also take issue with the idea that art has mistakes and can be corrected. Art is what it is. It isn't right or wrong. We've had many discussions here about rules of composition, and even those who say that such things exist ~a priori~ admit that sometimes those rules (or guidelines or whatever one wishes to call them) can or even must be broken to create an effective image. When it comes to art, there is no perfection. That's not to say that something can't be improved upon, but it is often the case that it's the very singularity of the artistic act that makes it worthwhile as art. It therefore can't be improved upon, because it is what it is - to change it would necessarily mean producing a different work of art. I know that applies to performance art more than visual art, but hell, a painting or photograph, warts and all, may be important because it captures something temporal as well as visual, and therefore can't be changed. Now, having said all that, please don't jump on me and say sure, art can be improved upon, because I know that in some cases it can be. X-rays of great paintings through the ages reveal modifications and paint-overs of original brush strokes. And, I know that the whole idea of bracketing is to choose the best or most effective exposure and chuck the rest. Obviously, composers amend or change scores often during the composition process, even doing so after a piece has been performed, in some cases. I'm just saying that talking about mistakes and art is a dangerous thing, and must be done with great care and appreciation for the fact that it is often not possible, necessary or desirable. I could nit-pick, but I won't, at least for the time being. I could say that I'm glad I don't live in a village where art is routinely defaced. vbg But, I won't do that. Thanks for a very provocative and interesting story, though, Feroze. Looks like the start of an interesting thread. cheers, frank Feroze Kistan wrote: With the recent thread about evaluating photgraphs, I thought I'd share this with the list. Regards, Feroze The Painter's Mistakes An old Indian tale goes like this. Once upon a time there lived a great painter. His paintings were liked by one and all. The King of the state had also honoured him with the state award for excellence. The painter was known to all his fans as Rangacharya (which means as master of colours in Hindi), affectionately called Ranga Guruji. Ranga had developed a distinct painting style over the years which was a testimony of his excellence in this field. His hard work, commitment and dedication for the subject was an example for many to follow. Ranga had opened an Arts School where he use to teach the finer aspect of his art to his chosen disciples. There was no fixed course curriculum or duration at this school. Ranga use to declare a pupil qualified in Arts only after he was fully satisfied about the skill and knowledge acquired by him. He had devised his own methods of assessment, which were quite unique like his style of painting. Rajeev, a student of Ranga's Arts School, was a man in a hurry. He had a gifted hand and had progressed much faster than the other students through sheer hard work, dedication, and imagination. Ranga also was very pleased with Rajeev's progress. Having earned lots of praise and appreciation for his work, Rajeev was anxiously waiting for the day when Ranga Guruji would declare him qualified and he could begin his journey as an artist. One day, he very politely asked Ranga Guruji how soon would he be able to take the final qualifying examination. Ranga smiled and said Rajeev, you are one of my most promising and favourite students. You have done well in learning all aspects of the art of
Re: Evaluating Photographs
he claimed he could not. Herb - Original Message - From: Dr E D F Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 1:11 PM Subject: Re: Evaluating Photographs True. I enjoy music but don't claim to understand it -- especially the twelve tonal stuff. However, one of the most successful musicians of our time could not read a note of music. I'm sure you all know who that was.
Re: Evaluating Photographs
- Original Message - From: Paul Delcour [EMAIL PROTECTED] O well, this brings up a lot. Indeed. The painter student's story ends where he will have to develop a style of his own to be more than a clone of his master. Then to be taught confidence in his own work despite criticism is both timely and wise. Btw, just now, there is a fine art exhibition in Oslo of photographs taken with cellphone cameras. Some of the pics are online here: http://home.powertech.no/pervo/bromweb/nokia2.htm Their deliberate purpose is to produce nice images with primitive equipment. Now, in my local camera club here, there has been a lot of head-shaking and sighing over the low quality, and that is only a publicity stunt. But is it? I don't know... Jostein - Pictures at: http://oksne.net -
PUG comments-was:Re: Evaluating Photographs
I too, miss PUG comments, but I'm in the same boat as you. My shots rarely get mentioned, except for by those who take the time to comment on ~every~ shot (and then the comments have always been good), and back when Brogden organized the little critique circle a year or more ago - again, never a bad comment that I can remember. I kind of felt the same as you, though. Why no comments? Is my stuff that bad? Or, is the general standard of PUG simply so high that my shots rarely stand out, but are still more than competent? Well, I've come to the conclusion that my work isn't bad. It may be that the average quality of PUG is just so high that I don't get noticed, at least not enough to stand out as a favourite of the month. Bottom line is, I don't worry about it anymore. I've become more confidant in my work over the last few years. Maybe showing in public helps that. Maybe soliciting comments with non-pug stuff, and generally receiving positive, constructive criticism helped overcome that worry. Or, maybe I just don't care as much. I do what I do, if it's good, someone will see it in some forum or another, and I'm confidant enough to know (or at least feel) what's good and what's not. OTOH, I could be completely wrong here! Wouldn't be the first time. vbg cheers, frank [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip But I do miss the comments on the list about the PUG. I wonder, each month, whether my stuff is really that bad (so that there are no comments, out of politeness?) or whether it has just failed to stand out. I'd had comments in the past, when I guess certain people had more time to give us these great reviews, so at least I've had the experience of getting feedback from my fellow Pentax Users. My father and my husband each submitted a photo once and hoped to get some comments, and they didn't get any. I think they were disappointed. -- Hell is others -Jean Paul Sartre
