Who is qualified enough to give critic

[Tetrode]

NOTE THAT THE PURPOSE OF A CRITIQUE IS NOT TO IMPOSE ONE'S (THE CRITIC'S OWN) ESTHETICS, BUT TO HELP THE OTHER ALONG HIS CHOSEN PATH.

I beg to disagree, there are rules to be followed in everything including Art. Even the most bohemian of Artists like Salvador Dali had a "method to his madness". You may look at his surrealistic works of art and think that he was on drugs when he did them; but far from it.

All of his work is heavily planned out and were influenced by many other sources (esp contemporary ones). He was a well read individual and took interest in many things. e.g. quantum physics, mathmatics. And these influences are reflected in his works of art. He still followed the guiding principles of aesthetics in his works of art though - e.g. perspective, etc etc

So as with photography, there are rules to be followed/observed - and to be not broken willynilly "in the name of art" or because it hasn't been done before. If you want to break the rules you've got to know why you have broken them and not leave it up to your audience to make up their minds.

Also, it is easy for us to criticise the critics (and I am not defending DP by saying this) but one must also be able to take the criticisms when they are put foward. No point posting pics for critique and when people do, you start lambasting them when they post negative ones. What is the point of posting then if all you want is to hear praises all the time?

You guys want DP to post his pics - sorta like saying to him - if you want to dish it out, you must be able to take it as well. While you guys have a valid point there, the flipside is that some of the people criticising DP can't take critiscism of their own work as well.

I am not condoning DP actions; far from it (it irritates me to read his rants as well) - he did seem to improve for a couple of weeks (and was tactful in his posts) but sadly he has reverted to his old ways recently.

Nonetheless, his enemies are no less sterling in their behaviour, they have been publicly goading him on CS. And I must say to DP's credit, he hasn't taken the bait.

The way I see it both sides are equally infantile in their behaviour.

And oh...because I haven't been in on this long drawn out scuffle between the DP supporters and haters, I suppose (according to some of the logic expressed here) you could say that I am not qualified to criticise or comment on it.

 

[Sion]

who say one, you never see his pictures in the Abstract gallery meh? ;p

he's reached the highest level of critique, critiquing without saying much :thumbsup:

I only post those photos for you. :lovegrin:

 

[eikin]

what will be more interesting to know is when a critique seeker puts up an artwork for critique, what is he/she looking for? an opinion? to be taught the technicalities? or to be taught what art is?

 

[Paul_Yeo]

i think for basic comment , everyone can.
(no need to be a cook to know if food is nice)

but for deeper comments, think need someone who really knows the field

 

[Paul_Yeo]

i think for the person who posted pic, it will help if he give a brief explanation of his photo and what is on his mind....

 

[eikin]

i think for basic comment , everyone can.
(no need to be a cook to know if food is nice)

but for deeper comments, think need someone who really knows the field

hey, you want to do a poll on my question in post above? ;p

 

[Del_CtrlnoAlt]

hey, you want to do a poll on my question in post above? ;p

i prefer he take the foto in question out to poll... i'd like to see whats the percentage of people supporting it.

 

[eikin]

I only post those photos for you. :lovegrin:

oh magnificent one, blessed am i to receive such bestowment :lovegrin:

eh, you haven't post any picture for some time already, share leh, i like your ideas :lovegrin:

 

[Sion]

oh magnificent one, blessed am i to receive such bestowment :lovegrin:

eh, you haven't post any picture for some time already, share leh, i like your ideas :lovegrin:

I'll post photos again when no one is looking. :bsmilie:

 

[eikin]

i prefer he take the foto in question out to poll... i'd like to see whats the percentage of people supporting it.

you know what, this reminds me of some situations i met with here in Japan. attended a couple of critique sessions in school so far, really cannot stand how most teachers try to take care of students feelings and beat about the bush looking for things to comment on when all they need to say is that '(???) is totally unacceptable and needs to be relooked at.' or '(???) does not make sense.'

some of the students just simply don't improve at all maybe it's an Asian thing.

 

[Pablo]

I beg to disagree, there are rules to be followed in everything including Art. Even the most bohemian of Artists like Salvador Dali had a "method to his madness". You may look at his surrealistic works of art and think that he was on drugs when he did them; but far from it.

All of his work is heavily planned out and were influenced by many other sources (esp contemporary ones). He was a well read individual and took interest in many things. e.g. quantum physics, mathmatics. And these influences are reflected in his works of art. He still followed the guiding principles of aesthetics in his works of art though - e.g. perspective, etc etc

So as with photography, there are rules to be followed/observed - and to be not broken willynilly "in the name of art" or because it hasn't been done before. If you want to break the rules you've got to know why you have broken them and not leave it up to your audience to make up their minds.

Also, it is easy for us to criticise the critics (and I am not defending DP by saying this) but one must also be able to take the criticisms when they are put foward. No point posting pics for critique and when people do, you start lambasting them when they post negative ones. What is the point of posting then if all you want is to hear praises all the time?

