How to Critique Properly

[Lucas M]

Is there a kind of 'art' towards giving proper critiques to other pieces of work? By this I mean the using of perfect wording and grammar to create a fluid flow of words streaming down the page leaving a sense of proper order and framework on something that in the end none of us really understands? Or is it an ego thing?
Here is an example from the critique thread recently: 'The curved surface provides a wonderful counterpoint and depicts an example of asymetrical balance to me.' Wonderfully lovely.

[Daniel_Buck]

Some people seem to look deeper into an image than other folks do. I've had people look at some of my photos and pull some real deep words and feelings from them, when honestly they were just a photograph to me (my pictures don't usually have much deep meaning or underlying theme, at least not on purpose anyway). That leads me to believe that some folks really will see and understand something in an image that others don't, even the owner/creator of the image.

Some folks may look for geometric things in the image (like the quote you mentioned) others may look for something a bit more human (emotions, and what not) while others just see a pretty picture (like me most of the time! haha!), maybe some of us aren't mature enough to see farther into the images or maybe that's as far as we want to go, don't want to think about it much and just want to enjoy what we see at hand.

[Struan Gray]

YESSSS!!!!!?=!

Me to!!!!!!!!!!!

Awsum :) :) :)

[John Kasaian]

It helps if the reviewer is getting paid by the word.

[Matthew Runkel]

Your choice of that sentence as an exemplar of good writing underscores the subjectivity of such assessments.

[Bill_1856]

Matthew, you gotta remember that they ALWAYS talk funny in Canada.

[Scott Davis]

That quote would be a prime example of what is known as "artspeak". Not the worst ever, as it is still intelligible, but heading in the same general direction. But I bet if you gave whoever wrote that a couple large glasses of brandy, he (or she) would be able to turn it into gobbledeygook approaching Vogon poetry.

[philbond]

Some people seem to look deeper into an image than other folks do. I've had people look at some of my photos and pull some real deep words and feelings from them, when honestly they were just a photograph to me (my pictures don't usually have much deep meaning or underlying theme, at least not on purpose anyway).

As has sometimes been quipped, "Shakespeare would have failed a course on Shakespeare."

phil

[joseph therrien]

A critique should be an analysis of a work which can include looking at technique or craftsmanship, the artists intention, and whether in the critic's view the artist succeeded in doing what he intended. A critique can also include whether the viewer likes the work or not, but this taken alone should not be considered a critique. Colourful language, if it furthers understanding, can enhance a critique, but too often obscures the fact that the writer does not have anything to say.

[Brian Ellis]

I don't know that it's an "art" because I think the first requisite of a good critique is knowledge, which can be aquired. While there obviously are good critiques and bad critiques a good critique isn't based on "perfect wording and grammar to create a fluid flow of words streaming down the page." That's good writing, not necessarily good critiquing. A relative handful of people, e.g. John Szarkowski, combined the two. But if you want to learn how to critique a photograph I'd suggest reading the book "Criticizing Photographs - An Introduction to Understanding Images" by Terry Barrett. And if you want an example of good critiquing read John Szarkowski's book "Looking at Photographs." And if you want a good critique of your own work attend one of John Sexton's workshops. Just my opinion of course.

[Brian Ellis]

I don't know that it's an "art" because I think the first requisite of a good critique is knowledge, which can be aquired. While there obviously are good critiques and bad critiques a good critique isn't based on "perfect wording and grammar to create a fluid flow of words streaming down the page." That's good writing, not necessarily good critiquing. A relative handful of people, e.g. John Szarkowski, combined the two. But if you want to learn how to critique a photograph I'd suggest reading the book "Criticizing Photographs - An Introduction to Understanding Images" by Terry Barrett. If you want an example of good critiquing read John Szarkowski's book "Looking at Photographs." And if you want a good critique of your own work attend one of John Sexton's workshops. Just my opinion of course.

[Steve Kefford]

Is there a kind of 'art' towards giving proper critiques to other pieces of work?......

Depends upon the ego of the photographer :-).

Steve

[Alan Davenport]

Colourful language, if it furthers understanding, can enhance a critique, but too often obscures the fact that the writer does not have anything to say.

So, telling a photographer that his/her work is redolent of a reeking mound of equine excreta, might be appropriate in some cases? :eek:

[paulr]

I'd stop short of calling criticism an art ... critics don't usually do their best work when burdened with big egos. But it's a serious discipline; one that's been studied in its own right. Anyone who's studied literature or art history in the last couple of decades has had to learn about the various movements in critical theory. They date back to Aristotle, move on through the 19th century philosophers, and include many 20th century practitioners, including T.S. Eliot, Jacques Derrida, John Berger, and Stanley Fish.

A lot of it has to do with the foundations of meaning, which most people make assumptions about without questioning any rigorous way.

