View Full Version : the role of harsh criticism......
Kirk Gittings
10-Aug-2011, 09:48
from another thread about an upcoming workshops:
there will not be harsh criticism to bolster
egos, but we will gather to exchange ideas and nurture our creativity
IME harsh criticism is not always about bolstering egos. Sometimes it is a necessary kick in butt-like shock therapy. Nobody appreciates it in the short run, but I for one have, down the road apiece, swallowed my pride and learned allot from well intentioned but harsh criticism.
You?
I have on occasion (rarely), after much patience, resorted to harsh criticism of a couple my assistants and also some students of mine at SAIC, who were very talented but incredibly lazy. I figured I owed it to the student's parents who were shelling out mucho $s to go to the school. In a few of these cases they came back to me years later and said how much the criticism had meant to them and literally had turned their lives around.
Robert Brummitt
10-Aug-2011, 10:11
I remember getting a harsh critique from Arnold Newman back in '86. That was my third year in photography. I remember him asking what I wanted to do and what I was doing currently. I answered that I was working for a professional color lab and wanted to critique of what I was showing.
"Well, stay in the lab because photographers need good printers for their work"
Ouch!
Later, I sat by myself over lunch when John Sexton sat with me. He asked why I looked so gloomy. I told him what had been said and he smiled and said not to worry. Arnold can be a little rough to young photographers. He's just preparing you for what galleries or what others will say.
You can't please everyone, all the time.
Alan Gales
10-Aug-2011, 10:18
Kirk,
I agree with you 100%. Sometimes the truth hurts. When my daughter was 9 she was the best pitcher in her CYC league. At age 10 she made a select team but not as a pitcher. The coach said that she was not good enough which was the truth. She did not throw hard enough and was not accurate enough. It took her a year of training and hard work before she was even allowed to pitch on a select team.
Today we want everyone to be a winner and everyone to feel good!
W K Longcor
10-Aug-2011, 10:44
I guess you first have to decide "how harsh is harsh" -- and what are the circumstances. An amature with a phot of the kids -- "isn't that cute!" -- and leave it at that. Beyond that, we should all temper our critiques with an attempt at understanding the desires of the photographer.
My freshman year at RIT ( Back then, classes were held in a cave and we fought off saber tooth tigers). I had a basic photography class with Les Strobel -- an all around great guy and wonderful teacher. He always started off with something positive to say about your work. "A great concept or idea!" -- then he could tear your work to shreds -- and make you feel good about it!
My junior year, I had a studio photography class taught by several local professional photographers. These guys knew we were going to be facing far greater critics in the real world that we ever faced in school. Abe Josephson, had a way of telling you that what you handed in was a piece of crap ("take this back and redo it -- I won't accept crap like that from you! -- You can do better!") He would then take time to enumerate ALL that was wrong with your work. At the time he irked me no end -- but I am so thankful for the learning experience.
I taught photography in a professional art school for a number of years -- most ( but not all) of my students got the Strobel technique of critique. A few, who were aiming at working in the photo business got the Josephson critique.
One young lady who came to my class thinking she was a top photographer got it extra harsh. "How dare I give her a C- ? She ALWAYS got A's on her work before! A few years after she was out in the business, I ran into her. I got a big hug and kiss and a thank you for being so blunt. She said she never would have made it without the harsh crituque.
All that said --- how harsh should anyone be with a fellow LF forum menber. I'm guessing most here are NOT in the profession - but are here for the enjoyment. Maybe we should employ a set of special icons that members can use -- one for no critique want. Another for "please be kind". And, finally, "Tell ME! I want to learn!"
Jeffrey Sipress
10-Aug-2011, 10:47
"there will not be harsh criticism to bolster egos".
What? Isn't it the opposite? Either way, what's ego got to do with it. It's a learning experience.
Totally agree Kirk. Sometimes it's self inflated egos that are the problem and an inabilty to criticise ones own work. I've seen two cases at workshops where photographers recived very harsh criticism, which was from all concerned workshop leaders and participants.
In one case a very rich photographer presented an immaculate portfolio, but each image was an emulation of a well known master, no originality or anything of his ownpersonality, quite sterile nice images. He accepted the criticism well.
The other case was a highly competent portrait photographer who was torn to shreds for his landscapes. He's actually a friend and stopped all personal work after the criticism and turned to a new hobby, while still working as a social photographer (weddings and portraits).
Ian
In terms of academia, given that the parties are known and responsible, I think it can be entirely appropriate, if not necessary – at times. But it is a fine line. In the present generational climate of everyone's a winner, everybody gets a trophy: "Danger, danger, Will Robinson!"
I consider anything except velvet handed criticism in workshops and (internet forums) to be a trap. Those ostensibly seeking criticism are often in reality looking for approval. Brevity can be confused to easily with honesty and intention. It is difficult to discern relevant criticism from anonymous wanna–be's with untested opinions.
Kirk Gittings
10-Aug-2011, 11:36
Those ostensibly seeking criticism are often in reality looking for approval.
Boy ain't that the truth!
msk2193
10-Aug-2011, 11:39
from another thread about an upcoming workshops:
IME harsh criticism is not always about bolstering egos. Sometimes it is a necessary kick in butt-like shock therapy. Nobody appreciates it in the short run, but I for one have, down the road apiece, swallowed my pride and learned allot from well intentioned but harsh criticism.
Perfect, 100% in agreement.
There is no more useful critiscism than truthful harsh critiscism. It can help you see through your own lies to the real you within. The best photography communicates from that place.
For example Edward Weston photographed and printed peppers and shells from that deep personal space, I dont think he cared what we think about them, at least not when he was making them anyway, and they are uniquely his. Few people manage to communicate as truthfuly and beautifuly. You can see the same true self in Sudek's work for example, and Paul Caponigro too. In fact Caponigro sayes that himself, to be a good photographer one must understand and work on ones emotions. Is there anyone else who made his white deer or mouldy peach?
