Benjamin Marks
Mentor
At one point I was shopping my portfolio around looking for a job as an assistant and a studio photographer (who mentioned up front that he did not have a job for me) offered to look at my portfolio. Like some of the posters above, his critique was not about whether the subject was critically sharp or whether there was a maximum black in the print. He was focussed on the relationship of the subject to the rest of the image and pointed out where I had been careless in allowing background elements out of my control to ruin street photography that was otherwise well seen. It was the first time that I looked at my pictures in that way and it changed how I approach seeing through the viewfinder forever. Funny, I can't even remember the photographer's name, but that bit of free advice and the time he took to look at my pictures was transformative.
Ben Marks
Ben Marks
tetrisattack
Maximum Creativity!
I'm writing portfolio evaluations this morning for a B&W class I taught this quarter, so the word "CRITIQUE" on the front page really jumped out at me.
Reading through the comments, it's pretty clear that there are so many different "genres" of critique that it's tough to know what context people are even coming from. But I'm surprised that the conversation is tipping toward a consensus that critiques aren't particularly helpful -- that, typically, they're given by myopic people who fixate on unimportant details, or even that they're nonsense and a waste of time.
Wow, how depressing! I think critique is crucial, both to give and to receive!
I run mine as a group critique. Students tack their pictures up on the wall. The class spends a few unstructured minutes wandering from print to print, so they can really get a close look, and then we regroup and focus on one person's work at a time. For ten or fifteen unbelievably long minutes. Most people have never spent this long looking at a photograph, probably wouldn't make it past the 60-second mark even if it were hanging in their living room.
If this is the group's first critique, it's usually dead silent for an asphyxiating few seconds, but then after a moment the comments begin trickling out of the group. They're typically content-free at first. "I like the expression on her face," is a good one. "Did you burn in the background?" is another. Then more silence, and it begins to look like the discussion is stillborn.
Critique can be an excruciatingly complex social thing -- students are worrying about leaving a negative impression on their new classmates, and at the same time, they don't want to invite harsh criticism of their own work when the spotlight's shifts to them, but if they flatly say they like it, and the rest of the class dislikes it, won't that be embarassing? So they stand there with their lips sealed. And further complicating the matter is that looking at artwork is a skill in itself! When asked to judge a photograph, many don't even know where to begin. Their eyes scan around the work, searching for something truly comment-worthy, but typically, nothing's jumping out.
So this moment of high tension and drama, where the critiquee's heart is pounding as silent people shift their gaze between the photo, their feet, the clock, slowly ticking the seconds off... this is the moment that the instructor steps in and begins to lead the discussion.
This is also the point where every instructor's critiquing style and philosophy begins to have an impact. My style is to simply work on showing people how to look.
"Does the woman stand out of the background?"
"Yeah," comes a response.
"Why?" I wonder out loud.
"She's a lot lighter than the background," one student notes.
"Yeah, and the background is blurry," ventures another.
"Okay," I say, "so those are the obvious reasons why. But there's a lot of punch to this photograph, right? Like, compare it to that one," I say, pointing at the photo next to it. Same subject, but the student framed it less carefully and shot from a different angle. "The background there is also dark and out-of-focus, but does it pop as much?"
The class briefly murmurs.
"The geometry is better," one student blurts, "the shape of the background pushes her forward." Bang. This is what I was trying to get at, but I didn't have to say it. The class murmurs again, a subdued chorus of Yeahs. They're beginning to see things they overlooked before, and now the real conversation finally begins. Topics surface: did the photographer mean to feature her ring so prominently? Why is she looking straight into the camera lens? Is this a confrontational photograph? Is body language important?
This isn't harsh criticism. This isn't about tearing people down and rebuilding them as Artists. It's about helping them learn to see and think.
At home, I compare notes with my SO (who's teaching a painting class at a different university) and she openly questions the systemic arrogance by which critique even exists, and chides me for unwittingly perpetuating the modernist view of photography by tossing some of the Old Masters into my slide carousel. She's only teasing, of course, but literature on art pedagogy is a dull roar that will reverberate among the ivory towers for the foreseeable future.
For my own work now I rely on a small set of people with whom I have creative relationships, because they are the people who know me and my work, and whose opinions I can easily contextualize. And to that end, I know that critique is something that has to come at exactly the right time. Too early into an idea and I feel hamstrung by suggestions, too late and I become frustrated.
