Del_CtrlnoAlt
Senior Member
the one in portrait... the cause that have this effect we are building...
Who is qualified enough to give critic
- Thread starter Witness
- Start date
- Status
the one in portrait... the cause that have this effect we are building...
Sion
Senior Member
This thread is starting to get very "philosophical" with new inputs. :bsmilie: :bsmilie:
The_Cheat
Senior Member
The only rule in photography is light. If one uses anything other than light to make image, then it won't be photography anymore. Lenses, camera or equipment isn't the deciding factor, but light.
Similarly, the only rule in science is falsification. If you can prove something (i.e. hypothesis) to be true until proven false (later on), it does not matter if you follow a standard protocol or not.
I think the problem with all the babbling of the "rules" is that we associate different meaning to the same word: sensu stricto (in the strict sense) and sensu lato (in the broad sense).
Rules sensu stricto are those governing the fundamentals in certain occurrences to make it work. Often, these rules are embedded even in the term that we use. For instance, photography can be break down into "photo", which means light; and "graph" which means figure/picture. Hence, the rule of photography is light. Using anything other than light to create image will no longer be in the realm of photography.
Rules sensu lato are more closely related to preferences. When someone do something, which work 99 out of 100 times, one will see that as a rule that he has to follow. However, this kind of rule can be challenged and broken, and the result is still within the realm of the subject.
For instance, music isn't make up of just consonance (do-re-mi-fa-so-la-ti), even though consonances work for most music most of the time. There are people out there who constantly challenges the convention of music, i.e. advant-garde music. Those music are often rejected as "noises" just because it doesn't follow this rule sensu lato. They are unappealing to the masses, and usually don't enjoy exposure (to the market) as those "artists/ celebrities" who unquestioning follow the convention of music do. To most people, consonance seems to be the rule in music. But to academia, the definition of music varies, but is never limited to the preference of using consonance or not.
Similarly in photography, there are preferences by 99% of the people (I'm exaggerating here) in the how-to of a certain genre of photography. Just because the majority of the people sided so doesn't mean that that become the rule, leaving the 1% of people who think differently to challenge that genre, isn't doing photography.
That's why I'm not in agreement with witness's point of view of making photography work to appease the masses. I'm concurring more with student's point of view of understanding what the photographer wants, for everyone is different. There will bound to be people who are trying to push the envelope. By giving comments/advice of what works, would only turn these people away.
Rules are never ever democratic. If not, who in the right mind would want to pay tax?
The_Cheat
Senior Member
Del_CtrlnoAlt
Senior Member
nevermind lah... see the image on the previous page to know wat started tis...
I don't care who posts the critics. It is the quality of the critics that counts.
So if you any see post_to_increase_post_count posts, just filter if out yourselve if you can't take it.
Posting more post_to_increase_post_count_posts only use up more server space. aiya, storage space is cheap la...
So if you any see post_to_increase_post_count posts, just filter if out yourselve if you can't take it.
Posting more post_to_increase_post_count_posts only use up more server space. aiya, storage space is cheap la...
Well, i chose #3 cos i think tact would help heaps... haha~ not everyone can take direct comments
well. not everyone can be tactful.
after 8 pages....
people, it's critique. critic is the person giving the critique. so, in the context of the thread, TS is talking abt critique not critic.
now, back to ur regularly scheduled bashing, b1tching and philosophizing... :thumbsup:
people, it's critique. critic is the person giving the critique. so, in the context of the thread, TS is talking abt critique not critic.
now, back to ur regularly scheduled bashing, b1tching and philosophizing... :thumbsup:
The_Cheat
Senior Member
Frankly, I have never seen a proper photography critique in my life. All I'd seen, even on prestigious photography websites and magazines, are more like comments than proper critique/ review.
I have however seen critiques for movies and games before though, and it sure takes a lot of effort just to write one. Here's an excellent review on the SNES game Mother 2 (or Earthbound in US release): http://www.largeprimenumbers.com/article.php?sid=mother2
*** warning: the reading will take approximately 10 minutes if you're a fast reader ***
Given the fact that in such media (like movie or games) where one can't talk to the creator to ask him/her what he/she was trying to achieve, the best way is to draw the work into comparison with other works, making it seems like a conversation of sorts between two sources. Good movie reviews often trace back to the source of the inspiration (e.g. Matrix inspired by Hillary Putnam's "mind in a vat") or draw links with societal trends (e.g. review on Suicide Club), rather than giving scores and claiming a movie "good", without further elaboration.