Sincerely helping people to see reality is helping them to be better people and photographers.
Jay DeFehr
10-Aug-2011, 11:54
A harsh, but well intended critique by an acknowledged expert/master is one thing, an unsolicited and dubiously intended critique by a peer is another. If I'm paying someone to educate me, I consider candy coating an insult. If I'm sharing my work with peers, I consider unsolicited critique on a case by case basis, but with some degree of trepidation. Regarding the critique of works here, I generally follow the if-you-don't-have-something-nice-to-say-don't-say-anything rule, because A) I don't think many here are interested in my opinion, and B) why should they be? I'm not expert or accomplished, or even educated. When I like something, I sometimes comment because I don't think most people care about my credentials if I like their work, and it might encourage them in some way.
David R Munson
10-Aug-2011, 11:55
Harsh criticism is one thing, but I think the distinction needs to be made whether or not the criticism is fair. Something that is harsh but fair may be hard to swallow at first, but obviously can be very, if not critically valuable down the road. Criticism that is harsh and unfair may just embitter and agitate without good cause. There are a lot of people in the art world who know their shit and give you the straight dope, whether it's delivered tactfully or not, and there are people who are just dicks. Honest opinion from informed individuals I welcome; unnecessary abuse from assholes I can do without.
I am reminded of every description of Clarence White I have ever read; which is that he was always kind but managed to teach what needed to be taught.
I have taught surgery for 30 years and I have always regreted when I have been unkindly harsh.
A few students will come back to thank you for harshness.
A few students will give up and abandon the discipline.
But I always feel I have failed as a teacher, if I have to fall back on harshness and can not find another way to teach the student what I need to teach them.
Harsh criticism is one thing, but I think the distinction needs to be made whether or not the criticism is fair.
It should also be something that the artist can act on. In other words, be more than just a judgement. "This Sucks!" may be both harsh and fair, but doesn't give the recipient anywhere to go besides out of the room, tail between legs.
I got a great piece of harsh criticism from my mentor in college. I'd recently started using a 4x5, was just learning how to print, and was discovering all the requisite, hackneyed pictures for beginners with big cameras: old weathered barn doors, etc. etc..
I was used to going to this guy for advice like "less contrast, burn the corners, darken the sky, bla bla bla" but I cought him in a mood with some barn picture and he said, "look, the print's fine but why are you showing the world another picture like this? What's it about? Why the f___ should anybody care about this?"
It was the zen slap I needed. I had gotten so myopic thinking about details that I was ignoring the possibility of more important questions. He later appologized for snapping at me, and I didn't accept the apology ... I just thanked him for saying what needed to be said.
Kirk Gittings
10-Aug-2011, 13:49
It was the zen slap I needed.
:)
A few students will come back to thank you for harshness.
A few students will give up and abandon the discipline.
But I always feel I have failed as a teacher, if I have to fall back on harshness and can not find another way to teach the student what I need to teach them.
Hear, hear! Speaking as a professionally trained teacher, but (only) an amateur photographer, I could not agree more.
I taught music for years. I found that what most music students learned from harshness was resentment towards the teacher, and not how to perform better. They knew when they were not playing well.
On the other hand, however good or bad they had just played; if I said "OK, now let's do it again, but better", and showed or told them how, they always wanted and tried to do it better the next time.
Maybe photographers are different ...
However if Mr Joe Average music talent went to Yehudi Menhuin for instruction, the kindest thing would be to tell him to piss off and try something else. Photography maybe.
Harsh and mean are two different things. When a person gives a negative assessment in isolation, with no suggestions for improvements, that's mean.
On the other hand, with appropriate stimulus, a negative can be a great and long-remembered learning experience.
When I taught photography I was well-known for being quite blunt, and some may have noticed that tendency on this forum. :D If the student appeared to be honestly trying to accomplish the task, my criticism was followed by some positive suggestion(s). If not... I could be accused of being mean.
- Leigh
Without hearing the criticism of others you would never learn to be critical of your work, which is what you need to grow as a certain type of artist.
On the other hand, that's not enough. You also need a mentor. The mentor doesn't have to be the one to dole out the criticism.
But another type of artist lives on ego, and would not be helped (and might not be harmed either) by criticism.
Brian Ellis
10-Aug-2011, 17:33
I don't know exactly what "harsh" means in this context. All I think anyone can legitimately ask for is an honest critique. That doesn't mean rude or cruel for the sake of rudeness or cruelty. It just means honest and if the honesty hurts well that's the risk one takes when having work critiqued.
John Sexton gives the best critiques I've sat through in the 15 or so different workshops I've attended and in the various college photography courses I've taken. I don't think anyone would reasonably come away from his critiques feeling that they've been abused or having their feelings hurt but they'd still certainly learn a lot. It's just a question of how one goes about conducting the critique.
Tony Karnezis
10-Aug-2011, 17:35
But another type of artist lives on ego, and would not be helped (and might not be harmed either) by criticism.
It reminds me of an interview with Branford Marsalis.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rz2jRHA9fo
Bill Burk
10-Aug-2011, 17:52
...which was from all concerned workshop leaders and participants....
Hope I'm not so bad that it becomes everyone' concern.
Frank Petronio
10-Aug-2011, 18:00
I attempt to reserve my bile for this forum and in real life try to always make it constructive criticism. Except when I've had sleeping-skipping students, whom I totally abuse within an inch of their calling the cops. I basically want them to drop the class as early as possible.
Framing the critique with questions back to the students works well.
An artist friend asked me to critique her illustration portfolio and she changed careers as a result. It wasn't easy but it was a good move, she wasn't going to ever get a commercial illustration job.
What really gets me are the kids who won't shoot because they can't afford lights - ProFotos at that - or painters who won't paint unless they can work on 8' media. Such a load of crap.
