Great Critiques - Critiques from the Great

[Ken Lee]

Did anyone ever get their work critiqued by one of the greats - or did anyone ever get a great critique ?

When I first started with the view camera back in my teens, I asked my teacher Fred Picker (http://www.fredpicker.com) (before the days of Zone VI, when he lived in White Plains, NY) if I should get a critique from any of the (then-living) greats, like Ansel Adams, Brett Weston, Paul Strand, etc. He recommended against it, suggesting that their comments might be too abstract for me to grasp, like "You need more Love in your images".

I took his advice, and have never had a critique, save one, from Barbara Morgan (http://www.temple.edu/photo/photographers/morgan2/index/morgan.html), famous for her photographs of dancers like Martha Graham (http://www.afterimage.com/morgankick.htm). She lived in the same area as Fred, and was gracious enough to look over my "portfolio". She suggested that while I had a good grasp of technical matters, there was room for growth in the area of "lyricism".

They were both right.

[Walter Calahan]

David Hume Kennerly

I was in college. It wasn't pretty.

John Leongard

After college. It wan't pretty.

Since then I've realized don't pay attention to the stars, pay attention to your heart.

[Ash]

I've never had anyone famous critique a photograph I've taken. I've had friends who have been brutal. That was enough to make me want to be a better photographer. A couple professionals have chatted to me over a few neg scans and that has helped too.

I agree with walter. Usually you get a critique and it aint pretty.

I never listened to the crit from the photography tutors at college. I found it was shallow, and didn't help in the slightest. Probably why I stopped turning up to their classes.

[brook]

Not a photographer, but I once payed several hundred dollars for a portfolio review by someone well known in the art buying world. I didnt make a new negative afterwards for at least a year.

[Mark Sawyer]

I've had critiques from a few well-known photographers, but they offered mostly advice on how to be more like them...

I've had critiques from a couple of successful fine-art photography gallery owners. Both suggested I go to digital to speed up the work flow...

I can't say that I've ever had a "great" critique, but the best I've had came from art/photo students who were still at the stage of just being excited about art and photography.

I've often thought the one thing this forum is missing is a place for members to post a piece or portfolio, and hear what others thoughts and feelings about it are...

[Brian Ellis]

John Sexton gives the world's greatest critiques, hands down, no contest, nothing else is even close. His portfolio critiques alone are worth the cost of his workshops.

[David Karp]

He does do a nice job, and all without being an a__.

[tim atherton]

One of the great curators/critics (and also a damn fine photographer) - John Szarkowski has always been been extremely generous and gracious about my work. Honest, encouraging - even enthusiastic. And willing to put up with the annoying references for grant applications every now and then....

[Brian C. Miller]

Interesting, there is an article in the March/April 2007 LensWork about critiques, "Some Comments on Print Commentaries." Brooks Jenson relates how he had some of his photographs critiqued at an Owens Valley Photography workshop taught by Ray McSavaney, Bruce Barnbaum, and John Sexton. Essentially, their critiques boiled down to either they liked it or not. And for every man, there is an opinion.

He thinks that the person making the critique should take the position of a docent, acting as a tour guide of the photograph. Jenson started the example photograph's critique with the photographer critiquing the photograph. So I wrote him a letter:

Hi! I just picked up your April 2007 issue at Glazer's Camera store in Seattle. Your discussion of critiquing photographs is interesting, but then your example is of a photograph which needs to be explained even before it is viewed. Doesn't that defeat the purpose of interpreting the photograph? The viewer's interpretation is now biased. Also, the image on the magazine's page is small, and the details are hard to pick out while riding a Metro bus.
I would prefer that the articles reference the work shown in the magazine, especially illustrating a good critique. The picture should have been critiqued without any initial input from the photographer, like Sister Wendy Beckett's BBC program. Then the critique should have been discussed with the photographer, not directed by the photographer.
What is seen in the photograph is an old woman, sitting down. She holds a stick in her hand, and there is a chicken and a large pot to her right. I can't see if her eyes are open or shut. It is evident that she doesn't have much income, based on the condition of the house. Now, what about the scene? Is the stick used for shooing chickens? Is it some kind of cane? There is nothing that really immediately suggests it's use. Based on her relaxed expression, she seems contented. That's about all that I can glean from the photograph.
And he replied:
Brian,
Thanks for your comments and for thinking about this issue in detail. My only response might be that the photographer himself can also be a docent in the process and help us understand his own image. In this case, his comments add to the discussion about the image -- and that, after all, is the entire purpose of any discussion that introduces words and conversation about a photograph.