Really, I have never actually come across any good critiques in photography yet. Even people who tries to understand what one is trying to achieve, more often than not are interested in igniting that spark, asking the photographer to shoot more to realise that vision. That's not a critique either.
To rehash what I'd stated earlier: even though comments are not critiques, they are still useful somehow to someone somewhere.
I have however seen critiques for movies and games before though, and it sure takes a lot of effort just to write one. Here's an excellent review on the SNES game Mother 2 (or Earthbound in US release): http://www.largeprimenumbers.com/article.php?sid=mother2
*** warning: the reading will take approximately 10 minutes if you're a fast reader ***
Given the fact that in such media (like movie or games) where one can't talk to the creator to ask him/her what he/she was trying to achieve, the best way is to draw the work into comparison with other works, making it seems like a conversation of sorts between two sources. Good movie reviews often trace back to the source of the inspiration (e.g. Matrix inspired by Hillary Putnam's "mind in a vat") or draw links with societal trends (e.g. review on Suicide Club), rather than giving scores and claiming a movie "good", without further elaboration.
Really, I have never actually come across any good critiques in photography yet. Even people who tries to understand what one is trying to achieve, more often than not are interested in igniting that spark, asking the photographer to shoot more to realise that vision. That's not a critique either.
To rehash what I'd stated earlier: even though comments are not critiques, they are still useful somehow to someone somewhere.
Del_CtrlnoAlt
Senior Member
critique on a finished product is simpler... everything is finalised, and there is a definite right wrong, like or dislike, there is also a development flow which could be linked to storyline etc... but critique on an artwork is different, its more subjective, static... since being artwork, artist need to explain why is the picture taken, under the condition as such... normally a face to face critique is easier.
There is also pics that 1 look u go WOW, and some u just say, better work hard next time... a commentator now would do is, if its WOW, explain to him why is it wow, how does it affect you as an audience... if its not that good, u ask him, why did he shoot in this way, why didn't you do this, you should take note of this... thats what i felt is sharing.
The most sensible thing I've read in this thread. One man's meat is another man's poison. Live with it. Just don't shove your opinions down people's throat. Some people just insist that they are right and others are wrong.
To be honest judging by this thread none of us is qualified to give critique. Why?? Because we get too emotional.
The_Cheat
Senior Member
I agree that it's often more difficult to give a critique on artwork than finished products, but I disagree that a face-to-face critique is necessarily easier.
If you were to talk with artists (painters), you will realise that a lot of them will tend to talk about everything other than the actual thoughts or ideas behind their work. This is understandable since some artpieces are simply worthless once one know the meaning behind it (e.g. Pop-art). Note that the inverse is true for some other artpieces, where the meaning to the painting worth much more than the painting itself (e.g. Minimalism art, where painting looks like one which a three-year old can achieve). Genre aside, artist would prefer the audience to be moved by the picture themselves, and come out with a certain thought/ feeling, instead of guiding them to see what he/she was seeing and try to project. It's a test to them also, to gauge how effective their message reach out to the people, and to see whether that artform is a success or failure.
I find your contrast on "finished product" and photography interesting though. It almost seems like you're commenting that pictures (or at least pictures shown in this forum) are not finished products.
Del_CtrlnoAlt
Senior Member
like the picture in question... i find that it still lacks from what it should be as a portrait. thats why i was asking him if he had known the problems... if he stand firm in his believe, then good for him... same as if i shot something i like, someone shoot me down, and tells me that, hey look at it this way, if i choose to accept or not is my sole discretion...
ultimately, i still think that, the problems lies in that thread is some jokers just wanna create trouble... i'm wondering, if without DP & Student, and misc jokers... how would the TS be answering to my queries.
Possibly one of these days our entries may end up here - some links posted in CS long before:
http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/2006/06/great-photographers-on-internet.html
http://www.flickr.com/photos/andrerabelo/70458366/
:bsmilie:
http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/2006/06/great-photographers-on-internet.html
http://www.flickr.com/photos/andrerabelo/70458366/
:bsmilie:
Del_CtrlnoAlt
Senior Member
oh ya, just to share about maybe a finished product and an artwork...
finished product like your instance a game, takes a few steps, a development phase, a beta test phase, and launch phase, update phase, finally review phase.
for these art pieces here, its only shoot & show, so its not really what i deem masterpiece yet, so they have to get feedback, work on it, try again, show, and then goes thru all the phases to achieve their 'polished' work.