But as a student, I have to admit that a lot of the professors' criticism that I got was bad or pointless. Because they were lousy professors and artists themselves. The first important thing is to wisely choose who's best to criticize you... some dipstick's rant is going to hurt you.
Dan Fromm
10-Aug-2011, 20:17
Kirk, when I was in grad school seminars had two rules.
The first was in two parts: In the seminar, go for the jugular. After the seminar, go for the beer.
The second was: Criticize the work, not the person.
Unfortunately some of us couldn't separate criticism of our ideas from criticism of ourselves. I've always found unsparing criticism that got to the heart of things necessary but delivering it so that the recipient will find it helpful and act on it hasn't always been easy.
Kirk Gittings
10-Aug-2011, 20:42
So true.
One of the best experiences I had was going to Fotfest many years ago, and getting a 20 minute critique from everyone and their mom. I sat across from curators of major and minor art museums, editors of major and obscure magazines, gallery reps from New York, California, Canada, Israel, and Peru, art critics, and (for some reason) George Krause.
The range of responses I got was amazing: love, hate, deep understanding, deep misunderstanding, total befuddlement, curiosity, boredom, and versions of the ever-popular, "I'm not sure what I'm looking at, so I'm going to fill up this time by saying something that sounds smart."
I ended up with a few insights about my work, but the most valuable insights were about critiques. It became balzingly clear that I'm me, the work is the work, and the other person's reactions are the other person's reactions. All are valid, and all are separate from each other. Completely.
No one has the power to either validated or invalidate the work. Not your teacher, not the ghost of Stieglitz. One person, one vote. If you're super lucky, someone will tell you something you can learn from.
Oh, one other rule I have for giving a critique: make sure it's welcome. I don't ever want to volunteer a critique unless someone's asking for it. In exchange for such a surprise gift, someone might volunteer a punch in the nose.
I go a step further and try to ask what the person's looking for from the critique. I don't want to get into anything heady or personal if they just want help picking the right molding for the frame.
Brian K
11-Aug-2011, 04:18
I remember getting a harsh critique from Arnold Newman back in '86. That was my third year in photography. I remember him asking what I wanted to do and what I was doing currently. I answered that I was working for a professional color lab and wanted to critique of what I was showing.
"Well, stay in the lab because photographers need good printers for their work"
Ouch!
Later, I sat by myself over lunch when John Sexton sat with me. He asked why I looked so gloomy. I told him what had been said and he smiled and said not to worry. Arnold can be a little rough to young photographers. He's just preparing you for what galleries or what others will say.
You can't please everyone, all the time.
Arnold, harsh? Never!! :) The first day I worked for him, around 1976 or 77, he said to me," If I ever see you handle a negative or print without gloves, you're fired! If I ever see you carrying any liquids near a magazine or book I'm published in, you're fired! What a pussycat.
I don't think he was preparing you for the harsh realities of the gallery world, he was just a tough SOB with very high standards. But I learned an awful lot about standards from him and others like him. And while I was more tactful and thoughtful with my assistants, I was every bit as demanding. And whatever success I earned was because of that.
And in regards to harshness of criticism, every exceptional photographer I know is brutally hard on themselves and is rarely satisfied with their work.
Brian K
11-Aug-2011, 04:37
from another thread about an upcoming workshops:
IME harsh criticism is not always about bolstering egos. Sometimes it is a necessary kick in butt-like shock therapy. Nobody appreciates it in the short run, but I for one have, down the road apiece, swallowed my pride and learned allot from well intentioned but harsh criticism.
You?
I have on occasion (rarely), after much patience, resorted to harsh criticism of a couple my assistants and also some students of mine at SAIC, who were very talented but incredibly lazy. I figured I owed it to the student's parents who were shelling out mucho $s to go to the school. In a few of these cases they came back to me years later and said how much the criticism had meant to them and literally had turned their lives around.
There's harshness, which to me reflects a more personal and almost derogatory manner, and there's simple honest, uncolored, productive criticism. The problem is that for some people the latter seems harsh.
I used to give critiques of work on various photo web sites. Bad idea. Most of the web sites are populated with hobbyists and they are not accustomed to the type of criticism that is common, in fact daily, in the professional area. I used to get a lot of heat for being so harsh and brutal when all I was being was honest and trying to be helpful. They just wanted to hear how awesome their work was. Because of that I just stopped doing it.
I had been mostly a still life photographer, a specialty that had perhaps more pressure related to creating perfect images than any other. After all in a still life you have total control over the creation of the image and it's contents, so there are no excuses, i.e. shooting burgers for fast food chains, the sesame seeds are individually glued on the bun while viewing the image through the 8x10, so that each seed is in exactly the right place. Corn flakes, peas, rice, etc were picked individually, you needed a single strawberry you bought 10 cases and picked through them all. My most commonly used photography tools were dental instruments.
The process would involve shooting a polaroid, examining it very closely, determining all it's flaws, then fixing them. Then shooting another polaroid and doing the same process again and again until no flaws were visible. On some shoots there would be 40 or 50 polaroids taken of the same exact scene, with this careful dissection happening on all of them. So surgical criticism becomes the norm. This does not work on someone's workshop images as most often they do photography for fun, not for an ego crushing experience. But if they ever want to be able to seriously master their craft, they need to hear honest criticism.
David R Munson
11-Aug-2011, 07:45
The more I think about it, I think "harsh" is not the right word. I'm still struggling to find the correct word, though. I'll get back to the discussion if I come up with anything...