And as a final note, this is the longest thing I've posted to RFF for ages and ages. I hope it wasn't a cumbersome read.
Reading through the comments, it's pretty clear that there are so many different "genres" of critique that it's tough to know what context people are even coming from. But I'm surprised that the conversation is tipping toward a consensus that critiques aren't particularly helpful -- that, typically, they're given by myopic people who fixate on unimportant details, or even that they're nonsense and a waste of time.
Wow, how depressing! I think critique is crucial, both to give and to receive!
I run mine as a group critique. Students tack their pictures up on the wall. The class spends a few unstructured minutes wandering from print to print, so they can really get a close look, and then we regroup and focus on one person's work at a time. For ten or fifteen unbelievably long minutes. Most people have never spent this long looking at a photograph, probably wouldn't make it past the 60-second mark even if it were hanging in their living room.
If this is the group's first critique, it's usually dead silent for an asphyxiating few seconds, but then after a moment the comments begin trickling out of the group. They're typically content-free at first. "I like the expression on her face," is a good one. "Did you burn in the background?" is another. Then more silence, and it begins to look like the discussion is stillborn.
Critique can be an excruciatingly complex social thing -- students are worrying about leaving a negative impression on their new classmates, and at the same time, they don't want to invite harsh criticism of their own work when the spotlight's shifts to them, but if they flatly say they like it, and the rest of the class dislikes it, won't that be embarassing? So they stand there with their lips sealed. And further complicating the matter is that looking at artwork is a skill in itself! When asked to judge a photograph, many don't even know where to begin. Their eyes scan around the work, searching for something truly comment-worthy, but typically, nothing's jumping out.
So this moment of high tension and drama, where the critiquee's heart is pounding as silent people shift their gaze between the photo, their feet, the clock, slowly ticking the seconds off... this is the moment that the instructor steps in and begins to lead the discussion.
This is also the point where every instructor's critiquing style and philosophy begins to have an impact. My style is to simply work on showing people how to look.
"Does the woman stand out of the background?"
"Yeah," comes a response.
"Why?" I wonder out loud.
"She's a lot lighter than the background," one student notes.
"Yeah, and the background is blurry," ventures another.
"Okay," I say, "so those are the obvious reasons why. But there's a lot of punch to this photograph, right? Like, compare it to that one," I say, pointing at the photo next to it. Same subject, but the student framed it less carefully and shot from a different angle. "The background there is also dark and out-of-focus, but does it pop as much?"
The class briefly murmurs.
"The geometry is better," one student blurts, "the shape of the background pushes her forward." Bang. This is what I was trying to get at, but I didn't have to say it. The class murmurs again, a subdued chorus of Yeahs. They're beginning to see things they overlooked before, and now the real conversation finally begins. Topics surface: did the photographer mean to feature her ring so prominently? Why is she looking straight into the camera lens? Is this a confrontational photograph? Is body language important?
This isn't harsh criticism. This isn't about tearing people down and rebuilding them as Artists. It's about helping them learn to see and think.
At home, I compare notes with my SO (who's teaching a painting class at a different university) and she openly questions the systemic arrogance by which critique even exists, and chides me for unwittingly perpetuating the modernist view of photography by tossing some of the Old Masters into my slide carousel. She's only teasing, of course, but literature on art pedagogy is a dull roar that will reverberate among the ivory towers for the foreseeable future.
For my own work now I rely on a small set of people with whom I have creative relationships, because they are the people who know me and my work, and whose opinions I can easily contextualize. And to that end, I know that critique is something that has to come at exactly the right time. Too early into an idea and I feel hamstrung by suggestions, too late and I become frustrated.
And as a final note, this is the longest thing I've posted to RFF for ages and ages. I hope it wasn't a cumbersome read.
gyuribacsi
Established
First, please excuse my lousy English-language.
Technically, I get my very harsh critiques from a retired pro (newspaper photographer) but he is a fine buddy.
From the artistical point of view, I have some honest friends, some of them are artists, who give their opinionsto my pictures. And there is me too and I don`t like the most of my pictures, because they are not perfect.
A funny thing is, that the technically crap-shots are well critisized by the artists, some time by me too.
The really important critiques I only canl get from the public (the number of prints I could sell). Peoples wallets are the thru critics.
BTW, this crazy guy merkley??? is a real good artist (in my opinion) and I like his pictures though my stile is a very different thing.