I think giving useful criticism starts with asking the artist what (if anything) they'd like to hear from you. There are so many ways to approach an image. You don't want to start psychoanalyzing someone when all they really want is your opinion on the frame they picked. Or vice versa.

[cpeterson]

When I read threads like this on the internet I often wonder if I have a different notion of what "critiquing" art really means.

My experience with art critique, in both giving it and receiving it, usually begins at the conceptual level and moves on from there. Sure, there's always an initial dialogue with the aesthetic qualities of the piece, but I try to wait until I'm beginning to grasp the concept and scope of the work before I open my mouth. And usually, that's difficult to do without some familiarity with the artist and their body of work completed thus far on the topic.

Much critique on the internet is done on a singleton basis -- "I humbly submit this street portrait for Critique by the Group" -- and the feedback that follows usually stays within the safe realm of commentary on the visual form of the piece (the distant sea stack on the horizon really balances the tree in the foreground!) or sometimes refuses to go beyond consideration of technical characteristics (nice tonality, is this stand-developed?).

What I'm coming to terms with is that this is essentially what most hobbyists expect and want. Encouragement, positive feedback, reinforcement that they're doing the right thing. Many of us work in a vacuum, literally a dark cave, and the internet provides some good drive-by commentary under the guise of critique.

My experience at school, though, goes way beyond this. Some of the time, critiques don't give you any sort of resolution; you put half a dozen 16x20's on the wall and say, "this is where I'm going with this project" and in return you get into an intense discussion about the rise of precision manufacturing and the subsequent decline of craftsmanship in household goods, a book recommendation, and a list of photographers and other artists to google. Your audience might be critical about your approach or they might identify a conceptual problem ("it doesn't make sense to traditionally enlarge these glass plates; if you want to exploit irony, have you considered inkjets?").

Bringing it back around now to the OP: How to Critique Properly. While I realize that the intent of the OP might have been to take a swipe at ivory towerism, I've written this long reply here because there does seem to be a general desire among photographers on the internet for Real Feedback or Formal Critique, but few seem to know where to look for it. It isn't enough to shoot, scan and upload; photographers need to take themselves seriously and submit portfolios for shows, to magazines, to galleries, etc. A great way to find qualified people willing to take an in-depth look at your work is to regard yourself as a member of the art community and to seek some exposure under those auspices. Whether the feedback comes forth like smooth wine and fine cheese on opening night or like cheap beer in a pub matters not if it brings you to a heightened vector of thinking and reinforces your creative identity.

At any rate, it's time to begin cooking my contribution to tomorrow night's feast. This post brought to you by the department of too much coffee.

[Rob Champagne]

There's a chapter on "Critiquing Photographs" in "Perception and Imaging" by Richard D Zakia. Its an interesting book worth reading.

But you still have to sift the BS from the genuine critiques by people who know what they are saying.

See "Pseuds Corner (http://www.private-eye.co.uk/sections.php?section_link=pseuds_corner&)" weekly for generic examples.

[paulr]

Much critique on the internet is done on a singleton basis -- "I humbly submit this street portrait for Critique by the Group" -- and the feedback that follows usually stays within the safe realm of commentary on the visual form of the piece (the distant sea stack on the horizon really balances the tree in the foreground!) or sometimes refuses to go beyond consideration of technical characteristics (nice tonality, is this stand-developed?).

What I'm coming to terms with is that this is essentially what most hobbyists expect and want.

Yes, I see the same thing. It can be frustrating when someone submits a picture like this, because it's usually a picture that can't stand on its own ... and even if it could, it would still beg for the context of a body of work.

In school your critiques involved whole groups of pictures. This makes sense ... people can look at them together and get a broad sense of what you're trying to do. Then individual pictures can be discussed in relation to this.

When a single picture gets thrown on the wall in front of people who have no idea where it's coming from, discussion usually gets forced to the most banal possible kind--usually generic technical advice that's completely divorced from what the picture's about ("I think you need to burn the left edge more. And the sky would be cooler if you used a red filter!").

[janepaints]

I have no idea if there's a proper way to critique.

In my experience, I gained the most from critiquing by mentors aka bonafide instructors. The trick is finding and recognizing the right mentor for what you're aiming for. By the senior year of art school I was making very chaotic paintings. Pure color and letting the paint make it's own designs. By senior year each student was required to choose two mentors, and all work would be shown-to and critiqued by only those two.

One of my mentors was a beatnik-type fellow. He'd look at my work and say "cool" or "nah--that ain't happening" but not much else. He was also a musician and often we'd end up jamming together. We became good pals but I don't think I learned much from him.