Eric Biggerstaff
11-Aug-2011, 08:54
I have had a lot of critiques over the years and in general the best are those who find both good and bad in the work and then provide direction to make things better. I tend to find the best come from peers whose work I respect and I have found over the years that "workshop" critiques are a bit softer as the instructor has to balance the review with the fact he/she wants repeat business. Don't get me wrong, I have learned a great deal from the pros whose work I admire and whose workshops I have attended but I just know it is a balancing act. (The exception may be Bruce Barnbaum from what I understand but I have not attended his workshops, but I would love too)
I am part of a small group of local photographers and we meet each month to review each others work and talk shop. I respect each members work and direction and I listen to their feedback. There is no economic incentive and we can be pretty "harsh" which I define as very honest with what we see. All of us have different visions and different interests and different levels of experience, but I think we all respect each other and feel free to critique on a very open level. We all find good in some prints and not so good in others, and we support each other by offering honest reasons why some images work and others don't. If we were looking for an ego trip then most of us would not last long in the group.
I think the key is that the person whose work is being reviewed must respect the person and their work who is doing the reviewing. If there is no respect, then ego's can be damaged and not much good comes from it. A good "harsh" review from someone you admire can be a very good thing, but there is an art to being "harsh".
rdenney
11-Aug-2011, 11:00
"Harsh" is the wrong word, because it is hyperbolic in any context. It's never good to be harsh.
I think the intent here is to be honest and direct, with as much bluntness as is necessary to penetrate poor receptivity. Sometimes, penetrating a poorly tuned receiver requires the application of a hammer, but creating a loud enough signal to penetrate a poor receiver is a different problem than providing an honest and direct assessment of the work. I know a college professor who was not getting through to one his grad students during a meeting in his office, and he pulled a hammer out of a desk drawer, pounded the top of his desk with a loud thwack! and then hollered "No!" The student became quite attentive after that, and the professor could critique the student's work in normal and even friendly tones after that.
Notice that even that technique wasn't harsh criticism. A harsh criticism is being unpleasantly severe about the work. The teacher did not confuse the critique of the work with the technique needed to force the student to listen to the critique. Those are separate problems with separate solutions.
And when critiquing the work, I'm not sure harshness is useful, once the student is paying attention. Arnold Jacobs, who was famous among orchestral wind musicians for his pedagogy, once told a student (who came to him after being unsuccessful in a string of auditions) that he communicated much more effectively with words than with music. The student became a (successful) journalist and author. That is not harsh. Telling the student that his music is a waste of the listener's time and to find another line of work would be harsh. And would that accomplish anything more than the first critique? One hopes not.
I would never try to get a student to drop a class by the passive-aggressive approach of making their life miserable. Why not just pull them aside and tell them what they have to do to avoid getting an F, and then if they don't do it, give them an F? I try to treat people like grownups even when they don't act like it, because often doing so encourages them to grow up. Those who don't can learn to live with the F.
The professors and teachers who sparked the biggest effect in me were those who set a high standard, and then who encouraged me to push myself beyond that standard. If we can't articulate that standard, should we be teaching?
I am a mediocre musician, but I have studied with top performers. They have always asked me what I hoped to achieve by studying with them, and I've always been clear about my objectives (which did NOT include getting a pro gig). None of them were ever harsh, but they all were honest and direct and my time was well spent. Some of what I learned 25 years ago I still am trying to apply, and I call that money well spent for three or four lessons from one guy. I never put a teacher in the position of having to be blunt to get my attention.
The sort of "nice guy" opposite of being harsh also dishonest. But these are not the only two choices.
Rick "suspecting harshness of critique might demonstrate gaps in the pedagogical toolbox" Denney
Merg Ross
11-Aug-2011, 12:42
Turning things around, it is interesting how much can be learned from the work one is critiquing. I have found this often to be the case when asked to evaluate the work of the very young, before they have been exposed to a lot of work by the "masters". I am speaking of those at the junior high and high school level. Their vision is fresh, and the critic can sometimes also derive benefit from the session. I consider the process as a two-way street. It can become more difficult with the older student, who might have different expectations.
On the subject of age, anything "harsh" to a beginning student can put them off photography forever. This is to be avoided; perhaps suggest a different crop, or an improvement of technique, but never,never, make negative comments.
Kirk Gittings
11-Aug-2011, 13:17
Merg, with all due respect I agree in principle on aesthetics, but what do you do with students who are talented but incredibly lazy, or dishonest. My experience comes largely from teaching college art students (rather than adult workshops) for the last 20+ years and sometimes you just have to cut through the BS and call them on their s**t.
rdenney
11-Aug-2011, 13:48
Merg, with all due respect I agree in principle on aesthetics, but what do you do with students who are talented but incredibly lazy, or dishonest. My experience comes largely from teaching college art students (rather than adult workshops) for the last 20+ years and sometimes you just have to cut through the BS and call them on their s**t.
Agreed. But it's the laziness you are calling them on, not the aesthetic sense.
One of the arts of teaching is understanding the underlying issues and addressing them directly, in addition to presenting a specific requirement for work done. Musicians, however talented musically, must still learn their scales if they are to develop the technique needed to bring that talent to life.
Rick "an adult educator who thinks lots of adult learners are even lazier than college kids, and less willing to expand past their preconceptions" Denney
Brian K
11-Aug-2011, 14:29
I critique work based on the level and aspirations of the person seeking the critique. Someone dead serious on making photography a career, who has already studied photography a great deal and has reasonable experience gets a tough critique. A kid starting in photography with little or no background and no immediate desire for this as anything more than fun, gets a very easy critique.
The problem as i see it now is that there are so many photographers with little or any real experience who think they already "got it" and are not open to any criticism or room for improvement on their work. This can be kids starting out or adults with too much self esteem and not enough ability.
Kirk when i taught at SVA I told my students that their entire grade was based on their portfolio and if they were so much as one day late with it, they failed. I also gave them tough criteria for their work, no black backgrounds, no shooting the same shot from a different angle, no shooting the same subject twice, etc. it was a studio class so all the shots had to be set ups. That's how you weed out the lazies......
Kirk Gittings
11-Aug-2011, 14:41
I critique work based on the level and aspirations of the person seeking the critique. Someone dead serious on making photography a career, who has already studied photography a great deal and has reasonable experience gets a tough critique.