Cheers
George
Technically, I get my very harsh critiques from a retired pro (newspaper photographer) but he is a fine buddy.
From the artistical point of view, I have some honest friends, some of them are artists, who give their opinionsto my pictures. And there is me too and I don`t like the most of my pictures, because they are not perfect.
A funny thing is, that the technically crap-shots are well critisized by the artists, some time by me too.
The really important critiques I only canl get from the public (the number of prints I could sell). Peoples wallets are the thru critics.
BTW, this crazy guy merkley??? is a real good artist (in my opinion) and I like his pictures though my stile is a very different thing.
Cheers
George
tripod
Well-known
Inexperienced photographers can benefit from quality critique.
Among experienced photographers though, it's like Picasso trying to tell Monet how to paint like him.
A critique, unless the point made is self-evident (at which time there is no point asking for critique to begin with), needs to come from someone you trust and respect.
Among experienced photographers though, it's like Picasso trying to tell Monet how to paint like him.
A critique, unless the point made is self-evident (at which time there is no point asking for critique to begin with), needs to come from someone you trust and respect.
Last edited:
drewbarb
picnic like it's 1999
As an art student in college we had weekly critique sessions. Groups of of 8-10 students would bring recent work from whatever their given mediums, and with the guidance of a professor or two we held a pretty thorough critique. This was never the warm fuzzy teddy bear sort of critique; nor was it a tear 'em apart make 'em feel bad sort of thing (unless the person needed that...). Most of the time it was a real, constructive and productive critique. The goal was always greater understanding of our own and each others work, an improvement in our technical abilities as well as our overall approach as artists. These sessions, while often exhausting and sometimes heated, were ultimately so useful and valuable to us that we tended to hold impromptu critiques whenever a group gathered in a studio over any work. We did this constantly.
I have missed this process and the insights gained from this sort of collective in-depth analysis ever since. While working as a photographer in New York, I tried on several occasions to hold critiques which I hoped would resemble that kind of salon environment and might be just as valuable artistically as it was socially as the process I had in college was. The few times people actually came together in that environment were sadly different; very little real critique occurred. It was mostly either merely mutual back-patting, or else people tried to tear each other down in what was basically personal snipping rather than any real artistic or technical analysis. It was fairly useless. It seems it's difficult for people to embrace the idea of gentle and constructive criticism. Too often, people just want to hear that their work is amazing, beautiful, and unique; if they hear anything other than compliments, they may simply seize the opportunity to denigrate work offered by those who failed to say nice things to them, with no regard for the actual work.
This tendency is exaggerated on the internet; the disconnection of the internet makes it easy for some folks to disregard the fact that we are all other real people out there. Sometimes we can rise above this, and treat each other very well (as often happens here); other times people treat each other with utter contempt. The main point I have taken away from my positive experiences with critiquing is that the participants have to care about each other, and care about improving the level of their own and other's work. And you have to be thick skinned enough to handle criticism. You have to be willing- even eager!- to have your efforts deconstructed without passion, and you have to be up to the challenge of doing the same for others. The goal should be to raise everyone's understanding and ability. It cannot be about ego or personal agendas.
I continue to seek a critique environment that might come close to emulating my college experience, almost as much for the camaraderie as for the artistic and technical criticism. I don't look for this online. I am happy with my internet experience; but as a darkroom printer who isn't especially a digital adept, I don't really show pictures online. I'd much rather get- and give- good criticism to and from real people face to face.
I have missed this process and the insights gained from this sort of collective in-depth analysis ever since. While working as a photographer in New York, I tried on several occasions to hold critiques which I hoped would resemble that kind of salon environment and might be just as valuable artistically as it was socially as the process I had in college was. The few times people actually came together in that environment were sadly different; very little real critique occurred. It was mostly either merely mutual back-patting, or else people tried to tear each other down in what was basically personal snipping rather than any real artistic or technical analysis. It was fairly useless. It seems it's difficult for people to embrace the idea of gentle and constructive criticism. Too often, people just want to hear that their work is amazing, beautiful, and unique; if they hear anything other than compliments, they may simply seize the opportunity to denigrate work offered by those who failed to say nice things to them, with no regard for the actual work.