Re: Evaluating Photographs - long
Whether one is an artist or not is, I think, simply a matter of intent. If ones intent is to produce art than one is an artist. Now I am willing to admit that becoming a good artist, much less a great one, can take years or even decades of hard work, but whether one is an artist is simply a matter of wanting to produce art. In photography we have two types of photographers (they may of course overlap) the art photographer for whom the picture is the message, and the documentary photographer for who the subject is the message. As you can see the difference between the two (at least beyond a certain skill level) is simply the intent of the photographer. Therefore I say, if your intent is art then you are an artist. It is as simple as that. frank theriault wrote: First, I think one should remember that one doesn't simply become an artist. It's a journey; an ongoing process. Especially with photography, where anyone can pick up a point and shoot and snap a pic, it's possible that art can be (even unwittingly) produced with no thought whatsoever. The thing about the monkeys at the typewriters eventually doing Shakespeare's plays applies much moreso to photography. I daresay that a chimp with an automatic camera may eventually take a meaningful photograph, even without knowing what they're doing. Does that make the photograph in question any less art than any other photograph? I don't think so. -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com
Re: Evaluating Photographs - long
Come on, Tom, It's never as simple as that. That is never a simple concept... g cheers, frank graywolf wrote: major snippage It is as simple as that. -- Hell is others -Jean Paul Sartre
Re: Evaluating Photographs
Hi, Monday, September 22, 2003, 10:31:50 PM, you wrote: Now, in my local camera club here, there has been a lot of head-shaking and sighing over the low quality, and that is only a publicity stunt. But is it? Excerpt from 'The Camera Club Guide to Photography'*: 1. First, stick your head right up your ... after that it became too dark to read anymore. *first published 1848. Never revised. -- Cheers, Bobmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Evaluating Photographs - long
But, seriously, Tom, Geez, you know, I wish I could express myself as well in these sorts of discussions as some. I'm just not articulate when it comes to things artistic. Unfortunately for this list, that won't stop me from trying... g On the whole, your thesis makes sense. There are a couple of situations that make me wonder. Maybe they're the exceptions that prove the rule, I don't know. Firstly, I think your position takes the audience completely out of the picture. Not just the audience at large, but individuals in an audience. For example, there's a performance artist who urinates into a bucket on stage. She's wearing a skirt, and merely hikes the skirt a bit (so one can't see her genitals - she even covers the upper part of the bucket with her skirt IIRC, so one can't even see the urine stream). The audience hears the urine hitting the bottom of the metal bucket. She finishes her thing, and leaves the stage. She intends that to be art. By your definition, it is, therefore, art, and she's therefore an artist. That she apparently had some sort of audience would indicate that some agree with her. I don't think that's art. Couldn't articulate why it's not art, but it's not. It's not bad art, it just isn't art at all, imho. To paraphrase the US senator who was asked to define pornography, I can't define art, but I know it when I see it. And, if it ain't art, she aint' an artist. She's just a lady on a stage, pissing into a bucket. As regards non-art, I'd include the artist who's exhibit was a line-up of blenders with water and goldfish in them. Yup, they were plugged in. He said that the audience could turn on the blenders if they wished to (although he didn't explicitly invite them to). Not art, because I say so... At the other end of the spectrum, I'd submit that one can produce art without the intention to do so. By your definition, my chimp with the camera could never produce art, because he could never form an intention to do so. But, if he walked around a corner in a French village, and accidentally snapped a picture of a grinning child holding two large bottles of wine, would that be art? If the chimp's name is HCB, it's art. If it's an unwitting chimp, it's not? Or is the artist the one who takes the camera from the ape, develops the photos, and decides that there's art in that there camera? That sounds like more of a curator to me... Whatever the intention of the creator of a piece, the viewer must have a say as to whether a piece is art or not. If a piece is not art, how can its creator be an artist? And why can't art be produced by a non-artist? I'm really confused now... cheers, frank graywolf wrote: Whether one is an artist or not is, I think, simply a matter of intent. If ones intent is to produce art than one is an artist. Now I am willing to admit that becoming a good artist, much less a great one, can take years or even decades of hard work, but whether one is an artist is simply a matter of wanting to produce art. In photography we have two types of photographers (they may of course overlap) the art photographer for whom the picture is the message, and the documentary photographer for who the subject is the message. As you can see the difference between the two (at least beyond a certain skill level) is simply the intent of the photographer. Therefore I say, if your intent is art then you are an artist. It is as simple as that. -- Hell is others -Jean Paul Sartre