I agree.
Drew Bedo
12-Aug-2011, 06:12
I sought out a critique group to help me grow as a photographer. We bring in two matted images and have a different local juror come in each month and evaluate our images. Each year we do a portfolio critique. We bring in a portfolio of 145-20 images for review. There are 5-7 evaluators from the local art community (Houston). We do 15 min sessions with them in turn. The group is a club and we get the judges to volunteer their time.
Critical review is always valuable . . . even if it is negative. Even if you do not agree with the remarks, you can get a feel for how someone may misunderstand your work. Group critique with other photographers is also good in that you get to see your work along with that of others.
Whatever the venue, shelter your ego and listen to what is said. There may be a jewel to take home in the remarks.
Duane Polcou
15-Aug-2011, 00:16
Whatever the venue, shelter your ego and listen to what is said. There may be a jewel to take home in the remarks.
The only photographer from whom I have solicited criticism is John Sexton. I was the technical rep for Edwal Chemistry for awhile in the 90's and John was working at the Light Impressions booth across the aisle from ours at the Photo East show in NYC. I walked over with a box of contact printed 4x5's and asked for his opinion. He actually took considerable time to point out which shots he liked but remarked that for proofs, they were printed with way too much contrast. They needed to be "soft" to see all the negative had to offer. It took awhile to sink in, but he was right. 15 years later every time I scan or proof a negative I still remind myself of that, and resist the temptation to crank up the contrast from the get go.
Brian Ellis
15-Aug-2011, 09:01
The only photographer from whom I have solicited criticism is John Sexton. I was the technical rep for Edwal Chemistry for awhile in the 90's and John was working at the Light Impressions booth across the aisle from ours at the Photo East show in NYC. I walked over with a box of contact printed 4x5's and asked for his opinion. He actually took considerable time to point out which shots he liked but remarked that for proofs, they were printed with way too much contrast. They needed to be "soft" to see all the negative had to offer. It took awhile to sink in, but he was right. 15 years later every time I scan or proof a negative I still remind myself of that, and resist the temptation to crank up the contrast from the get go.
As I mentioned in a previous message in this thread, of the many many critiques I've had, some from well-known photographers at workshops, some from photographers not well known, some from art college faculty, some from working commercial photographers, some from friends, John's were the best for me. I think his critiques alone are worth the price of his workshops.
Asher Kelman
15-Aug-2011, 09:44
Merg, with all due respect I agree in principle on aesthetics, but what do you do with students who are talented but incredibly lazy, or dishonest. My experience comes largely from teaching college art students (rather than adult workshops) for the last 20+ years and sometimes you just have to cut through the BS and call them on their s**t.
I critique work based on the level and aspirations of the person seeking the critique.
These are like a double bladed shutter for getting through. The first argument qualifies the process. Is it going to be worthwhile engaging further? The second calibrates the feedback. The enjoyable part for myself in critiquing is to appreciate the vast realm of ideas, styes and techniques in modern photography. It informs and stimulates my own work and educates me. More often than not, I'm humbled by the work of others and I learn more than I give.
Asher
Chuck Pere
16-Aug-2011, 07:06
For you teachers, is how to give criticism covered in your education? It would seem like an important subject for any teacher.
For you teachers, is how to give criticism covered in your education? It would seem like an important subject for any teacher.
I'm not a teacher ... just wanted to mention that all my friends with MFAs spent the better part of two years in a workshop environment giving and getting criticism. If the programs teach anything, they teach that.
A good number of MFAs also fund some of their education by teaching undergrad classes. No one ever taught them how to do so, but they share notes out of a sense of panic and they all get their trials by fire.
rdenney
16-Aug-2011, 09:12
A good number of MFAs also fund some of their education by teaching undergrad classes. No one ever taught them how to do so, but they share notes out of a sense of panic and they all get their trials by fire.
It was that way when I was in school, too, but at least in engineering the accreditation organizations have been clamping down on this practice, and rightly so. Ph.D. assistant professors are bad enough.
I really think grad students ought to learn to teach with other grad students, under supervision. The utter lack of training in how to teach is one reason why those assistant professors are so bad. Some learn in those trials by fire and some don't--and become bad professors that are nevertheless considered successful if they bring in research money. Maybe it's not that bad in art programs.
Rick "who gave and got plenty of criticism--most of it dreadful--in college art and architecture classes" Denney
Kirk Gittings
16-Aug-2011, 09:21
Rick, also some of the best teachers I ever had were PHD and MFA candidates who were not taught how to teach. They were simply passionate about their field and cared about their students. If being taught how to teach actually makes a difference explain my experience in high school.
rdenney
16-Aug-2011, 09:29
Rick, also some of the best teachers I ever had were PHD and MFA candidates who were not taught how to teach. They were simply passionate about their field and cared about their students. If being taught how to teach actually makes a difference explain my experience in high school.
Well, that's an exceptionally good point. But I was thinking not of educating them how to teach, but rather training them how to teach. The former spends its time in educational theory, much of which is bogus or unrealistic (or will not be understood well enough to apply properly), while the latter is just practicing it under the watchful eye of an experienced teacher.
(The old joke goes that if your high-school kid came home talking about being enrolled in a sex education class, you might be a little concerned but you'd live with it. But if the kid was enrolled in a sex training class, your response would be different. Education is about knowing, training is about doing.)
There are certainly people with the natural ability to teach well, and when they become teachers, they often really excel (if the education establishment doesn't ruin them). But they represent the ceiling, and my comments were concerned with the floor--those without that natural ability but who could be at least competent with a little training.
Rick "a trained and experienced adult training teacher" Denney
Probably not for medical school, which is a never ending source of frustration for me. But there are workshops and courses for those who search them out and they offer real insights into the different tools that can be used to help students learn. Honestly though few instructors do, particularily if the teaching is not the major part of the job.