[Brian Ellis]

"Brooks Jenson relates how he had some of his photographs critiqued at an Owens Valley Photography workshop taught by Ray McSavaney, Bruce Barnbaum, and John Sexton. Essentially, their critiques boiled down to either they liked it or not."

I've had critiques by all three and that was definitely not the case with any of them. In fact IMHO the hallmark of a good critique is one in which the peson doing the critique never says "I like it" or "I don't like it" or anything along those lines. That kind of a statement made while critiquing is IMHO the mark of an amateur since liking or not liking has nothing to do with the merits of the photograph. Anyone who's interested in critiquing might read the book "Criticizing Photographs" by Terry Barrett. It's the best book (actually I think it's the only book) I've seen on the subject.

[Mark Sawyer]

Interesting, there is an article in the March/April 2007 LensWork about critiques, "Some Comments on Print Commentaries." Brooks Jenson relates how he had some of his photographs critiqued at an Owens Valley Photography workshop taught by Ray McSavaney, Bruce Barnbaum, and John Sexton. Essentially, their critiques boiled down to either they liked it or not. And for every man, there is an opinion.

He thinks that the person making the critique should take the position of a docent, acting as a tour guide of the photograph...

I really don't follow Jenson's statement that, in a critique, "Rather than critic, I would propose a better role- that of docent." To eliminate the very concepts of critic and criticism from the critique is analogous to eliminating the concept of opinions from the editorial page.

I read Jenson's article twice (it's fairly short), and had a differing opinion. A critic of my own work may be acting as a tour guide, but when giving a guided tour of a sewer, the guide should, perhaps, at some point note, "this place smells awful!"

The very word "critique" finds its root in the Latin "criticus" and the Greek "kritikos", literally "able to discern or judge." I think Jenson needs to find another term for the type of discussion he hopes for...

[Merg Ross]

As a teenager, I showed my work on several occasions to Edward Weston at his home in Carmel. It would best be described as a viewing, not a critique. I never arrived with more than fifreen prints and Edward would go through them, in total silence, separating them into two piles. At the conclusion he would point to one pile, always the shortest, and remark, "these I like". It was as simple as that, and an experience that gave me immense confidence.

And then came the real treat, sitting under the skylight looking through stacks of his 8x10 contact prints.

[paulr]

I got a funny and offbeat critique from John Szarkowski ... on my answering machine. He singled out a couple of images. "I think you you should print the one with builboards a little meaner, less luxurious." And, "I like the one with the elm tree and the Pontiacs. I'm starting prefer pictures that are ABOUT something." And that was about it. I kept the message for a long time.

Critques can be incredibly helpful, if you use them as opportunities to see your work better (with the help of someone else's eyes) and not just as validation. Someone saying "I like this" or "I don't like this" doesn't give you much to work with (and who cares if they like it, really?). Mighty famous bigshots aren't necessarily better critics than other people. Sometimes they can be so oppinionated/weird/crotchety that their critiques are terrible. Other times they can be immensely illuminating.

I feel terrible for the people who hinged their entire sense of self worth on validation from Stieglitz. Aparently Stieglitz could give wonderfully nuanced criticism ... but if you caught him on a day when his bowels were acting, it was all but guaranteed that he'd tell you to go to hell and take your worthless pictures with you. He even said he grew to resent how much weight people gave too much weight to his approval.

I think it's important to get feedback from lots of people--famous or not. Tell them what you're looking for, and listen--and know that in each case you're only getting one person's perspective. It might be positive or not, illuminating or not, but it will never be the final word.

[Christopher Perez]

When I was trying to figure out if I should go into engineering or become a working photographer I used to visit various well known photographers around the LA area. I used these meetings to figure out my "chances" of being successful. I would show them my work and think about what they said. In the end, I went into engineering.