My other mentor was an old-school classicist. His own work was fine-detailed egg tempera. 'You can see every blade of grass'. He was also a musician--classical piano. So we never jammed :) But he helped me enormously. He didn't care how messy, chaotic or abstract my work was. What he did demand was that I could articulate what I was trying to do--my concept, aims, etc. If the work was in-harmony with my concept, then he thought I was doing ok, even tho it was worlds-away from his own concept & work. (neat photography-link: he'd worked closely & become pals with Eisenstadt via a Time-Life Inc. project--which fact was rarely mentioned, being irrelevant to our relationship--but it seemed pretty cool to me!)

I never liked the round-robin all-the-students-going-at-each-other's work critiques. Too many psycho-emotional factors. Do they hate me? Like me? Envious? Disdainful? Those situations just made me cringe.

I've participated in very few group shows and have refused ALL offers of one-person shows. They give me the willies. I feel like I'm on-display. Besides, what are people gonna say to you at Exhibition Openings? "Gee it's fabulous!." "I Love It!" Nobody is gonna walk up and say "This sucks" Instead, I work with a gallery which exhibits 'salon-style'. Open 6 days a week. When work is done I take it to them and they display it. No 'public persona' business is required of me.

I love what H.L. Menken once said: "If you have any kindly comments about my work please write them on the back of a substantial check." :)

However, there's another critiquing method which I learned a lot from...found it to be very helpful and very sanity-saving. I stumbled upon it by accident.

Just before becoming a painter full-time I was in desperate financial straits. I began to sell stuff at flea markets. Records, books, broken instruments I'd fixed-up. After awhile I included some of my paintings but without any attribution. People could think that they were just old paintings, same as all the other anonymous paintings which fill fleas, yard & rummage sales. I also displayed (and even sold) a few of my photos.

I heard just about every kind of response possible. Most were surely very honest and certainly candid. I heard everything! "Honey, c'mere and look at this piece of crap!"...."Wow, that's lovely"..."Hmmm Cubism!"

I've never painted anything remotely 'cubist.'

and my fave: How much is this painting?

It was such a good experience. It tempered my ego. It made me realize the truth of the maxim "it's none of your business what other people think of you". If somebody thought my paintings stank, they DID stink--for anyone who thought such. Perhaps my fave response was when little kids asked "hey how much is that picture?" If a kid likes something, they just like it--little context or baggage cluttering up their heads. They're acting on emotional/visceral impulses far-removed from the traffic jams of adult notion world. It's like "wow I like mashed potatoes!"--not "I like mashed potatoes because blah blah blah _______________"

It was also a good lesson in monetary matters. When younger, fresh out of art school, I'd read in art journals about the prices paid for 'name' paintings, and thought that some paintings of mine, being kinda similar in style & craftsmanship--read: 'derivative' :)--should therefore be worth the same, and so I priced them accordingly. High. Four figures. And nothing sold. Nada. Zero. Zip.

When I began flea-marketing, I'd recently been laid-off from a graphics job where I worked a 40 hour week and brought home $375 after taxes. So when someone was willing to give me $200 for a painting which had taken me 4 hours to make (and was FUN to make) I was amazed & thrilled & grateful. Heck, I was happy if they gave me $100!

Eventually, I was offered exhibition opportunities from bonafide dealers as a result of showing & selling my stuff at the flea. Word slowly got around. Prices nowadays are much different than back then, but they've grown as a result of What The Market Will Bear, and not from my own opinion of what they're worth.

I had re-learned what I knew instinctively (but had then forgotten) years earlier as a kid punk-rock musician: DIY. Do It Yourself. Take your message right to the people and see if it sticks. If no entrances to the Legit World seems viable, try to invent or find an alternative. Stick to your guns and put your money where your mouth is.

I often wonder about Atget. He marketed his photos as 'documents for artists.' Theoretically painters would buy his photos to copy-from for their paintings. His income may have been meagre, but he managed to keep going for a good long while and left a large & consistent body of work. My take is that he knew his work was wothwhile, that he had a genuine drive and passion to photograph, that he probably wasn't much given to self-analysis or self-consciousness and didn't give two hoots whether he was making 'art' or not. I doubt he was an 'ego-tripper.' I think he was, perhaps, just WAY INTO making photos. Labor Of Love. As long as he could pay the bills and buy more plates, who cared what anybody else thought about what he was doing? Maybe Atget was an idiot savant, or maybe he was a wise & balanced fellow. What do you think?

How many images made by the (many many many) higher-paid & more-fashionable-and-celebrated Parisian photographer-contemporaries of Atget's are still looked-at, discussed or deemed to have artistic merit and lasting worth?

Ars longa, vita brevis (sic?)
The dust sometimes takes its own sweet time to settle.
One never knows, do one?
And even so, it's still a crap shoot.
Lady Luck and Dame Fortune etc.
States of Grace.