You guys want DP to post his pics - sorta like saying to him - if you want to dish it out, you must be able to take it as well. While you guys have a valid point there, the flipside is that some of the people criticising DP can't take critiscism of their own work as well.

I am not condoning DP actions; far from it (it irritates me to read his rants as well) - he did seem to improve for a couple of weeks (and was tactful in his posts) but sadly he has reverted to his old ways recently.

Nonetheless, his enemies are no less sterling in their behaviour, they have been publicly goading him on CS. And I must say to DP's credit, he hasn't taken the bait.

The way I see it both sides are equally infantile in their behaviour.

And oh...because I haven't been in on this long drawn out scuffle between the DP supporters and haters, I suppose (according to some of the logic expressed here) you could say that I am not qualified to criticise or comment on it.

Hi there tetrode,

How did you come up with the nick tetrode ?

I like what it is electronically the same as I like triac.

Just an observation and I do digress.

It is a shame that DP ....DeadPoet... should be dragged into this discussion.

Just as it is a shame that student is dragged into it also.

WHY :dunno:

Both are artists in their own right and have their own point of views.

We, or should I say, photogs post photo's here and ask for opinion and they give it.

I will admit that I have put DP on my ignore list once, but I was just pissed off at the time and he is no longer ignored (I came too :bsmilie: ).

There are many good photographers that frequent this space and many give comment and their works,

but I would guess that there are also many well known/famous photographers that drop by and simply don't want to know
because there is so much pointing and name calling.

Rules .... what rules :dunno:

If we all went by rules there would be no unexpected outcomes.

Have you ever heard of Yanni ?? he couldn't even read music but have you listened to what he has done ?

What rules :dunno:

 

[The_Cheat]

And I would add a clause that the purpose of a critic to analyse/interpret and give a value judgement would be to help the artist to improve what he wishes to improve.

NOTE THAT THE PURPOSE OF A CRITIQUE IS NOT TO IMPOSE ONE'S (THE CRITIC'S OWN) ESTHETICS, BUT TO HELP THE OTHER ALONG HIS CHOSEN PATH.

A powerful statement that have wipe off the credibility of more than 80% of the critiques/ comments made in CS.

Reason: most pictures ain't over- or under-exposed. Pictures may seem to over or under in the point of view of the critic, but are at the correct exposure for the photographer.

 

[imaginary_number]

I beg to disagree, there are rules to be followed in everything including Art. Even the most bohemian of Artists like Salvador Dali had a "method to his madness". You may look at his surrealistic works of art and think that he was on drugs when he did them; but far from it.

I tend to agree with Student. I don't deny that rules are important, but the twist here is that new rules are being discovered all the time.

Thus student's point is quite pertinent in the sense that it helps people discover those new rules. If one keeps sticking to old rules, by the law of cause and effect, it will be difficult to ever create something novel.

 

[The_Cheat]

I beg to disagree, there are rules to be followed in everything including Art. Even the most bohemian of Artists like Salvador Dali had a "method to his madness". You may look at his surrealistic works of art and think that he was on drugs when he did them; but far from it.

All of his work is heavily planned out and were influenced by many other sources (esp contemporary ones). He was a well read individual and took interest in many things. e.g. quantum physics, mathmatics. And these influences are reflected in his works of art. He still followed the guiding principles of aesthetics in his works of art though - e.g. perspective, etc etc

So as with photography, there are rules to be followed/observed - and to be not broken willynilly "in the name of art" or because it hasn't been done before. If you want to break the rules you've got to know why you have broken them and not leave it up to your audience to make up their minds.

Also, it is easy for us to criticise the critics (and I am not defending DP by saying this) but one must also be able to take the criticisms when they are put foward. No point posting pics for critique and when people do, you start lambasting them when they post negative ones. What is the point of posting then if all you want is to hear praises all the time?

You guys want DP to post his pics - sorta like saying to him - if you want to dish it out, you must be able to take it as well. While you guys have a valid point there, the flipside is that some of the people criticising DP can't take critiscism of their own work as well.

I am not condoning DP actions; far from it (it irritates me to read his rants as well) - he did seem to improve for a couple of weeks (and was tactful in his posts) but sadly he has reverted to his old ways recently.

Nonetheless, his enemies are no less sterling in their behaviour, they have been publicly goading him on CS. And I must say to DP's credit, he hasn't taken the bait.

The way I see it both sides are equally infantile in their behaviour.

And oh...because I haven't been in on this long drawn out scuffle between the DP supporters and haters, I suppose (according to some of the logic expressed here) you could say that I am not qualified to criticise or comment on it.

Rules are constantly challenged and re-invented through times. The late 19th and early (pre-wars) 20th century was a time when people started challenging the rules. In art, there are artists such as Picasso and Dali, whom challenged the impresisonalism that was prevalent in the 19th century. In music, there's Wagner who came out with the "Tristan chord", Stravinsky and Schoenberg whom have challenges consonance. These challenges were often rejected by critics. For instance, Stravinsky's Rite of Spring and Schoenberg's Pierrot Lunaire received the worst receptions by a live audience of all times.

Fast forward to today, these rule-challenging artforms are finally accepted by the media and masses. And with acceptance, comes further understanding, which often than not link these with certain influences.

