A Level Playing field - for Critique

[simon ess]

Well whoever painted all that stuff does nothing for me!

I'd recommend a look at J.M.W. Turner.

COMPLETELY different to Constable.

 

[Pookeyhead]

Well whoever painted all that stuff does nothing for me!

All that stuff. You see? All the same. Turner, Constable.. all that stuff.

I genuinely mean no offence, but are you really qualified to give anything other than a general opinion on whether you like it or not? I'm not saying that's not valid BTW... I'm just saying, someone who thinks Turner and Constable are "all that stuff" like saying Ansel Adams and Edward Burtinsky is "All that stuff" can't really speak with any authority on what, and what does not constitute art, as you can't tell two very diverse artists apart.

You'll probably take offence at that... but it needs to be said. When you calm down and no longer want to shoot me in the face, I hope you realise the point I'm making about this, and threads like this.

 

[The23rdman]

I'd recommend a look at J.M.W. Turner.

COMPLETELY different to Constable.

Yes, I have seen some of him.

 

[Pookeyhead]

so everything thats not art is sh1t

No.. just stuff with no other motivation than showing off technical skill.

 

[The23rdman]

All that stuff. You see? All the same. Turner, Constable.. all that stuff.

I genuinely mean no offence, but are you really qualified to give anything other than a general opinion on whether you like it or not? I'm not saying that's not valid BTW... I'm just saying, someone who thinks Turner and Constable are "all that stuff" like saying Ansel Adams and Edward Burtinsky is "All that stuff" can't really speak with any authority on what, and what does not constitute art, as you can't tell two very diverse artists apart.

You'll probably take offence at that... but it needs to be said. When you calm down and no longer want to shoot me in the face, I hope you realise the point I'm making about this, and threads like this.

Well, as I've already stated very clearly what I look for in art and what I consider important in at I honestly couldn't care less. I don't like that style of art. I'm not saying that it is not at and that it had no merit, just that it leaves me cold and no amount of being told what to look for our what to appreciate in it will change that.

 

[big soft moose]

Indeed - i blame a brain fart

thing about turner though is while much of his work is very evocative of wildness or the power of nature, he also has pieces (chichesters canal or the archbishops palace lambeth, for example) which are the artistic equivalent of documentary shots. By the definition here those pieces would not be art , which seems a bit odd

 

[Pookeyhead]

I'm sory but thatds just daft - how could any of those people have afforded to buy , or inded even view art

They bought prints of it. just like they do now. Why assume everyone displaced by the industrial revolution was a peasant? Your history as shaky as your art history?

 

[big soft moose]

No.. just stuff with no other motivation than showing off technical skill.

again we are back to assumption - you can't possibly know what the motivation for every shot is - it could be to record or document, it could be monetary , it could be purely for the pleasure of taking the shot , it could be for scientific purposes etc

 

[Pookeyhead]

Well, as I've already stated very clearly what I look for in art and what I consider important in at I honestly couldn't care less. I don't like that style of art.

That's my point. They're not the same style of art. They are both landscape painters. That's it. You'd also point out to non photographers that Fay Godwin is not the same as Joe Cornish.. and that they assume all landscape photography is all the same would be all the evidence you;d need to establish you're talking to someone who isn't in full possession of the facts by which they draw their opinion, and therefore who's opinion is suspect.

 

[Pookeyhead]

again we are back to assumption - you can't possibly know what the motivation for every shot is - it could be to record or document, it could be monetary , it could be purely for the pleasure of taking the shot , it could be for scientific purposes etc

It may be, yes. But if it wasn't taken with passion, and a real drive to capture something.. it shows.

 

[big soft moose]

They bought prints of it. just like they do now. Why assume everyone displaced by the industrial revolution was a peasant? Your history as shaky as your art history?

I'm sorry but no, they didn't - those with the means to afford to put money to art were not those displaced for the agrarian economy by the industrial revolution - it is not me who is displaying a masive lack of grasp of historical fact there

 

[Pookeyhead]

I'm sorry but no, they didn't - those with the means to afford to put money to art were not those displaced for the agrarian economy by the industrial revolution - it is not me who is displaying a masive lack of grasp of historical fact there

That image was reproduced as etchings and published in books, it was reproduced (copied) and printed thousands of times in a thousands different ways. You are still assuming art = money. I'm talking about cheap reproductions. You assume I mean people were buying originals. I wish you'd read more carefully. It's for this reason that the Haywain has been a staple diet for working class walls all this time.. and still is.

 

[Stevie-]

It may be, yes. But if it wasn't taken with passion, and a real drive to capture something.. it shows.

