Wow! This little parable raises so many issues, I don't know where to begin.
I'll likely think about this for a while before responding (if I do choose to respond at all) directly to the initial post. But, at first blush, I think I find Paul's response to be more meaningful to me than the initial parable. It is patently obvious that art (or anything else for that matter) can be criticized by those who aren't practitioners of that particular art or skill. Otherwise, the applause of an audience would mean nothing! Now, it's true that ~meaningful~ criticism may more valuable if it comes from one with knowledge, and one with knowledge is often (but not always or necessarily) one who participates in the endeavor to an extent. That's the reason some of us post photographs here for the criticism and comment of our peers. Knowing many people here as I do, it means much more to me to hear, for better or worse, what list members think of my work. My mother, on the other hand, basically says "that's pretty", or "why the hell would anyone want to look at a coffee machine" (the latter being a direct quote <g>). She doesn't or can't say much more than that, but her criticism is still of some worth. I guess what I'm getting at, is that there are many types of criticism. We value those types of criticism for different reasons. One relevent reason is the knowledge of the critic. Another may be just that the critic likes it without a stated reason. (nothing wrong with getting your ego stroked once in a while - it's an incentive to continue) As I've only recently started showing my work in public, I'll tell a little story. I was sitting at the front of the counter of a cafe in which my photos were displayed, along with some other photographer's work. A patron, who I didn't know, while paying for her coffee, said to the counter person, "I really like those photos in the back" (meaning mine). She didn't elaborate. I was thrilled, because I knew that her comments were unsolicited, and were said without the knowledge that I could hear her, and therefore weren't said "just to make me feel good". So, even though she's not a photographer (I introduced myself, and we chatted a bit), her comments were meaningful. The other thing, of course, is that any artistic endeavour is going to be liked and appreciated by some, but not by others. Any artist understands that, I would think. The "farther out" a piece of art is, the more polarized opinion tends to be, I'd think. Those are my thoughts for now. I'll ponder this some more, and bore you all at a later time with more musings. cheers, frank Paul Delcour wrote: > O well, this brings up a lot. > > The story then states we shouldn't judge work by others unless we can > produce the result we criticised. I do not agree. Any audience can say what > they want about any work, no matter what their skills are in the particular > field. The audience is the aim of the work in most cases, so why should they > not speak their minds and hearts? > > A woman once said she couldn't say anything about a concert, because she > didn't know the first thing about music. My dear lady, I said, please enjoy > the music to your hearts content and let your ignorance play no part in > that. Otherwise nobody would ever be able to enjoy anything anymore. There's > few folk about that can judge a work of art with exceptional knowledge and > experience. > > I remember discussing auditioning for the music conservatory. How do you > judge someone to be musical and make it through to a diploma? There's no one > set of fixed guidelines available. Even in photography no set of rules can > be the perfect judging instrument. Technically two or more photographs could > be close to perfection, but if the composition is not pleasing anyone, what > good are they but perhaps to the maker only? > > Now however, being criticised by someone who thinks he has knowledge and > understanding is terrible. There's no arguing with such a person. Happens in > music a lot, must be so in any form of art. Lately a lady said the choir > sang a hymn too fast as in Germany it was sung much slower. I knew > immediately this was no historic argument, purely a being used to one. I try > to be as open as I can possibly be about what I know and when I simply > don't. But when a choir demands leadership sometimes I have to play > know-all. > > In the end it is only the beholder and the beholder alone who judges > anybodys work. The maker chooses to aim at pleasing the beholder or simply > doing what he or she sees fit to make. And in between lies the whole > fascinating world called life, where as a musician I aim to please, but also > try to fulfill my own musical dreams which may never please anyone but me... > > :-) > > Paul Delcour -- "Hell is others" -Jean Paul Sartre
