As we approach another year of offering up our photos for evaluation by outside judges, I thought the following article from "Quora" might be of interest. Feedback welcome!
Gerry
By Joseph Finkleman, former professional photographer (1968–2020)
Another set of eyes, independent, especially knowledgable eyes, can reveal to the photographer things that they just did not see. I go to frequent critiques, I offer constructive criticism and receive constructive criticism.
We fall in love with an image, we have an emotional bond with the image, and in truth we have difficulty in seeing how other people see the image. Constructive criticism helps people better connect their intent with their execution.
I looked at several other people’s work last night. There was one person in particular whose internal mental picture of what the image was doing, was completely different than the external person’s experience of what the image was doing.
By offering constructive criticism the artist/photographer can better see the next time they go out to photograph that perhaps their internal mental image was not communicating as clearly as they would wish and the next time they may make different choices.
It isn’t that the artist is not free to have their own vision, but art is a communication event. If your communication is clear, then there is little critique possible, all one can do is say I like it or I do not, and to be fair the individual making the statement then offers the aesthetic reason for their liking or disliking the piece.
That is a sufficient piece of information in itself.
However, a great deal of the time, the artist has intended to do X, but instead the result is a near miss or a complete miss. By hearing other people’s responses and their suggestions the artist can re-evaluate and learn something about their vision and achieve a greater clarity of thought concerning their choices.
Or sometimes the execution itself was technically insufficient for their intent. Perhaps the techniques was poorly executed or completely deficient. A constructive criticism can assist in expanding the artist/photographer’s knowledge of the technical aspects of their craft.
The least useful piece of information is a “like” on a social media, because one does not know why the “like”, maybe it is nothing more than a show of support for the effort. That is like a clap on the back or a pat on the head, I suppose it is nice to have support but there is little learning value to it.
I would go to professional photographers meetings and there would be a critique and the photographer whose work was being heavily criticized as deficient in a technical sense, would defensively say,” but the client liked it and bought a lot of this image, and I made a lot of money with this picture.” It is a common problem. For a pro, making money is a big deal and in fact just about all of the deal. But when one brings an image to be critiqued, one has to accept that other pros will look at the image and point out the technical insufficiencies, there is a great deal of value in learning, because if you can make money with a sub par image, think how much more you can make with a competent image?
It depends heavily on how much one values learning. I do know people who really hate being critiqued. They take it personally and it is devastating to them on an emotional level. I know of others who thrive in critique.
Everyone who wishes to communicate wants to be understood. There are ways to speak more clearly. It matters little if it is words or pictures or whatever the medium. What matters is the intention and then the execution. Once your intention is clear and the execution does not detract from the intention, the piece is largely un-critiquable. Except for the outside viewer saying I like it or I don’t like it.
