the role of harsh criticism......

[Tony Karnezis]

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]

...which was from all concerned workshop leaders and participants....

Hope I'm not so bad that it becomes everyone' concern.

[Frank Petronio]

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]

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]

So true.

[paulr]

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.

[paulr]

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]

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]

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]

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...