I have catalogued the descriptive words used in this thread for what writers have said they valued: meaningful, truthful, well intended, fair, blunt, honest, constructive, unsparing, uncoloured, productive, direct, tough.
None of these are synonyms for harsh, which might be: acerbic, biting, caustic, cutting, dry, harsh , hateful, hurtful, mordant, nasty, offensive, sarcastic, sharp, stinging, trenchant, vitriolic
Antonyms might be courteous, kind, nice, polite.
QUOTE=Chuck Pere;764643]For you teachers, is how to give criticism covered in your education? It would seem like an important subject for any teacher.[/QUOTE]
Jim Graves
16-Aug-2011, 16:25
"Harsh criticism" is simply bullying ... but "Candid Critiquing" is a constructive effort to give someone one OPINION from one perspective of what is good and/or lacking in their work ... and suggesting ways to change it to fit the critiquer's vision... hopefully with some insight as to why the critiquer's opinion has value.
It might be good advice ... it might be bad. The photographer has to decide which ... and the critiquer should always express the review as an opinion ... that is what it is. None of us is RIGHT.
After all, critiquing is an opinion ... sometimes it is golden, sometimes it is worthless ... usually it falls in between ... and, hopefully we can take some insight away from the critique.
It might be good advice ... it might be bad. The photographer has to decide which ... and the critiquer should always express the review as an opinion ... that is what it is. None of us is RIGHT.
After all, critiquing is an opinion ... sometimes it is golden, sometimes it is worthless ... usually it falls in between ... and, hopefully we can take some insight away from the critique.
I realized reading this that critiquing involves selling your ideas. A critique may temporarily make someone feel bruised or inflated, but unless they agree with it, they're probably not going to change anything.
A good critique is illuminating and convincing ... the person hears it and gets it. They make the leap from not seeing what you see to seeing it.
evanbaines
22-Aug-2011, 09:46
I think that it often comes down to a combination of intention and skill in critiquing. First and foremost, I have little patience for people who critique harshly simply to inflate their own egos. There are a good many who like to tear down the work of others because they feel that it places them in a position of authority: these people are bullies and not teachers. A good teacher may use unbelievably harsh teaching techniques (I think I can safely say I have experienced among the harshest teaching techniques out there, and still feel gratitude to the teachers who provided that training), but always from the standpoint of helping the student. The motivation for the criticism will frequently impact its usefulness.
When viewed from this standpoint, teaching is about choosing the right tool for a given student and context. A skilled teacher will apply the correct amount of pressure for a particular situation, and this is a gift that is difficult to teach.
i think that sometimes there are harsh critics because sometimes people need a dope slap
to remind them of what they are doing ....
while i have been broken down by critiques in a classroom setting, even harsh critiques ...
most of the time, it was done in a constructive way ...
after i left school and showed my portfolio to a former photography teacher
( who seemed excited about what i was doing, and the direction my work was taking )
he suggested that i show aaron siskind my portfolio because like me he was in providence ..
being a risd professor &C i figured he would give me constructive criticism, even if it was harsh and nasty ...
but it seemed to be nasty and mean spirited just for the sake of it.
"this is all terrible, what is this, throw away your camera, you are wasting all of your time," was what he told me ...
i am not sure if that is how he treated all of his students, or just people who he didn't know
or if he was having a bad week, or he was playing the roll of "the asskicker"
but i followed follow his advice and for years made what i called "hybrid prints"
printed from materials i or found or made ( shards of glass and plastic with ink or paint or other things on them )
to enlarge and improve my darkroom skills
as difficult as it was to receive his harsh critique, i kind of wish he wasn't dead so i could show him my work again ...
i am not sure if that is how he treated all of his students, or just people who he didn't know
or if he was having a bad week, or he was playing the roll of "the asskicker" ...
The sad thing is you'll never know ... there's no sure way to interpret comments like Siskind's.
Lots of people reported similar treatment from Stieglitz, much of it mood-based. Kind of sucks to have your meeting with the only living photographic authority determined by the man's level of constipation. Especially if you've taken a train from the West Coast for no other purpose. Some photographers (like Weston) took their brow-beating with a shrug and just kept going. Others probably suffered serious discouragement.
You just can't invest too much in any one person's opinion, especially one that's so poorly articulated.
I've never had any use for harsh criticism. It's usually just mean and lazy. At worst it is down right destructive to the receiver. I've taught plenty of students over the years and can think of no times I felt the need to bash someone in such a way as to make them feel like crap. It's just photography and every single image we make will be gone to dust at some point anyway. So enjoy the process. It does not really matter that much one way or another. At least that's my opinion.
Richard Mahoney
23-Aug-2011, 23:39
... Some photographers (like Weston) took their brow-beating with a shrug and just kept going. Others probably suffered serious discouragement.
You just can't invest too much in any one person's opinion, especially one that's so poorly articulated.
I find that it is often helpful to reflect that `criticism' of one's work -- constructive or not -- is often informed more by power relations than anything else. It seems to me that if one is intent on seeking affirmation from an `authority' then one is to some degree setting oneself up. (Behave slavishly and one thing is certain ...) Far better, in my opinion, to openly solicit an honest opinion from a colleague -- and all the better if that colleague is clearly more accomplished.
Kind regards,
Richard
tgtaylor
24-Aug-2011, 08:53
I majored in Mathematics in college and the instructors "criticism" - whether harsh, outright praise or (usually) somewhere in-between - was freely given with every exam or quiz returned; and you knew whether or not it was justified.
But art is not mathematics and the former demands personal vision which most artists lack and others may not 'see.'
Thomas
David_Senesac
2-Sep-2011, 09:24
I agree with those above who consider the word "harsh" too harsh. Kindly considerately blunt and honest is more appropriate.
