What is art criticism?

[Brad Bohland]

An ocean, indeed. I look at a lot of photos by other people and rarely find anything I really like, but when I do, I forget how much I had to wade through to find it.

I recently discovered Steve McCurry's photos, and he has a ton of them on his website. Only a few of them really grab me, but that's better than none.




by Steve McCurry

 

[Steve Throndson]

Brad,

Yes, Steve McCurry makes beautiful documentary photos. Sebastiao Salgado too. Excellent, both. Inspiring.

My personal preference runs to conceptual photography - images that help me understand.

Robert Frost said a poem should 'begin in delight, and end in wisdom'. I think that applies to any art work. Most photographs I see have the 'delight' part down, but fall short of 'wisdom'.

Just my 2 cents worth - sorry if I've gone off on a tangent here.

Steve

 

[yardcoyote]

Is there even such a thing as a course in art criticism? If there is, I can't think of anything more deadly dull. Far better to take a course in some kind of actual art-- I always recommend drawing 101 if you are starting from scratch, although the Albers color course from the Bauhaus (if you can find anyone teaching it outside of art school) is amazingly useful to photographers.

Believe me, the critiques that are part of any serious art course will teach you plenty about art criticism, and doing the actual art will teach you how the ideas work in practice.

 

[Tim Tucker]

Plato warned that art has the power to deceive, and therefore is dangerous because it might persuade us to accept unreasonable conclusions. Therefore, reason is a more trustworthy guide to life than art. On the other hand, he was himself an artist (Socrates was a fictional character) who didn't hesitate to use his art to persuade.

Soviet art celebrated the working class, and they believed that was its only legitimate use. They would have loved John Lennon's Working Class Hero.

You say art theory has helped your photography. How? Can you show us?

By learning how to see and interpret a 3D scene as seen by the human eye and translate that into the confined 2D space within a frame with it's very limited range of brightness.

It's taught me (in the example below) how to better communicate the feeling of walking through bright sunlit trees in the open countryside on the flat and relatively duller medium of your computer screen.

You might say, "no, it doesn't."

To which I may reply, "but you're nothing but an art critic, what do you know?" And so the argument continues for centuries to come... ;-)





Official soviet art was, even under Lenin, commissioned propaganda and under Stalin suffered from his almost total paranoia, any sign of a free will and you were straight off to the Gulag. I don't think there's any hard evidence on Socrates, just a suspicion that he never existed.

--

http://timtuckerphoto.smugmug.com/

 

[LifeIsAVerb]

Art criticism is the practical application of a branch of philosophy called Aesthetics, the theory of beauty and art.

Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Hegel, they all had their own theories of Aesthetics.

The Catholic Church has long had a school of art criticism based on the philosophy of Aquinas, which in turn was based on Aristotle.

The Soviet Union had a vigorous art criticism based on Marxism.

The Romantics, the Enlightenment, Postmodernism, they all have theories of art and schools of art criticism.

There are as many philosophers as there are artists, and they all have their own theories of art (the purpose of art is to evoke thought, no, awe, no, the worship of God, no, shock, no, class consciousness, no, the void, no, pleasure, no, democracy, no, insert your favorite value of the moment—hey, I heard that, the desire to buy it). Combined, they constitute a literal Tower of Babel.

Art criticism, like philosophy itself, is chaos, a bottomless pit of irresolvable controversy.

Will immersing yourself in this muddle make you a better photographer? Being of a pragmatist bent, I say prove it. Show me the work of a photographer before and after getting tangled up in these disputes and demonstrate the benefit. Otherwise, it’s just an article of faith.

Can someone come forward and show us the difference a thorough course in art criticism has made in their photography? I extend a respectful, if challenging, invitation. I’ll be fair, but I won’t be easy.

I agree with you, and with your view of the street photography movement/forum.

That being said, the photo of yours that caused all the fuss just struck me (and many others) as kind of boring.

I think there is a difference between art-criticism, and a few photo hobbyists saying they don't like your picture. In the end, both are, of course, subjective. However, I have personally found that receiving critiques of my photos (composition, post-processing, lighting, etc...) has made me a better photographer (in my own view, and the estimation of others). I can look through my timeline on Flickr (you can do the same, it is linked in my profile) and clearly see where I have improved - especially over the last five years as I have gotten "serious" about the hobby.

As an analogy; I am a research scientist by profession. Part of what people like me do is submit our work (scientific manuscripts) to criticism (peer review). At times, it can be heart-breaking. At other times it can be maddening. Nevertheless, when I look at the progress of my professional work, it too has benefited greatly from the open and honest critique of my peers. You can also view this timeline and transformation (like my Flickr timeline) here.