Much more recently, a "wheel" in the arts community was at a show I had. The first words out of his mouth were "Weston couldn't have done this any better". While this fed my ego in ways it didn't really need, his comment did nothing to help me get further down the tracks.

The only thing that matters to me now is when someone whips out their wallet to trade money for a print. That's the best critique of all! :) :) :)

[Jim Galli]

I was more than privileged to attend a Barnbaum workshop a year and a half ago. I learned a lot. A LOT!! If you went enough times and kept tweaking after each of Bruce's critiques, eventually, you could learn to make photographs that look exactly like his...

Now why would I want to do that?

In Mr. Barnbaum's defense I'll add, that is why he has 3 instructors at a workshop. There is some balance and I left with a lot more than I came with, but for good or bad, my photo's haven't changed very much.

3 years ago at the "Shooting the West" conference in Winnemucca I paid Al Weber to look through my portfolio. If you ever get the chance, he is one of the best. A positive down to earth guy, and a master.

[John Flavell]

My critique was from one of the greats of photojournalism. I had to buy the beer at a hotel conference about 23 years ago. I had the prints spread out on a big table. He looked them over once, picked one up and swept the other 24 to the floor and put down the one in his hand. "This one. Let's talk about this one".

On the other hand, the general public sees my work everyday and they have no problem at all telling me that they think.

[gregstidham]

On the other hand, the general public sees my work everyday and they have no problem at all telling me that they think.
I used to love standing in line at the supermarket and listen to folks complaining about my latest page 1 photo that pissed everyone off and offended them. :)

A persons opinion of photography and art in general is so subjective. The baggage the viewer takes with them while viewing art; experience, education, level of alchohol, time of day, etc, has a huge influence. Sometimes critiques can do a lot of damage to photographers if taken too seriously. Some nice compliments from others is always nice however. :)

[JW Dewdney]

Critiques, or at least good ones, aren't terribly subjective. If you're finding yourself really angry or upset after a critique - you've probably forgotten to leave your ego at the doorstep... or else the critic did. A really good critique should be structured around your intentions in making an image - and to examine, from as many angles as possible - where you succeeded, and where you failed. Simple as that. A really good critique should inspire, and fire the imagination. It should give you tons of new ideas and new places to take your work. Remember - a critique is not a judgement of your value as a photographer, nor as a human being. It is an evaluation of the expressive success of a given image, within a given context.

I've had only critiques by minor greats. Nothing really too much worth mentioning - but I've had some really good critiques as well. I studied photography in really good school (I was very lucky), as a fine art. The emphasis was not on judgement - and the professors would RARELY critique individual images, or even students work... but would, instead, try to guide the students through formulating their own, unique critical dialogue - helping them through the ego bs and the mistakes and the awkward value judgements - through to a point of being able to find what is really valuable in an image, and help eachother out. It was a GREAT experience in terms of teaching oneself how to talk about images - and how to communicate with eachother about photography.

To my mind, the more you are able to talk openly about your images in a non-judgemental, openly critical way, the better your work will be - and the more comfortable you'll be with discussing and thinking about such matters. It's really amazing to me that many of these forums are so focussed on technology - when we should be talking about images. To me, it's a sign that some work really needs to be done on this front somehow!

[Kirk Gittings]

I had an ongoing critique of my work with Robert Adams that ran many years during and after graduate school. If you know his work and point of view you know he did not like my work though he couched his pointed criticisms in wonderfully literary references. At first as any student would, I took his criticisms personally and modified my vision somewhat to gain his approval. It was not me. Later I understood that he did not understand and would never understand the motivation of my work and that was alright. We remained friends and stayed in contact for many years and he opened some nice opportunities for me. Ultimately he respected me more for doggedly following my own vision than trying to catch that effemeral leading edge of contemporary photography or trying to copy him.

[Ash]

I can't really go to critiques. I'll respect the person's opinion, but like I said before - I won't listen to it.

Unless I'm told over and over that something I do is crap (or the persons views reflect my own niggling paranoia over something) I won't change it. I'll just argue.

[paulr]

- a critique is not a judgement of your value as a photographer, nor as a human being. It is an evaluation of the expressive success of a given image, within a given context.

And it can be broader than that. Or more specific. Some of the most valuable information you can get is someone just telling you what they see. Whether that information leads you to think the image is succeeding or not is really up to you.

