I'm ambivalent about the commentaries, too. First let me say that I don't
think Shel was giving anything other than the level of criticism he would
want for his own work. I haven't been involved in any photo critiques
before, but I have participated in writing and art critiques and Shel's
criticism seems entirely in line with what I've experienced and expect in
that type of environment.
That said, good criticism is invaluable, but good criticism is _subjective_
and _relative_. Criticism that is too far ahead or too far behind the level
of the photographer, or based on widely divergent goals for the work in
question is a waste of effort. If your goal is documentary and your critic
is oriented toward art, how do you reconcile that? How do you reconcile
different levels of technical 'awareness' when there isn't any mechanism in
the PUG for making that info available? We may all be using the same brand
of camera, but our purposes can be widely divergent.
The gallery has been fine just the way it is for quite a while. Why not
limit the criticism to those photographers who specifically ask for a
critique with their PUG info?
Dan Scott
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tom wrote:
>I'm a little torn about this whole thing.
>
>If you're going to critique, then you should critique. Don't hold back,
>don't be afraid to hurt someone's feelings, but don't get personal, and
>don't be surprised if your *own* judgment gets called into question.
>
>Shel's comments seemed a bit harsh to me at first glance, but I suspect
>this is only because they were in print. I bet if it were done face to
>face, it wouldn't have come across so harsh. People tend to take things
>so *seriously* when they're in print.
>
>The part that bothers me is that the PUG wasn't really set up as a way
>to have images seriously critiqued. In the past it's just been a way for
>members to share images they liked for some reason. Nowhere on the PUG
>pages does it say that a formal criticism will be undertaken. In the
>past, if no one said anything nice about your submission you could take
>that as a sign that it wasn't very good. If you needed further
>clarification, you could ask for it, like Dan Matyola did a few months
>ago.
>
>Personally, I feel a critiqued gallery will only make for better
>submissions, but I think that means less people will post. I have a
>friend just getting into photography, and if she thought Shel's comments
>were indicative of what she might expect from submitting, she'd never
>post.
>
>That might be a good thing for the quality of the gallery, but I don't
>know that it would be so great for her.
>
>tv
>-
>This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
>go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
>visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