In the end, I am a huge proponent of receiving criticism. I find it is an immensely helpful, if sometimes hurtful, tool. The key is to not take it too personally, to ignore the stuff that isn't helpful, and to build positively from it.

Just my subjective opinion - of course. Since we are being philosophical here, I must agree that there are no absolutes. However, as a (fellow) pragmatist - it is useful to find things that improve ourselves and/or the world.

.

One reason that discussions like this get lost in the weeds stems from the failure to differentiate between criticism and critique, the most important of which is audience and intent.

Critique is a process and discussion, usually given by peers, with the intent of giving useful feedback to the creator, author, or artist of a particular work or product. Many organizations—some having nothing to do with art—have critique sessions to improve performance, process, or other aspects of the work they are involved in.

All the newspapers i used to work for, even the student paper at university, had critique sessions after every issue. In photography classes, every project ended with a critique from the teacher. Police departments (the good ones, anyway) have critiques on a regular basis, or after particular cases or response events.

The audience for criticism in not primarily the creator, but the audience, as with popular criticism of art, film, etc. in newspapers, magazines, and online. These are typically one person's evaluation of the work, intended to inform the audience or potential audience of the worth, competence, etc. of the work.

Much less evaluation happens—or should happen—in critique compared to criticism. The emphasis in on conveying the viewer's experience of the work (describing what the see/hear, their reactions to it, etc.), and with analysis and questions (Why did the photographer choose this lens? Why did they frame it this way? Why are the elements in this relationship? Etc.). Ultimately, an important aspect is determining how well the artist's choices, methods, and tools conveyed the intent they had in making an image.

When these distinctions about the process are lost or never initially acknowledged, discussions like this can just kind of float around ungrounded.

.

 

[mostlyboringphotog]

I suppose art criticism can be from a didactic tool for a aspiring tyro artist to a lethal sanction by a tyrannical censorship. Mostly it's a pleasantries exchanged between somewhat learned folks to gossip instead of their relatives but of their favorite artists. On an Internet forum, however, the pleasantries can quickly become heated argument. Must be the times we live in...

Mazel tov!

 

[Aaron801]

Art criticism is the practical application of a branch of philosophy called Aesthetics, the theory of beauty and art.

Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Hegel, they all had their own theories of Aesthetics.

The Catholic Church has long had a school of art criticism based on the philosophy of Aquinas, which in turn was based on Aristotle.

The Soviet Union had a vigorous art criticism based on Marxism.

The Romantics, the Enlightenment, Postmodernism, they all have theories of art and schools of art criticism.

There are as many philosophers as there are artists, and they all have their own theories of art (the purpose of art is to evoke thought, no, awe, no, the worship of God, no, shock, no, class consciousness, no, the void, no, pleasure, no, democracy, no, insert your favorite value of the moment—hey, I heard that, the desire to buy it). Combined, they constitute a literal Tower of Babel.

Art criticism, like philosophy itself, is chaos, a bottomless pit of irresolvable controversy.

Will immersing yourself in this muddle make you a better photographer? Being of a pragmatist bent, I say prove it. Show me the work of a photographer before and after getting tangled up in these disputes and demonstrate the benefit. Otherwise, it’s just an article of faith.

Can someone come forward and show us the difference a thorough course in art criticism has made in their photography? I extend a respectful, if challenging, invitation. I’ll be fair, but I won’t be easy.

I agree with you, and with your view of the street photography movement/forum.

That being said, the photo of yours that caused all the fuss just struck me (and many others) as kind of boring.

I think there is a difference between art-criticism, and a few photo hobbyists saying they don't like your picture. In the end, both are, of course, subjective. However, I have personally found that receiving critiques of my photos (composition, post-processing, lighting, etc...) has made me a better photographer (in my own view, and the estimation of others). I can look through my timeline on Flickr (you can do the same, it is linked in my profile) and clearly see where I have improved - especially over the last five years as I have gotten "serious" about the hobby.

As an analogy; I am a research scientist by profession. Part of what people like me do is submit our work (scientific manuscripts) to criticism (peer review). At times, it can be heart-breaking. At other times it can be maddening. Nevertheless, when I look at the progress of my professional work, it too has benefited greatly from the open and honest critique of my peers. You can also view this timeline and transformation (like my Flickr timeline) here.

In the end, I am a huge proponent of receiving criticism. I find it is an immensely helpful, if sometimes hurtful, tool. The key is to not take it too personally, to ignore the stuff that isn't helpful, and to build positively from it.

Just my subjective opinion - of course. Since we are being philosophical here, I must agree that there are no absolutes. However, as a (fellow) pragmatist - it is useful to find things that improve ourselves and/or the world.

