I probably shouldn't wade into these waters, but prudence is not always my strong suit.
I think it is very difficult to experience art for what it is, without putting one's "own spin on it." Everybody brings something with them when they view a photograph. (I'll stay away from art in general, which I know even less about than photography!) If they are photographers, it might be that they approach photography from a more graphical point of view, so they are looking at and responding to light, shadow, form, maybe color. Or maybe they respond to symbolism or "what else it is." Or...
Some people respond more viscerally, some more intellectually.
I find that, with most of the general public that I've talked to about my images, much of their take on a photograph is based on their own experience - they've been to the location, or it brings to mind a time in their life, etc. It's rare that they seem to experience photographs for just what they are.
To repeat myself, I'm appreciative those who have been participating in this thread, and I like the breadth of thoughts volunteered. I once attended a workshop that had a critique component to it, and one of the leaders described proper critiquing in pretty much the form William used - observations about the photo, without judgements. I just re-read his post to help me unpackage it, and will do so again. This statement of his is interesting:
"...require a statement of intent to critique whether a photograph is successful or not."
I believe it was in a book by Robert Adams (maybe it came up again in
Art and Fear? or maybe that is in fact where I saw it) where he advocated asking three questions: What was the photographer trying to say? Did they succeed? Was it worth saying? (The last of these always makes me want to throw away all my gear and take up recreational Sudoku.
) But often our photographs are presented in a way that does not allow us to state what we are trying to say, so we have to do the best we can with the photograph itself. I believe that Brett Weston once said something to the effect that he didn't talk about his photographs because the photograph said everything there was to say.
Or maybe we are better off letting the viewer hear whatever
they think the photograph is trying to say...
Bookmarks