Hi, > Marnie: >> >>I disagree. All photographs can have criticism applied. How else is one to >>learn? And/or improve? Look at one own' photographs and think how one >>could have >>taken it differently. And have others do the same thing.
> Cotty: > I think that there is plenty of room for criticism in art, and Marnie is > right that any photograph can be criticised. However, it is whether or > not the criticism is heard, or even desired that is the question. Plenty > want it, plenty don't. it is probably as difficult to be a good critic as it is to be a good photographer. David Hurn, who writes so well about photography, is very sound on this subject. In his book "On looking at photographs" he talks at some length about it: "Understand that whether or not you [the critic] like the pictures or not is irrelevant. Gauge the photographer's intent in taking them [...]. Inevitably there will be a discrepancy between the photographs and the ideal images for the stated purpose. Offer guidance and advice on how to get from _here_ to _there_. This advice might be technical or concern issues of presentation or suggestions regarding publication/exhibition. In this way your remarks will be practical, useful and relevant." "Unfortunately the model for a photographic critic is one who pontificates in academic jargon, who professes to possess superior insight, and who cannot communicate in simple, intelligible, vivid prose. [...] Good critics of photography are much, much rarer than good photographers." He goes on for page about what to do, and what not to do. I haven't the time or patience to write it all down now. It's here if you're interested: http://www.lenswork.com/olp.htm Sample pages: http://www.lenswork.com/olpsample.pdf -- Cheers, Bob