.

One reason that discussions like this get lost in the weeds stems from the failure to differentiate between criticism and critique, the most important of which is audience and intent.

Critique is a process and discussion, usually given by peers, with the intent of giving useful feedback to the creator, author, or artist of a particular work or product. Many organizations—some having nothing to do with art—have critique sessions to improve performance, process, or other aspects of the work they are involved in.

All the newspapers i used to work for, even the student paper at university, had critique sessions after every issue. In photography classes, every project ended with a critique from the teacher. Police departments (the good ones, anyway) have critiques on a regular basis, or after particular cases or response events.

The audience for criticism in not primarily the creator, but the audience, as with popular criticism of art, film, etc. in newspapers, magazines, and online. These are typically one person's evaluation of the work, intended to inform the audience or potential audience of the worth, competence, etc. of the work.

Much less evaluation happens—or should happen—in critique compared to criticism. The emphasis in on conveying the viewer's experience of the work (describing what the see/hear, their reactions to it, etc.), and with analysis and questions (Why did the photographer choose this lens? Why did they frame it this way? Why are the elements in this relationship? Etc.). Ultimately, an important aspect is determining how well the artist's choices, methods, and tools conveyed the intent they had in making an image.

When these distinctions about the process are lost or never initially acknowledged, discussions like this can just kind of float around ungrounded.

.

I agree 1000%! Critique really is quite a different sort of thing than criticism. besides the fact that they're really meant for two quite separate audiences, the arts themselves and the public I see them also being focused on quite different things. It's a generalization because critique might also include this, but criticism seems like it's greenly more based on ideas and not purely aesthetics. There's a lot of folks who will say that to talk about the ideas in art is merely engaging in some kind of pretentious double-speak, but I really think that this attitude sells the idea of art short. Art IS about ideas... or at least it can be.



--
my flickr:
www.flickr.com/photos/128435329@N08/

 

[Brad Bohland]

All right, go ahead and apply it now, if you would.

 

[Brad Bohland]

Thanks for the example. Do you have a before version so we can see the difference?

 

[Brad Bohland]

I know what delight is, but I'm not sure I know what wisdom is.

 

[Brad Bohland]

I've taken drawing, but I it's not any different than photography--just a different technology to achieve the same end.

 

[Brad Bohland]

I hope that's not the same thing as a Molotov cocktail.

 

[mostlyboringphotog]

I hope that's not the same thing as a Molotov cocktail.

LOL, you've been catching quite a few flak; I had a few myself too and some do seem to come out swinging but my station in life (old) lets me to take it with the understanding that we are all coming from we love photography.

 

[Brad Bohland]

That's a nice perspective.

 

[Tim Tucker]

Thanks for the example. Do you have a before version so we can see the difference?

You think I took this photograph last week and then learnt art theory and then re-did it? You think you can categorise and label art into before and after? What do you expect to see the same photograph that you don't respond emotionally to then a hey presto? Do you think that art is purely based on the post processing and has little to do with the approach and outlook that go into the actual taking of the photograph right through to the finished vision?

You're not much of an art critic.

 

[Steve Throndson]

Brad,

Well I'm not really sure I know what wisdom is either, but I think it might be finally accepting what we knew all along was true. Maybe it's the Aha! moment when we acknowledge the elephant in the room.

Since your thread is about criticism, here's a link to Weegee's famous and wonderful photograph titled 'The Critic' - just in case you've never seen it before. It says a lot about human nature. Wisdom? Yes, I think so.

"The Critic"

Cheers,

Steve

 

[Brad Bohland]

Sorry.

If I shifted my technique, I would hope to be able to provide examples of earlier versions of similar images--but that may not always be possible.

 

[Brad Bohland]

An apparent satire which depends on the assumption that what you see is what you get (i.e. she's as stupid as she looks).

 

[yardcoyote]

Correct. Then you know the basics already-- and you know how to critique your own output The rest is practice and constant, lifelong self critique and learning. (There's a reason they call it "work".)

Your drawing teacher may very well have taught you about the 10,000 bad drawings. Chuck Jones, the great animator, says that everyone is born with 10,000 bad drawings inside, and you have to draw every single one of them before you can make good drawings. I'm pretty sure something similar is true of photography. Make the bad art, and learn why it is bad (technically and in terms of composition), and this process will teach you how to make good art.

 

[D Cox]

I'll take this remark to the bank: "...a picture that is effective for one viewer may not be for another."

You might remember the character Pursewarden in Lawrence Durrell's "Alexandria Quartet". He would go round an exhibition he didn't like, saying "Very effective! Very effective!"