This tendency is exaggerated on the internet; the disconnection of the internet makes it easy for some folks to disregard the fact that we are all other real people out there. Sometimes we can rise above this, and treat each other very well (as often happens here); other times people treat each other with utter contempt. The main point I have taken away from my positive experiences with critiquing is that the participants have to care about each other, and care about improving the level of their own and other's work. And you have to be thick skinned enough to handle criticism. You have to be willing- even eager!- to have your efforts deconstructed without passion, and you have to be up to the challenge of doing the same for others. The goal should be to raise everyone's understanding and ability. It cannot be about ego or personal agendas.
I continue to seek a critique environment that might come close to emulating my college experience, almost as much for the camaraderie as for the artistic and technical criticism. I don't look for this online. I am happy with my internet experience; but as a darkroom printer who isn't especially a digital adept, I don't really show pictures online. I'd much rather get- and give- good criticism to and from real people face to face.
Gumby
Mentor
You obviously understand the complex interaction of honesty, sensitivity, and the role of inpiration and wisdom that needs to be applied to teaching. EVERYONE can benefit from some of this style of critique, even the Masters... so long as their egos allow it!
John Robertson
Well-known
"Inexperienced photographers can benefit from quality critique."
I think that experienced photographers can also benefit, it is very easy to become complacent, the expression "you are never too old to learn" applies here.
I have taken photographs for over 50 years, but still welcome criticism, it stops me becoming detached from current ideas.
I hesitate now however to judge other peoples efforts on the "web" except for compostion and oroginal idea, this came about after I tried an exercise of looking at some of my own work on other peoples computers. I was astonished at the differences in colour and contrast in particular, due to a. how they had their monitors set up, and b. the quality of the monitor itself, whether it was CRT or other.etc.
At our club we used to use a digital projector to show the results of competitions, but just because of the above, many judges refused to view them this way, and pass criticism.
just my 2p worth!!
I think that experienced photographers can also benefit, it is very easy to become complacent, the expression "you are never too old to learn" applies here.
I have taken photographs for over 50 years, but still welcome criticism, it stops me becoming detached from current ideas.
I hesitate now however to judge other peoples efforts on the "web" except for compostion and oroginal idea, this came about after I tried an exercise of looking at some of my own work on other peoples computers. I was astonished at the differences in colour and contrast in particular, due to a. how they had their monitors set up, and b. the quality of the monitor itself, whether it was CRT or other.etc.
At our club we used to use a digital projector to show the results of competitions, but just because of the above, many judges refused to view them this way, and pass criticism.
just my 2p worth!!
Roger Hicks
Mentor
A few years ago I tried to set up a circle in which we would each produce one picture and discuss it: it's a formula that works very well in writers' circles, and there's no reason why it shouldn't work for photography.
Alas it was derailed by a photographer who was unable to understand the concept of 'one picture'. Or 'other people', or indeed 'listen'. He'd dig out a whole portfolio of his latest work -- seldom the same style two months running -- and tell us what he was trying to do. If we said anything, he'd start blustering.
I should simply have chucked him out -- I would, nowadays -- but he was a nice guy, and lonely, and...
As it was, he killed the circle.
Cheers,
Roger
Alas it was derailed by a photographer who was unable to understand the concept of 'one picture'. Or 'other people', or indeed 'listen'. He'd dig out a whole portfolio of his latest work -- seldom the same style two months running -- and tell us what he was trying to do. If we said anything, he'd start blustering.
I should simply have chucked him out -- I would, nowadays -- but he was a nice guy, and lonely, and...
As it was, he killed the circle.
Cheers,
Roger
FrankS
Registered User
Appreciation of creative arts, including visual creative arts, including photography, is just so subjective, that aside from comments on deficiencies in technical aspects (which may in some cases be done on purpose), what can be said other than "I like it," or "I don't like it"? Unless there is a clear student-teacher relationship where the student defers to the teacher's opinion/experience, I have difficulties with photo critiques. Roger, I wouldn't mind though, attempting to participate in a controlled photo critique circle with a limited number of people, just to test my opinion on this.
Roger Hicks
Mentor
Dear Frank,
Part of the idea was that you introduced your picture with, "I was trying to do [whatever]. Did I succeed? How could I have done it better?" or "There's something wrong here but I can't figure out what it is. Has anyone any ideas?"
This works astonishingly well at writers' circles, and writing is if anything even more subjective -- though at least writing is a verbal medium.
It doesn't work one-on-one: you need a minimum of five or six people to make it work.
Cheers,
R.
Gumby
Mentor
"It doesn't work one-on-one: you need a minimum of five or six people to make it work."
