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.