Thanks useful information: 
Just some weekend thoughts, be interesting to read others take on this subject.
Constructive Critique an oxymoron. Photography is full of subjective quantities. It's also full of objective quantities.
I don't see a problem with critiquing the criticizer (or in French the critiquer) asking questions or exploring the usefulness of the critique in regards to the image. Not open confrontation, but questioning, yes.
The end judge and sole arbitrator of an image, is in the end, the image taker, CC can be as relevant as the water off a ducks or it can be absorbed and be used to facilitate technical growth (artistic growth, I have doubts).
Does all constructive critique or critical examination of an image need responding to or be thankful of being received? I personally don't think so as some constructive critique is and can be pointless. Just like I just had an opinion then,whether people agree with that opinion or not, I don't have to be thanked for expounding it in public.
When someone takes a photo they take it for themselves, they PP to their liking and post it up accepting that it is open for criticism. The criticism can flow in, but its still an image that the photographer has worked towards to their personal brief for the end result, they haven't been hired and haven't failed or not for-filled a brief given to them.
Photographers do believe that criticism of their work can improve their skills (for common photography mistakes) and it can, but it can also stymie a persons style and growth if they get swayed by taking too much (or any) criticism onboard just because people are airing their personal views on an image to what, is to or not to, their personal tastes. Twenty critics can give 20 different critiques, what's a photographer meant to do with that much overload of critics perceived nuances to their image, embrace it or shrug it off? Its not as if criticism is always unequivocally correct.
There's also the very real and undeniable aspect of looking at others work and being inspired by it and looking at others work and thinking 'blah' and it doesn't just gel with you on any level. I think its good to look at critics work and see if their work resonates on any level with you before taking their criticism on board. Yes, someone will say you don't have to me a Michelin Chef to be a food critic or a Hollywood movie producer to be a film critic. That's ok, though if I was an aspiring chef, I'd be more inclined to take a lesson and critique on my cooking from the Michelin Chef over the food critic.
But if someone is giving you critique because your style isn't their style, look at their work and see what you like and what you don't like. Ask yourself can you learn anything from what this person is able to produce photographically and decide how much their criticism of your work is of any value to you. But as we put our photos up, they of course can be critiqued, but do we really owe a debt of gratitude to every critique received?
As mentioned earlier, photography is an art, its subjective just like all art, it may be to your taste, it may not be to your taste. Every bodies photography journey is their own.
There's also the environment that the photo was taken in, not all shots are staged in studios and outside there are variables that we simply cant control (but are nonetheless aware of). Can some criticism show a superficial understanding of the photograph and the processes involved in its making from a cursory and quick examination? Critiquing or nitpicking a photo won't help the image taken and shared if that fleeting moment of time can't ever be redone. Nothing much will ever be exact moment again.
Do we need to validate each and every criticism received?
Anyway, the above is just my opinion and open to critiqueWhat's your opinion?
Reply With Quote
Add To Bookmarks
Threadstarter
Originally Posted by gcflora