A critique can also be about a whole body of work, or an edit for a portfolio or book project, or a sequence for hanging on a wall.

It can be a dialog ... a good critic might end up asking you a lot of questions based on the work. If you're lucky they'll include questions you haven't yet asked yourself.

A good critic should start by asking you what you're looking for. There are many ways to look at work, and many ways an image or edit can succeed or fail. A critic will do you no good if they pick apart your work as if it's in final form, when you're just showing some beginning ideas. Or if they start psychoanalysing you when you just want to know if you picked the right color matboard.

[John Flavell]

Minor White describes in the Polaroid book how the critic is brought into the process of making photographs. It's a damn interesting monologue about the process. Because Polaroid offered was then considered the instant photograph, he liked the idea of the photographer, the subject, and then the critic trading off the control of when the shutter is released.

Also, there's the timing of everything, along with the effect of time. For examle: I made a news picture of a woman on the ground crying while her house burned. A firefighter standing next to her reached out and touched her in comfort. I selected the final edit based on what I thought would best give the reader the story.

Two years later, I show the photograph to a friend of mine and said, stupidly, "isn't that a great photo?" She said, "no, it's terrible." After two years, I thought of the photograph as a good photograph based on being a photograper. I had lost the perspective. My new critic saw the story told in the photograph, regardless of the time that had passed. I take that with me when I make photographs these days.

Here's a lighter critque. A photograph made for my newspaper made it's way into USA Today, which in some places is sold next to my newspaper in stores. Two nice, elderly men were looking at both newspapers. One told the other that the same photograph was in both papers. The other ponmted at the USA Today and said, "look, from the same name." The first one jabbed his finger into my newspaper several times and said, "NO!, it's another damned mistake".

Critics are lovely people.

[Jim Ewins]

Brian, A.D. Coleman has several books on the subject.

[Mark Sawyer]

Or... maybe... rather than critiquing the critique, one should just accept whatever is said as what it is: what the observer has to offer. I'd rather hear in honest "I do/don't like it" than an exercise in how to sound like an artistically-correct, non-critical critic...

[Barry Trabitz]

I had the opportunity to have John Sexton critique my prints. This was when he was Ansel Adams assistant at the Yosemite workshop in about 1980. At the time I was printing from 35mm negatives.

John really LOOKED at all 20 or so prints. Then he asked me what I was looking for with each image. Only then did he talk about what the images meant to him. Toward the end of the hour and a half we spent together he asked me if I was aware that most of my prints had a "style". Of course I hadn't a clue, but he showed me things in my own prints that I never would have even known existeD.

Never once was there a comment of "this is good or this is bad". Yes he did offer suggestions for technically improving the prints "within my intrepretation of what they were saying". His final suggestion, with a smile, was "get a view camera".

Barry Trabitz

[Colin Graham]

The more stories I hear about John Sexton, the more I respect him. Seems like a genuinely decent guy. He's even a subscriber over at APUG...
Personally, I've never even met another photographer, let alone a famous one! I feel so sheltered! :-D

[David Karp]

He really is a very good teacher. I came away from his workshop a much better printer than I was before I got there. The first print I did afterward was dramatically better than my portfolio prints that I took to the workshop.

One night he said that he and Anne Larsen would look at any prints that anyone brought with them for as long as we wanted, after the workshop session was over. I was the only one who stayed! It was a great opportunity and very helpful. I can't believe that I was the only one who stayed. My notes from that workshop are a very valuable resource.

[Bill_1856]

My favorite story about critiques is that Paul Caponigro once showed some prints to Paul Strand. Strand, who is said to never mince words, told him that his blacks were too black and without sufficient detail. Can you imagine anyone saying that about a Caponigro print? Anyhow, without bothering to discuss it farther, ("that's the way I visualized it, you blind old goat"), Paul just packed up his prints and left without saying a word.
I hope the story is true.

[Vaughn]

Yes, quite a few times. Always helpful, occasionally painful.

This discussion of critiques reminded me of a quote by Peter Britt, a photographer of Southern Oregon in the 1800's. A young daughter of a saloon-keeper complained about her portrait he had taken. He repied, "Miss, if you want a beautiful face, you must bring one with you."

Vaughn