Re: Evaluating Photographs - long
Hi, Monday, September 22, 2003, 10:24:34 PM, you wrote: Whether one is an artist or not is, I think, simply a matter of intent. If ones intent is to produce art than one is an artist. Now I am willing to admit that becoming a good artist, much less a great one, can take years or even decades of hard work, but whether one is an artist is simply a matter of wanting to produce art. In photography we have two types of photographers (they may of course overlap) the art photographer for whom the picture is the message, and the documentary photographer for who the subject is the message. As you can see the difference between the two (at least beyond a certain skill level) is simply the intent of the photographer. Therefore I say, if your intent is art then you are an artist. It is as simple as that. Is it enough to intend to produce art? Surely an artist must actually produce some art. Having produced something, is it enough for the producer to declare 'this is art!', or does he not have to do even that? Having declared himself an artist, is everything he produces art, whether or not he declares it to be? Does the art status of a self-declared artist's work depend at all on other people recognising the product as art? Once some product is recognised as an artwork, by whoever and by whatever means, how can we tell if it's good art or bad art? Or is all art good by definition? Are there such things as good artists and bad artists? How can we tell which is which? Can an artist be so bad that he is not an artist? Can a bad artist produce good art? What if someone decides he's not an artist after all? Do all his works cease to be art? How can we decide if anonymous works are art, when we don't know if the producer had declared his artistic status? -- Cheers, Bobmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Evaluating Photographs
At 08:11 PM 9/22/2003 +0300, you wrote: True. I enjoy music but don't claim to understand it -- especially the twelve tonal stuff. However, one of the most successful musicians of our time could not read a note of music. I'm sure you all know who that was. Those 4 guys from Liverpool, maybe? - MCC - Mark Cassino Kalamazoo, MI - Photography: http://www.markcassino.com
Re: Evaluating Photographs - long
At 05:34 PM 9/22/2003 +0200, Feroze Kistan wrote: With the recent thread about evaluating photgraphs, I thought I'd share this with the list. Regards, Feroze The Painter's Mistakes -snip- Great story that offers a lot of food for thought. I may be reading into it too much, but I'd take the message to be that many people will criticise and critique, but no one can join in the creative process. To that end, no one but yourself can really evaluate your work in the context of what you intended to achieve except yourself. The real challenge is to be honest with yourself - and that is a blade that cuts both ways. It means having faith and confidence when people who don't understand your work criticize it. It also means listening to that criticism to see if you are deluding yourself. And most subtle of all, it means questioning praise and positive comments when in your heart you know you could have done better. No wonder artists live in garrets and are depressed! - MCC - Mark Cassino Kalamazoo, MI - Photography: http://www.markcassino.com
Re: Evaluating Photographs - long
Whatever the intention of the creator of a piece, the viewer must have a say as to whether a piece is art or not. If a piece is not art, how can its creator be an artist? And why can't art be produced by a non-artist? I'm really confused now... cheers, frank IMHO, it is art is if the creator thinks it is art. That does not mean, however, than anyone else in the world is going to agree with them. But to me that lack of agreement then falls into the realm of having a discussion of whether it is good or bad art. And that is a purely subjective thing. Great art is different -- it is a consensus -- a lot of people, usually over a time, have agreed it is good art. I.E. It has achieved a form of universality -- it appeals to a lot of people. Art is so subjective that discussion about what it is, whether it is good, etc. are sort of pointless. And I think that is the whole point. Marnie aka Doe
Re: Evaluating Photographs - long
aftger having read a bunch of the followups, i have to say that i have done something similar and the outcome was different. there is always someone who thinks that they can improve anything someone else does by making their own additions. at worse, it is graffiti. at it's best, it's constructive criticism. in my case, it was crude and demeaning alterations. Herb - Original Message - From: Feroze Kistan [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pdml [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 11:34 AM Subject: Evaluating Photographs - long With the recent thread about evaluating photgraphs, I thought I'd share this with the list. Regards, Feroze
Re: PUG comments-was:Re: Evaluating Photographs