I would argue that There are not a lot of posts that are angling for that type of critique I think. (Not NONE, just not a lot).

 

[The23rdman]

That's my point. They're not the same style of art. They are both landscape painters. That's it. You'd also point out to non photographers that Fay Godwin is not the same as Joe Cornish.. and that they assume all landscape photography is all the same would be all the evidence you;d need to establish you're talking to someone who isn't in full possession of the facts by which they draw their opinion, and therefore who's opinion is suspect.

I was specifically referring to Constable. I, Like BSM, may have confused him with Turner, but it is Constable that does nothing for me. That does not mean that all landscape painting does nothing for me - I just wait and see what actually stops my world rather than thinking about it. Art, as far as I'm concerned, is something for the soul not the head.

 

[Pookeyhead]

I just wait and see what actually stops my world rather than thinking about it. .

But once it has stopped you, do you not think about why?

 

[big soft moose]

That image was reproduced as etchings and published in books, it was reproduced (copied) and printed thousands of times in a thousands different ways. You are still assuming art = money. I'm talking about cheap reproductions. You assume I mean people were buying originals. I wish you'd read more carefully. It's for this reason that the Haywain has been a staple diet for working class walls all this time.. and still is.

I'm sorry but you are still talking rubbish - the working class in 1821 didn't have the money to be buying art of any type - indeed they barely had the money to keep body and soul together - they certainly wouldn't have been buying books because most of them were illiterate.

Anyway even if you were correct (which you arent) that isnt the auidence for which constable was painting , so his intention wasn't to evoke a rural scene for the recently displaced country folk - it was originally paited as one of the six footer series for exhibition and hopefully sale at the royal academy exhibition of 1821 where it failed to find a buyer , but was bought 3 years later at a pais exhbition by an art dealer who brought it back to england and sold it to a mr young from Ryde on the Isle of Wight (wikipedia)

so in essence his intention was mercenary , ie to create a nice scene which would sell.

 

[big soft moose]

I would argue that There are not a lot of posts that are angling for that type of critique I think. (Not NONE, just not a lot).

Indeed , which was my original point - the average poster doesnt want a disection of their reasons for taking the shot (still less an eeroneous asumption of what those reason might have been) if they are posting for crit they generally want to know what they could have done diffeently or better. - all to often they are really posting because they want someone to say "ohh nice shot"

 

[The23rdman]

But once it has stopped you, do you not think about why?

I'm a student of non-duality. I do not worship the mind.

 

[The23rdman]

To elaborate. Stopping the world is the goal, the end, the awakening. Who would one choose to ruin that gift by giving it to the ego?

 

[Pookeyhead]

Indeed , which was my original point - the average poster doesnt want a disection of their reasons for taking the shot (still less an eeroneous asumption of what those reason might have been) if they are posting for crit they generally want to know what they could have done diffeently or better. - all to often they are really posting because they want someone to say "ohh nice shot"

I wasn't suggesting they did. As usual we've discussed "art", and for some unfathomable reason it's descended into this weird debate as it normally does. What I advocate, is that people just think about what images communicate. The reason I advocate this, is because they DO whether you like it, or intend it to or not, so why not start thinking about what tyour images are actually saying?

An example is a few months ago, someone posted some "fashion" shots of a heavily made up model, in semi see through blouse, short leather skirt and fishnets in a back alley. When I questioned whether making her look like a prostitute was the intention, the response was at first puzzlement, then anger. Why? She DID look like a prostitute, and whether that was the photographers intent or not, most people looking at it would have seen the same connotations as I did.

Sometimes you need to think about what your images say. Simple as that.

 

[Pookeyhead]

I'm sorry but you are still talking rubbish - the working class in 1821 didn't have the money to be buying art of any type

Nonsense. You didn't have to be rich to buy books and decorations for your home. I'm not talking about the peasantry here either, that's an assumption you also jumped to. In the 19th century there was the full strata of social class pretty much as we have it now give or take. There were workhouses and levels of poverty we wouldn't tolerate now, but you seem to think 19th century England was landed gentry and peasants.. nothing in between.

Anyway even if you were correct (which you arent) that isnt the auidence for which constable was painting , so his intention wasn't to evoke a rural scene for the recently displaced country folk - it was originally paited as one of the six footer series for exhibition and hopefully sale at the royal academy exhibition of 1821 where it failed to find a buyer , but was bought 3 years later at a pais exhbition by an art dealer who brought it back to england and sold it to a mr young from Ryde on the Isle of Wight (wikipedia)

Oh God save us from Wikipedia.