What i beg to differ to student is, if artist chose to believe his work is great, dun influence them, then y post them, cos they should keep in their hdd. but if they show to the public, then obviously they should accomodate to the masses. if masses feel otherwise, then who's problem shall it be?
The_Cheat
Senior Member
And people wonder why there ain't great works shown in CS...
The_Cheat
Senior Member
Haha~! Your links cracked me up.
Found this interesting article, which can be applied to this thread ....
Art criticism is the study and evaluation of art. Though art criticism can be applied to any artistic field (e.g. photography, theater, music, dance), this article references only painting and the genres of that medium. This criticism usually involves the use of aesthetics or the philosophy of beauty although there are other techniques, objective and subjective. A great art critque must contain a thesis sentence in the body of the part. Part of the purpose of art criticism is to have a rational basis for the appreciation of art and avoid subjective opinions of taste but this is not always achieved.
Art critics have probably existed for as long as there has been art and some people may argue that art is pointless without criticism. Usually, though, art criticism refers to a systematic study of art performed by people dedicated to that task rather than personal opinion. Throughout history, wealthy patrons have been able to employ people to evaluate art for them in jobs similar to the art critic but it's probable that only from the 19th century onwards criticism had developed formal methods and became a more common vocation.
The variety of artistic movements, particularly in the late 19th and 20th centuries, means that art criticism is frequently divided into different disciplines, using vastly different criteria for their judgements. The most common division in the field of criticism is between historical criticism and evaluation - really a form of art history - and contemporary criticism of the new work by living artists. Though it has been said that art criticism is a much lower risk activity than making art, opinions of current art is always liable to drastic corrections with the passage of time. Critics of the past are often held up to ridicule for either favoring artists now debunked (like the academic painters of the late 19th C.), or debunking artists now venerated (like the early work of the Impressionists). Some of the art movements themselves were named in a spirit of disparagement by critics, with the name later adopted as a sort of badge of honor by the artists themselves (e.g. Impressionism and Cubism), the original critic being forgotten.
Artists have often had an uneasy relationship with their critics. The artist usually needs positive opinions from the critic for their work to be viewed and purchased but it may be some time before a new form of art is properly understood and appreciated. Some critics are unable to adapt to new movements in art and allow their opinions to override their objectivity, resulting in inappropriately dated critique. John Ruskin famously compared one of James Whistler's paintings to "flinging a pot of paint in the public's face".
Art criticism is the study and evaluation of art. Though art criticism can be applied to any artistic field (e.g. photography, theater, music, dance), this article references only painting and the genres of that medium. This criticism usually involves the use of aesthetics or the philosophy of beauty although there are other techniques, objective and subjective. A great art critque must contain a thesis sentence in the body of the part. Part of the purpose of art criticism is to have a rational basis for the appreciation of art and avoid subjective opinions of taste but this is not always achieved.
Art critics have probably existed for as long as there has been art and some people may argue that art is pointless without criticism. Usually, though, art criticism refers to a systematic study of art performed by people dedicated to that task rather than personal opinion. Throughout history, wealthy patrons have been able to employ people to evaluate art for them in jobs similar to the art critic but it's probable that only from the 19th century onwards criticism had developed formal methods and became a more common vocation.
The variety of artistic movements, particularly in the late 19th and 20th centuries, means that art criticism is frequently divided into different disciplines, using vastly different criteria for their judgements. The most common division in the field of criticism is between historical criticism and evaluation - really a form of art history - and contemporary criticism of the new work by living artists. Though it has been said that art criticism is a much lower risk activity than making art, opinions of current art is always liable to drastic corrections with the passage of time. Critics of the past are often held up to ridicule for either favoring artists now debunked (like the academic painters of the late 19th C.), or debunking artists now venerated (like the early work of the Impressionists). Some of the art movements themselves were named in a spirit of disparagement by critics, with the name later adopted as a sort of badge of honor by the artists themselves (e.g. Impressionism and Cubism), the original critic being forgotten.
Artists have often had an uneasy relationship with their critics. The artist usually needs positive opinions from the critic for their work to be viewed and purchased but it may be some time before a new form of art is properly understood and appreciated. Some critics are unable to adapt to new movements in art and allow their opinions to override their objectivity, resulting in inappropriately dated critique. John Ruskin famously compared one of James Whistler's paintings to "flinging a pot of paint in the public's face".
- Status
