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.