You've completely misunderstood what I was saying. All you've done is read some facts about how and why it was physically created, not what the IMAGE is ABOUT. The image is a depiction of a rural England that many thought was lost, or to be lost soon due to the (at the time) dizzying pace of progress.. It was achingly sentimental and nostalgic, and that's why it has always been popular. You also assume that because it was painted in 1821, then I'm talking about 1821. The world has had photographic offset reproduction for as long as we've had photography. In fact, it was Fox Talbot who was instrumental in the idea of photographic plates being used as replacement for screens in the offset process, and this was in 1839 if memory serves me. We've had however, the ability to colour print since the early 17th century, and by the 19th century, colour printing was relatively cheap, plentiful and by no means the reserve of the rich, and neither were books and reproduction art. Your impression of 19th century England seems to owe more to Dickens than it does fact. Talented artists plied a trade by reproducing art work to be sold to the masses cheaply. In fact, it wasn't until the 19th century that a lot of artists started physically putting their name to their work in response to this.

so in essence his intention was mercenary , ie to create a nice scene which would sell.

All artists could be said to be mercenary. If it's not money, it's recognition. There's got to be reward for your graft. However, while that's the underlying motivation to be an artist (possibly) it doesn't follow that's the motivation for the WORK you produce.


Anyway... off you go to Wiki again

 

[Steve Smith]

but was bought 3 years later at a pais exhbition by an art dealer who brought it back to england and sold it to a mr young from Ryde on the Isle of Wight

You can't believe anyone from there!


Steve.

 

[big soft moose]

Nonsense. You didn't have to be rich to buy books and decorations for your home. I'm not talking about the peasantry here either, that's an assumption you also jumped to. In the 19th century there was the full strata of social class pretty much as we have it now give or take. There were workhouses and levels of poverty we wouldn't tolerate now, but you seem to think 19th century England was landed gentry and peasants.. nothing in between.

you were talking about the working class though - what do you think a factory worker earned in 1821 ? - The answer is not enough to be wasting it on inessentials. In 1821 you had to be reasonably well off to even be able to read so the working class certainly wouldn't have been buying books.

You've completely misunderstood what I was saying. All you've done is read some facts about how and why it was physically created, not what the IMAGE is ABOUT.

No I understood the point you were making - I just don't agree with it. It isnt possible that you know definitively why constable painted the haywain, or what was in his mind when he did it , therefore you are merely stating your opinion of what it was about... you may be correct but the overaching reason we always struggle with these discussions is that you aren't differentiating between your opinion and fact

My opinion is the when constable painted it as part of a set his intention was to create a art piece that would sell - in my opinion he didnt have the intent of capturing a time gone by - not least because in 1821 the area arround flatford mill (which incidentally was owned by constables father) was still incredibly rural. I could be wrong but the difference is that i recognise that my opinion is not a factual record.

On the wider point the same thing is true of any photograph we pick to critique - unless the poster has made his intention explicitly clear in the OP , you don't know what their intention was, so my suggestion is that it is prefferable to base critique on what you can see in the image, not your opinion of what you think the poster was trying to achieve.[/quote]

 

[Pookeyhead]

The irony is, that the uneducated masses who bought these reproductions here thought they were buying a French painting due to it causing quite a stir over there. In fact, the painting earned the King of France's patronage, and hence the rise in popular reproductions. This would have been around 1825-6ish if I remember. It's been adorning the walls of twee cottages and sentimentalists ever since.

Anyway... it's sod all like a Turner.. that was my point.

 

[Pookeyhead]

you were talking about the working class though - what do you think a factory worker earned in 1821 ?

In 1821, the working class was as broad as it is now.

It isnt possible that you know definitively why constable painted the haywain, or what was in his mind when he did it

No.. and we can't ask him now. However, we can make some educated guesses. We're talking 1820, the height of the industrial revolution and still burgeoning empire. Cities were expanding at an exponential rate, science, technology, industry the all powerful forces of a brave new world. What better time to wander off to Suffolk and sketch ideas for a painting. The fact that he painted it not on location and in fact in his studio from sketches he made out there shows intent, planning. The very subject matter... everything that was quintessentially British at that time.. and also things feared to be lost by the sweeping tide of industry. It doesn't take a genius to work it out. I agree.. we'll never know, but given that's it's charm, and that's the reason people like it, we can assume that's probably a reasonable motivation for painting it.