[David Karp]

My experience, from three - four pretty good "critiquers" over years, one of them being John Sexton (at a workshop):

Start with something positive. There is almost always something positive you can find in a photo. Be honest. Choose your words carefully. There are many ways to say the same thing. It can hurt, or it can be constructive. No reason to hurt anyone. Always recognize that your critique is your opinion. You are not right, you are not wrong. Be humble about it. Be constructive. Look for something you can learn as well as something to comment on. Photography is both art and craft. Look at both aspects. Try to end on a positive note.

[John Kasaian]

IMHO, criticism has become not an art form but a genre. People love to hear critics haul someone over the coals---its a sickness. To call criticism an art form would be like calling drowning puppies an art form. This genre is confused with the real purpose of criticism which is not to drown puppies but rather to develop better dogs.

[janepaints]

IMHO, criticism has become not an art form but a genre. People love to hear critics haul someone over the coals---its a sickness. To call criticism an art form would be like calling drowning puppies an art form. This genre is confused with the real purpose of criticism which is not to drown puppies but rather to develop better dogs.

There's criticism and then there's criticism. Ya know?

Some of my all-time fave writing is criticism. The music critic Lester Bangs was one. I own the anthologies of everything he ever published.

It matters little whether I know anything about the artists Lester wrote about, or if I like them or not--or if he liked them or not. It's just that he was such a great writer. (or thinker?) He takes ya for a ride and turns on new brain circuits. There are many other writers of cultural criticism who I likewise adore.

But, if by criticism, you're referring to 'critiquing', as it applies in student-mentor-workshop situations, I agree. ESPECIALLY via the net. Clear communication online is prone-enough to misconstrual when the talk is just 'have a nice day!!' I tend towards the 'if you don't have anything good to say, don't say anything at all' path.

We live in American Idol and Donald Trump Please Choose Me times. You suck. You're amazing. I win. You lose. It's brutal and emotionally obscene. Gives me the creeps.

Especially with younger folk, often what is really sought is personal validation. Matters of self-esteem. Everyone desires to feel special in the eyes of others. Being able to give honest & helpful critiques without making the recipient feel small is an art, a skill and, probably, a gift.

I don't know if formal photo-education studies are similar to art programs, but constant and rigorous criticism is par-for-the-course in the art progs. After awhile it rolls off the back. Thicken the skin. Sink or swim and to hell with it. But art students are sort of prepared for it, and it's in 3-D.

It's different for those who are learning/studying informally, catch-as-catch-can or--ESPECIALLY--via gleanings from the web and web forums, where tossed-off sarcasm might be taken as utter scorn or faint praise as accolades.

IMO delving into the printed literature is a good tactic. Libraries are treasure houses. Google and Wiki are only as good as the input.

I've seen questions asked--here on LF Forum for example--whose answers might have been gotten with more certainty and in greater depth via standard photo texts, as well as assuring that the info was accurate & objective. It's also kinder & gentler to see an image, which resembles one's own efforts, dissected negatively instead of having it done to one's own work. Nobody but oneself need ever see the 'wrong photo'. Ya know?

And, via books, few nay-sayers or nit-pickers to daunt one's spirit, imagination or curiosity.

[robert lyons]

this is an interesting thread for me to read ..... as so much has changed in how we see, perceive and use images these past 5 or so years.....in part due to the increased amount of work seen only online. i guess this could be similar to only seeing work in books. as an artist and also teacher of photography at the university level i think it is my responsibility to consider work presented on numerous levels, and often to try and understand the intent of the person making the work. this said ,one can always find a psotive manner in which to begin a crtiique of someone's work...and by implication not all critiques are "bad" ...in fact when someone presents a strong body of work then there is more to discuss, theorize and think about. there are of course some specific criteria which i use to look at work, what level is the person(student) at, are they fluid enough with their technique to accomplish what they hope to with their image making, have i seen the "style" before...etc etc etc.
i believe that it has already been stated but it is important to have a thorough knowledge of theory, craft, and history to offer a complete and insightful critique...and i think ultimately that a critique via the "internet" cannot fulfill all these levels as one cannot see the image firsthand but only a facsimile of it online....nor can you see many images side by side......on a 17" monitor (or bigger one)...
i think it is important to read literature that will offer one a fuller understanding about the genre work might come from.....case in point-last week i went to see a new Jeff Wall show here in Berlin.....in the discussion with my class and others his methodology of practice came up....as how it affescs the "reading" of the images.....for many they thought that the idea of combined imagery and its recent ascent in the photography art world was something "new"....and due in large part to photoshop......but as we know it has been practiced since the beginning of the medium by analog means....to name a few, henry peach robinson, jerry uelsmann and that employing this technique is maybe not as interesting part of the discussion as to "why" he chooses to make images in this manner .......

[robert lyons]

sorry for a few typo's ...not used to the german keyboard as yet...