Creativity doesn't come from nowhere. They are always synthesized from some influences somewhere. So finding the source of influences and the rule they follow, doesn't make their creativity less credible as a rule-challenging artform in their time.

And if you wanna break things down to some rule, then to me, there's only one: you can only take a photograph when there's light.

 

[eikin]

A powerful statement that have wipe off the credibility of more than 80% of the critiques/ comments made in CS.

Reason: most pictures ain't over- or under-exposed. Pictures may seem to over or under in the point of view of the critic, but are at the correct exposure for the photographer.

actually critique is impossible if that is the case.

defined by his/her own rules and sense of aesthetic, the critic will never understand what the critique seeker wants from the critique seeker's point of view.

 

[eikin]

I tend to agree with Student. I don't deny that rules are important, but the twist here is that new rules are being discovered all the time.

Thus student's point is quite pertinent in the sense that it helps people discover those new rules. If one keeps sticking to old rules, by the law of cause and effect, it will be difficult to ever create something novel.

new rules are constantly created based on 'old' ones, whether they challenge, alter or add on to the old. an understanding of 'old' rules is the basis of making new ones. for that i see no problem with Tetrode's post.

 

[imaginary_number]

actually critique is impossible if that is the case.

defined by his/her own rules and sense of aesthetic, the critic will never understand what the critique seeker wants from the critique seeker's point of view.

That depends on whether the critique is dished out to "train" the seeker, or to allow the seeker to introspect and discover what he/she really wanted to achieve.

It's like counseling someone. You can either offer a solution to your patient, or ask questions to so that your patient begins to see things that were never there before and come to his/her own conclusions or solutions.

 

[eikin]

If you want to break the rules you've got to know why you have broken them and not leave it up to your audience to make up their minds.

i wonder why nobody quoted Tetrode on this.

 

[eikin]

That depends on whether the critique is dished out to "train" the seeker, or to allow the seeker to introspect and discover what he/she really wanted to achieve.

It's like counseling someone. You can either offer a solution to your patient, or ask questions to so that your patient begins to see things that were never there before and come to his/her own conclusions or solutions.

also, a critic can also demonstrate extreme disagreement or feeling of negativity to 'help' the critique seeker see what the latter don't (or refuse to) see.

end of the day, why are we asking so much out of the critic? should not the critique seeker be the party responsible for his/her own art?

 

[student]

I beg to disagree, there are rules to be followed in everything including Art. Even the most bohemian of Artists like Salvador Dali had a "method to his madness". You may look at his surrealistic works of art and think that he was on drugs when he did them; but far from it.

All of his work is heavily planned out and were influenced by many other sources (esp contemporary ones). He was a well read individual and took interest in many things. e.g. quantum physics, mathmatics. And these influences are reflected in his works of art. He still followed the guiding principles of aesthetics in his works of art though - e.g. perspective, etc etc

So as with photography, there are rules to be followed/observed - and to be not broken willynilly "in the name of art" or because it hasn't been done before. If you want to break the rules you've got to know why you have broken them and not leave it up to your audience to make up their minds.

Also, it is easy for us to criticise the critics (and I am not defending DP by saying this) but one must also be able to take the criticisms when they are put foward. No point posting pics for critique and when people do, you start lambasting them when they post negative ones. What is the point of posting then if all you want is to hear praises all the time?

You guys want DP to post his pics - sorta like saying to him - if you want to dish it out, you must be able to take it as well. While you guys have a valid point there, the flipside is that some of the people criticising DP can't take critiscism of their own work as well.

I am not condoning DP actions; far from it (it irritates me to read his rants as well) - he did seem to improve for a couple of weeks (and was tactful in his posts) but sadly he has reverted to his old ways recently.

Nonetheless, his enemies are no less sterling in their behaviour, they have been publicly goading him on CS. And I must say to DP's credit, he hasn't taken the bait.

The way I see it both sides are equally infantile in their behaviour.

And oh...because I haven't been in on this long drawn out scuffle between the DP supporters and haters, I suppose (according to some of the logic expressed here) you could say that I am not qualified to criticise or comment on it.

Tetrode, now my comments are not an invitation to argue nor to decide who has the last words. I am not interested in this.

I made it very clear what I meant by the purpose of a critique, and the attributes desired in a good critic to achieve the goals.

I made it clear that the purpose of a critique is to help the other person to achieve his goal, not to move that person to be like oneself.

Nowhere did I mention about what rules to follow and what rules to break. I was concerned only with the end results - and that is: helping the other person. If that entails sticking to well troddden paths, so be it! And if not, then show how to break rules. Following or breaking rules are not my concern in the role of a critic. Helping the other person is.

One must learn to differentiate between giving critiques and passing comments. Too often people confuse the two.

Saying this image sucks is passing a comment. Saying that I do not like the light on the face is passing a comment. Saying this is lovely is passing a comment. These are not critiques.

Much of what was offered as "critiques" are mere comments. Comments have their role. And are useful too! I am not denigrating the usefulness of comments. But they are not critiques.