There is a wide spectrum to the quality of images posted on photography forum critique boards. Some are exceptional visions, some are pretty good, most are reasonable, others have minor issues, and a fair number are rather flawed. The truth is there is a long list of image element negatives that are rather solid flaws and when one sees such, one may not at all be relating an opinion. For instance gross over and under exposures, important out of focus elements, bright elements at frame edges, camera positioning that causes important elements to be blocked by closer elements, backgrounds where a subject does not stand out, annoying wind disturbances in water relections destroying the symmetries, direct flat front lit landscape lighting, huge unbalancing shadows destroying frame balance, all manner of unbalanced geometric lines in subject framing, washed out skin color on portraits, key people subjects in images being backlit dark shadows, etc etc.
I have a long history of critiquing other's images on boards or informally among friends while looking at images in galleries, art shows, or on the web. And if done publicly attempt to do so with considerable tact and consideration of who is on the other end. With novices one ought to be gentle and constructive while with pros one can be more open and terse. My critiques tend to be paragraph length instead of the usual one liner strokes and that tends to make uncomfortable many who are not really interested in critique but rather becoming accepted members of a mutual admiration society.
...I used to give critiques of work on various photo web sites. Bad idea. Most of the web sites are populated with hobbyists and they are not accustomed to the type of criticism that is common, in fact daily, in the professional area. I used to get a lot of heat for being so harsh and brutal when all I was being was honest and trying to be helpful. They just wanted to hear how awesome their work was. Because of that I just stopped doing it...
When including negative criticism whether to images or when debating a range of worldly subjects, the better strategy is to first relate positives, then how one understands where the person is coming from, before delivering any criticism.
David
I remember reading of a study many years ago where someone followed the lives of two groups of writers. One group used "harsh" criticism, the other always positive.
Most of the group with positive criticism are still writing. Those in the harsh group -- most of them no longer write.
Not a in-depth study by any means, but it does seem to indicate that harsh criticism could stop people from producing art. And personally I would prefer more practicing artists than less.
Kirk Gittings
2-Sep-2011, 13:23
What that study can't show.......I guess in most situations I would prefer not to sacrifice quality to quantity.......
What that study can't show.......I guess in most situations I would prefer not to sacrifice quality to quantity.......
Which is another way of saying you'd rather run off someone whose art doesn't measure up to your standards as a teacher than criticize them in a way that might encourage them to continue.
Think about where that leads. Art becomes a priesthood that excludes, so that the only art that is acceptable is what the priest makes for others to consume. (I'm using a definition of "priest" as one who is set apart from others on the basis of selection by other priests.)
But there is a strong argument to be made that the art of the unskilled has two positive and important effects: Making art is soothing to the soul, even bad art. And those who make art badly appreciate art that is made well, and are more likely to buy it.
This is certainly true in music. I'm a second-rate amateur musician, but it means I know better than non-musicians what skills are truly being displayed by the musicians in my local symphony, and I'm therefore one of the ones providing the support they need. The more second-rate amateurs in the audience, the greater the appreciation, and the more second-rate amateurs in the population, the bigger the audience.
Thus, I oppose the priesthood notion. I'd rather have a vibrant amateur community struggling with limited talent, because I think that would be good for everyone including those who sell their work. Pushing people out because they are not good enough will embitter them against art. Those who are or become really good may overcome that discouragement, but how many amateurs do we lose from the needed audience? It seems to me better to make positive suggestions, even if those lead people away from trying to make a living doing art, but not in a way that discourages them.
I go back to my example of Arnold Jacobs, the legendary (among wind musicians) pedagog who suggested to a trombone player that he communicated more effectively in words than in music. That person became a successful writer, but he also did not stop performing music. Had Jacobs told him to "take two weeks off and then give it up", that person might have left music embittered. How does that help the world? Do we really need protecting from second-rate amateur artists?
Rick "who wants honesty but not brutality" Denney
Jim Michael
2-Sep-2011, 14:00
Interesting discussion, but I think the term 'criticism' is bandied about in a way that has no common meaning amongst those using it. It seems to be most often taken in a negative context, for which modifiers such as 'harsh' may be apropos. I consider criticism and critique to be at least as much an attempt to understand, for it may be difficult to determine whether success was achieved when you don't know what was being attempted, except perhaps technical considerations. What types of critiques are you typically performing and what is your general modus operandi? What do you want your student to gain from the session?
Bill Burk
2-Sep-2011, 14:12
Ocasionally, while reading to improve my photography, I find a relevant passage... Here's one from The Sleepwalkers by Koestler
Letter from Kepler to Galileo asking him to review his Cosmic Mystery... Gratz, October 13, 1597.
...I much prefer even the most acrimonious criticism of a single enlightened man to the unreasoned applause of the common crowd...
What that study can't show.......I guess in most situations I would prefer not to sacrifice quality to quantity.......
We will have to agree to disagree then. I'd rather have a world of more people practicing their art than one that discourages people from practicing just because someone else subjectively rated their art as "not good enough".
The more people that practice art as part of their everyday life, the better the world will be; and the better the art that world will create.
Bill -- so true -- and by definition, an enlightened person would not give harsh negative criticism, IMO.
Kirk Gittings
2-Sep-2011, 14:52
just because someone else subjectively rated their art as "not good enough".
Which of course I never said and never intended.
Which of course I never said and never intended.
Then I apologize, because I interpreted your comments 180 degrees from that.
Kirk Gittings
2-Sep-2011, 15:37
Here's my point, I think? My wife is involved in school nutrition. It would be nice to have the whole world eating, but should we not encourage people to eat quality food?