... but it only works if the participants share a common attitude of listening with open ears without being defensive of the critique, comments, or process. It is a matter of honesty, sensitivity and trust more than a teacher/mentor-student relationship.
"I still invite critique from my friends, but critique from strangers is always tricky."
... but it only works if the participants share a common attitude of listening with open ears without being defensive of the critique, comments, or process. It is a matter of honesty, sensitivity and trust more than a teacher/mentor-student relationship.
"I still invite critique from my friends, but critique from strangers is always tricky."
Last edited:
Roger Hicks
Mentor
jbf
||||||
The most important thing that I gain from critiques personally is what kind of message or feeling/idea do others get when they look at my work within a series as well as their ideas about editing.
For me i still find issues with editing out what i feel makes my series stronger, but at the same time I generally have a strong idea as to what images i feel are important, etc.
Up until lately much of my shooting had been somewhat sporadic in theme (besides it all being categorized as portraiture or street portraiture, etc).
For me it really is all about what you are trying to say or do with the work. If you have no concept or vision, chances are your photos and series will feel lifeless if not hodge-podge at the very least.
I know most of my works do on flickr. They seem very sporadic with no real string or central idea/vision to tie them all up at the moment. Luckily it's something I've been focusing on very strongly the past few months so... we'll see what happens.
For me i still find issues with editing out what i feel makes my series stronger, but at the same time I generally have a strong idea as to what images i feel are important, etc.
Up until lately much of my shooting had been somewhat sporadic in theme (besides it all being categorized as portraiture or street portraiture, etc).
For me it really is all about what you are trying to say or do with the work. If you have no concept or vision, chances are your photos and series will feel lifeless if not hodge-podge at the very least.
I know most of my works do on flickr. They seem very sporadic with no real string or central idea/vision to tie them all up at the moment. Luckily it's something I've been focusing on very strongly the past few months so... we'll see what happens.
Last edited:
spear
Newbie
A very interesting set of opinions.......I gained enormously at UNI from critiques with Paul Seawright, whose work I like. Ian Walker is a fabulous man. I learnt a lot. However, I was a single parent and working 3 nights a week in a Psychiatric Hospital to pay the bills, working as a Psychiatric nurse. I was paying nearly £2000 for the course and I objected to being treated like a child by a pompous man who I was paying for a service. I am happy to take a critique and discuss my work I do object to my work being criticised by a member of staff whose wages I am effectively paying. I learnt a lot and one day may return to do the third year
willie_901
Mentor
Wow. I really enjoyed this thread. It's great to hear how everyone responds to feedback. Thanks all.
Indeed interesting, Willie; thanks to Roger and all. I've had several good critiquers over the years, and the most useful comments have been helpful, thoughtful, and observant. My boss at the camera shop where I worked part time while in the Air Force always had always had something insightful to say. Later, in civilian life, I'd drive across town with a few prints to show my uncle, who was disciplined in restricting his gear to a Retina IIc and a MG TF (daily driver and autocross), and made helpful comments about both my prints and driving.
I took a correspondence course in photography where the focus was in getting technical matters in control, and learning a bit about various photo disciplines from a commercial standpoint. The critiques were detailed and helpful in that context.
For several years I studied art concentrating on photography at the local university. The photo prof was of the "whatever floats your boat" school of aesthetics, but the class group critiques were indeed useful in pointing up issues I hadn't noticed.
I miss the interaction and critique... a good photo friend was killed in an auto accident and the local photo club ran out of steam. As we're moving into new quarters within the year, better suited to having a group together, perhaps the photo club can be resurrected. In the meantime I do enjoy making and receiving the occasional comment on an RFF Gallery post, and try to be observant and helpful.
I took a correspondence course in photography where the focus was in getting technical matters in control, and learning a bit about various photo disciplines from a commercial standpoint. The critiques were detailed and helpful in that context.
For several years I studied art concentrating on photography at the local university. The photo prof was of the "whatever floats your boat" school of aesthetics, but the class group critiques were indeed useful in pointing up issues I hadn't noticed.
I miss the interaction and critique... a good photo friend was killed in an auto accident and the local photo club ran out of steam. As we're moving into new quarters within the year, better suited to having a group together, perhaps the photo club can be resurrected. In the meantime I do enjoy making and receiving the occasional comment on an RFF Gallery post, and try to be observant and helpful.