[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In a message dated 6/15/2003 7:22:50 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > writes: > > > I agree with you, Bruce, > > > > The barn is my fave, too. > > > > Well done, Marnie! All were wonderful shots. So now that > > it's all over, what do you think of your instructer? > > > > cheers, > > frank > > I feel like giving a long-winded reply, so I will. :-) > > Long winded reply started. > > I found him very anal retentive. To put a nice face on it, he's a perfectionist. > This may often be a requirement for photographers. But while sometimes that is okay, > and it certainly made the students that remained try harder, other times it was a > big pain in the ___. Also having done stock photography for 25 plus years, he does > know his stuff. I don't think his technique can be faulted. Exposure, film usage, > all that. But his critiques were too brutal. Now, I think that bothered him, that he > had a high drop out rate. And he would soften his critiques on the next class after > a previous class where he might have been too harsh. He was good at finding what was > wrong or needed improvement, but not nearly as good at saying what worked and > motivating people. > > But doing good critiques is, after all, an art form. > > About three weeks ago, he had his own show (with three others) at the library next > to the community center (I don't think I mentioned this before, I did see his work > before but that was in class). IR B&W of mainly oak trees. Very nice. It is still > running. So I was sort of aware that this student show -- well, it would reflect on > him as a teacher -- and he is now trying to make part of his income as a teacher. > He's probably semi-retired. > > But I think that also made him a little too harsh sometimes, worrying about how it > would reflect on him. He actually had to call up two people and ask them to come > back for the show (the ones that dropped out last). > > However, I came to see that he was trying. He really wanted to help the students get > better and was basically a giving sort of person. Although the little show helps him > promote himself as a teacher, it was also super nice for us, the students. And he > really enjoyed the fact that we enjoyed it. > > So, hehehehe, the night of our show as I was leaving, I gave him a letter making > suggestions on how he could make his critiques less brutal in the future and > including a critique of HIS show. Hehehehehe. He can critique us, I can critique > him. ;-)I found many of his pictures "too safe." Although undoubtedly good. But > little risk taking. That can be a rut, so I commented on it (without calling it a > rut). I didn't tell him this, but I found his pictures a little too repetitive, > although it may be a factor that he is trying to sell them. I think, after years of > doing stock photography, he is branching out into the "art" realm. > > However, during the class there were also a lot of things I disagreed with too, like > "in wild life shots there should be at least one eye visible." Okay, who's rule is > that??? I can see where that is preferable, but certainly not always achievable. > That's why the deer shot I have in the show is very small, no eye open. It's there, > but closed. Also it's not that great a shot too. > > So, he's good at what he does, he has stuff to offer, but his critiques were too > brutal and in his own work he plays it safe a lot. That anal retentiveness or > perfectionism. I've seen some more interesting things on this list, and most of the > people here are not making a living at it. Of course, that might be why they can > take more risks too. But I figure if you are trying to do "art," you HAVE to take > more risks. > > No word back on the letter yet, although I included my email address. But not really > expecting one either. > > Long reply ended. I learned a lot, but some of it I am definitely rejecting too. > I'll make up a lot of my own "rules." > > Marnie aka Doe ;-) -- "What a senseless waste of human life" -The Customer in Monty Python's Cheese Shop sketch