OTOH, I could be completely wrong here! Wouldn't be the first time. vbg cheers, frank Why no comments: people are busy, people are unassertive, people are afraid to criticize, people only have time to look, writing comments involves more time. Any time I've been in a group where it is essentially all volunteer it has had this problem. The only ones around to praise are the other volunteers. They are busy volunteering, ie. and don't have time to praise other volunteers and/or they are awaiting praise of their own efforts. Substitute photographers for volunteers in this context. Maybe your critique board is a good idea, someone do the first eight, someone do the next eight, and so forth. So everyone gets a comment. I have to admit, in complete honesty, every time I've made comments, I've been very, very hesitant. I wonder why are others not saying anything? Or why are only one or two making comments? Am I missing something? Do I just bravely jump in? Do I say anything negative? Do I comment on only those I like whole heartedly? Will I hurt someone's feelings? Do I have anything worth while to say -- to offer someone wanting feedback? Won't anything I say be trite or obvious? It is a bit scary. So I think fear is a lot of it too. Marnie aka Doe
Re: PUG comments-was:Re: Evaluating Photographs
Well, yeah, That's the problem with doing it yourself, isn't it? If you do only a few (your favourites), are you insulting those who you don't comment upon? If you comment on all of them, then you have to be honest with all of them, and let's face it, the odd clunker does get in there, doesn't it? Do you (as I tend to do) damn with faint praise, or find ~something~ nice to say, and leave out the bad stuff? Either way, it ain't really honest, is it? That of course is part of the problem with assignments. You end up doing ones that you may not like. OTOH, maybe that's a good thing. It forces us to not just comment on the ones we like, but the ones we may not like. That, in and of itself, is a good exercise. Let's face it, real critics don't only go to plays or movies that they like, do they? And, if one's thin-skinned, all they have to do is put no comments, please on the photo. Or in the alternative, we'd only critique those that say comments welcome. cheers, frank [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why no comments: people are busy, people are unassertive, people are afraid to criticize, people only have time to look, writing comments involves more time. Any time I've been in a group where it is essentially all volunteer it has had this problem. The only ones around to praise are the other volunteers. They are busy volunteering, ie. and don't have time to praise other volunteers and/or they are awaiting praise of their own efforts. Substitute photographers for volunteers in this context. Maybe your critique board is a good idea, someone do the first eight, someone do the next eight, and so forth. So everyone gets a comment. I have to admit, in complete honesty, every time I've made comments, I've been very, very hesitant. I wonder why are others not saying anything? Or why are only one or two making comments? Am I missing something? Do I just bravely jump in? Do I say anything negative? Do I comment on only those I like whole heartedly? Will I hurt someone's feelings? Do I have anything worth while to say -- to offer someone wanting feedback? Won't anything I say be trite or obvious? It is a bit scary. So I think fear is a lot of it too. Marnie aka Doe -- Hell is others -Jean Paul Sartre
Re: Evaluating Photographs - long
Well, as I said earlier, I wonder then if something can be art, regardless of the intention of it's creator. Conversely, I'd wonder about something that only it's creator considers art, and no one else. That could end up being a very narrow definition of art. I can't help but think that some sort of consensus is necessary. Problem is, if that's true, how is the art/no-art or artist/not-artist decision arrived at? By numbers? Surely not. By ~who~ is making the decision? Dear me, no, that would be elitist. Some combination of the two? I guess... Keep in mind, I'm not making pronouncements here, but wondering aloud (or at least in print - but I'm talking as I type) what this is all about. I mean, to use more examples, Canadians on this list may remember the furor a few years ago when the National Art Gallery bought a piece (with taxpayers' money) called Field of Fire. It was by some well-known artist. It was a very tall (over 10 feet) canvas with three vertical lines painted on it. I think the outer two were blue and the middle one was red. Whatever, its cost was in the millions. Naturally there was a furor. Basically, what the Gallery said is that it was a good investment, and that sort of shut most people up. But I was amazed that there were so many who said that ain't art, so we shouldn't be buying it. Funny, but not a single critic or artist said that, though. I thought it was art, just art that I couldn't appreciate (as opposed to the urinating woman in a previous post - I just thought that wasn't art). Now, I have to disagree with you on the good art/bad art thing having something to do with how many people agree that a thing's art. (if I'm mis-reading you, let me know). Surely, whatever else it is, the value of art (I mean artistic value, not monetary) is not a democratic thing, is it? Art's goodness is intrinsic, no? This is very confusing. I have to say, though, I'm progressing from a couple of months back, when I tried to say that I wasn't an artist. I now think that I ~may~ be an artist, but if I am, I'm just not a very good one. enjoying this discussion, though! g regards, frank [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: IMHO, it is art is if the creator thinks it is art. That does not mean, however, than anyone else in the world is going to agree with them. But to me that lack of agreement then falls into the realm of having a discussion of whether it is good or bad art. And that is a purely subjective thing. Great art is different -- it is a consensus -- a lot of people, usually over a time, have agreed it is good art. I.E. It has achieved a form of universality -- it appeals to a lot of people. Art is so subjective that discussion about what it is, whether it is good, etc. are sort of pointless. And I think that is the whole point. Marnie aka Doe -- Hell is others -Jean Paul Sartre