As a photo teacher I have the responsibility to encourage my students but in the final analysis I also have the responsibility to demand quality. My classes are not intro classes for hobbyists. If you are taking any of my current classes it is because you have some desire to produce professional level architectural photographs. I have the experience to teach and judge that. If I think you are not trying hard enough or simply have no eye for the subject matter, it is my absolute responsibility to tell you that. I try to do that kindly and give positive direction (as a matter of fact I stay up nights worrying about the impact of such). BUT.......if I don't give you the clear value of my lifetime of experience, the market is going to smack you upside the head far harder than any of my ill-delivered but well meaning advice. This is especially true if you or your parents are spending 150k on an art degree.
Many of my best friends were my students and some of them at times got some pretty blunt advice.
From what you just wrote, I would judge you to be a most excellent teacher.. Like I said before, your previous "better quality than quantity" comment seemed to directly negate my point about the study results (that it is better to have more people practicing art then less...no matter their level of mastery). I was talking apples and you oranges, hence my confusion.
Vaughn
John NYC
2-Sep-2011, 16:23
A lot depends on if you are critiquing the craft or the art part of a creative pursuit. Even great teachers of the craft part often struggle to be effective at coaching/coaxing/nurturing the art part, especially if a student's aesthetic or artistic goals are very different than the teacher's.
Jim Graves
2-Sep-2011, 20:37
Many of my best friends were my students and some of them at times got some pretty blunt advice.
The semantics make all the difference ... "blunt" need not be "harsh" ... "blunt" is often constructive, "harsh" rarely is.
Then I apologize, because I interpreted your comments 180 degrees from that.
Rick "as did I" Denney
Here's my point, I think? My wife is involved in school nutrition. It would be nice to have the whole world eating, but should we not encourage people to eat quality food?
As a photo teacher I have the responsibility to encourage my students but in the final analysis I also have the responsibility to demand quality.
I wholeheartedly agree with your second statement. But the first misses the point. You are not encouraging people to eat, you are encouraging them to cook, and even poor cooks will be better and more appreciative eaters, because they'll know what it is to cook well.
But it also misses the point because nobody can opt out of eating because somebody laughed at what was on their plate.
Back to the second statement. One can demand quality without being "harsh". One can demand quality and be encouraging. Giving a an inadequate performer an F, if it comes with an honest (rather than merely brutal) explanation is not harsh. Harsh is when you give someone an F without them knowing they were headed in the wrong direction until it was too late. Harsh is when you look at their work and laugh and then walk away shaking your head. Telling someone they need a new line of work because this one isn't working out for them is not necessarily harsh, and it can be done with sensitivity and kindness (which is not antithetical to being blunt). But it can also be done harshly, which is likely to create unnecessary pain, bitterness and resentment.
I think we need to define "harsh" again. From Google:
harshAdjective/härSH/
1. Unpleasantly rough or jarring to the senses: "drenched in a harsh white neon light".
2. Cruel or severe: "a time of harsh military discipline".
Rick "not thinking Kirk intends to be cruel" Denney
Chuck Pere
3-Sep-2011, 05:54
I would hope that no one gives up a career choice or an enjoyable hobby based on the opinions of only one person. Maybe 4 out of 7 like the world series? And don't forget that even the most mediocre hobbyist can sometime stumble across a great picture.
Kirk Gittings
3-Sep-2011, 08:14
Rick,
This thread started on some thoughts and verbiage generated by someone else on another thread. It tweaked my interest and of course through the discussion my thoughts have evolved.
There are two entities in every photo critique. A simple blunt statement can be taken entirely differently by different people depending on where they are at. Some people are so fragile that anything short of a gushing compliment on their work is taken as a slap in the face. To one a blunt statement is just that-to another it is an ego destroying personal attack. Since we are not psychologists we muddle through hopefully doing the right thing most of the time.
I am sure I am guilty of being harsh in my career. Laziness in particular can really get my goat sometimes.
John NYC
3-Sep-2011, 09:55
There are two entities in every photo critique. A simple blunt statement can be taken entirely differently by different people depending on where they are at. Some people are so fragile that anything short of a gushing compliment on their work is taken as a slap in the face. To one a blunt statement is just that-to another it is an ego destroying personal attack. Since we are not psychologists we muddle through hopefully doing the right thing most of the time.
Like everything else in life we do, we learn how to do our best within our personal style. Being a manager now of 80 people and having to give critiques on all manner of performance of people and even on creative endeavors in my line of work, I can say I have definitely learned through the school of hard lessons when I have done my assessing job badly. After gaining a lot of experience doing it, I believe a good mentor knows by that little voice in his or her head when they have stepped over the line and done more harm than good.
That said, there are some very teachable techniques for critiquing people. I find it is always good to go back and read over this type of material from classes I have had to practice the basics outside the context of an actual review.
Some people are so fragile that anything short of a gushing compliment on their work is taken as a slap in the face. To one a blunt statement is just that-to another it is an ego destroying personal attack. Since we are not psychologists we muddle through hopefully doing the right thing most of the time.
You are absolutely right about that.
I think it will come down to motivation, on the part of the teacher. A teacher whose motivation is to remove the unacceptable from their sight will not be hoping to do the right thing. A teacher who is intent on establishing superiority over the student will not be hoping to do the right thing. These are the teachers that are likely to be cruel or brutal, without regard to the welfare of the student. Even then, some students will appreciate being hit by the sledgehammer.
And the teacher who is concerned about the welfare of the student will hopefully find a way to let that concern temper their critique. But you are right that no matter how sensitively that is done some students will be crushed.
But teachers can't be responsible for the student's reaction. But they must be responsible for their motivations, and the welfare of the student should be their top priority. If I have a student who is utterly unsuited to what I'm teaching, steering them into some other pursuit is indeed being concerned for their welfare--continuing in something for which they are unsuited through false praise is antithetical to their welfare. It is entirely appropriate to conflate the student's welfare with the demand for quality.
And laziness should be punished. I think, though, that the initial discussion around harsh criticism didn't conjure images of people being lazy, so much as people being untalented.
Rick "who measures himself as a teacher by the resulting capabilities of his students" Denney
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.