, therefore you are merely stating your opinion of what it was about

In fairness Pete... not just mine, but many art historians and experts as well. I don't lay claim to this one exclusively

My opinion is the when constable painted it as part of a set his intention was to create a art piece that would sell

I don't disagree with you. He probably did. Where did I say he didn't? That isn't an explanation as to what the image is about though is it? If you want to sell art, you make it topical and relevant. It's a reasonable assumption that it was intended to be such a nostalgic view of rural England.. because.. err.. well.. it IS a sentimental view of rural England.

- in my opinion he didnt have the intent of capturing a time gone by - not least because in 1821 the area arround flatford mill (which incidentally was owned by constables father) was still incredibly rural. I could be wrong but the difference is that i recognise that my opinion is not a factual record.

And it stays so for some time, and to some extent still is. The fact is, that's nice with hindsight. The fact is that migration from the land to the cities was something of grave concern at the time, and a real hot topic. We had cities that were barely able to cope with the influx of people, shortage of people to tend the land as the young wanted to seek fame and fortune in the cities (as they still do).

Are these guesses? Of course. It does explain the extreme sentimentality of the image though.

On the wider point the same thing is true of any photograph we pick to critique - unless the poster has made his intention explicitly clear in the OP , you don't know what their intention was, so my suggestion is that it is preferable to base critique on what you can see in the image, not your opinion of what you think the poster was trying to achieve.

I disagree. Just because something wasn't their intent, it does not mean it's not true. All images have meaning. You saying it has no meaning doesn't change it. If it has meaning, it has meaning. There's nothing you can do about it. It is therefore vital that you understand what those possible readings of that image might be in order to prevent yourself the kind of faux pas I gave as an example further up the thread, or at least just looking naive.

 

[MWHCVT]

I wasn't suggesting they did. As usual we've discussed "art", and for some unfathomable reason it's descended into this weird debate as it normally does. What I advocate, is that people just think about what images communicate. The reason I advocate this, is because they DO whether you like it, or intend it to or not, so why not start thinking about what tyour images are actually saying?

An example is a few months ago, someone posted some "fashion" shots of a heavily made up model, in semi see through blouse, short leather skirt and fishnets in a back alley. When I questioned whether making her look like a prostitute was the intention, the response was at first puzzlement, then anger. Why? She DID look like a prostitute, and whether that was the photographers intent or not, most people looking at it would have seen the same connotations as I did.

Sometimes you need to think about what your images say. Simple as that.

You know though David it only become a weird debate because you will not accept that not all people are interested in the art history or for that matter message a photo delivers, they're in it simply for the love of a pretty or interesting picture...yet you insist on talking down to these people, denigrating them as some sort of lesser class of photographer to you because of their photography goals or interest...or you preach at them with a goal of converting them to your philosophy like a religious zealot matching towards a mass suicide pact in the middle of stone henge

 

[Pookeyhead]

You know though David it only become a weird debate because you will not accept that not all people are interested in the art history or for that matter message a photo delivers, they're in it simply for the love of a pretty or interesting picture...yet you insist on talking down to these people, denigrating them as some sort of lesser class of photographer to you because of their photography goals or interest...or you preach at them with a goal of converting them to your philosophy like a religious zealot matching towards a mass suicide pact in the middle of stone henge

Others have turned it into a debate about art. I certainly wasn't the one who brought Constable into it.. that was Pete

My point is that many people look at images and will take meaning from it. That's common. Knowing what that may be by analysing your own work critically can give you a bit of a heads up. The reason this thread as got like this is two=fold. People assume that as soon as you start discussing this you mean that all photography has to be "art" and because Pete usually hits Wiki to try and out-knowledge me for some reason.

I'm preaching nothing to no one: we're having a debate. Who have I preached to, or accused of being a lesser photographer Matt?

 

[big soft moose]

I disagree. Just because something wasn't their intent, it does not mean it's not true. All images have meaning. You saying it has no meaning doesn't change it. If it has meaning, it has meaning. There's nothing you can do about it. It is therefore vital that you understand what those possible readings of that image might be in order to prevent yourself the kind of faux pas I gave as an example further up the thread, or at least just looking naive.

No - it has meaning in your opinion

as to the example you gve higher up you seem to have an obsession with fashion models looking like prostitutes - in november last year you were claiming to see this over and over again in people work ( i don't think ive ever seen one such on hee except where it was intended)

What matters from the point of view of giving constructive crit is what the photographer intended and whether he has acheived it - what you think he might have meant is not important to anyone other than you.

okay so if he intended gritty glamour and you feel he's made the model look like a cheap whore then he clearly hasn't suceeded in your opinion , and thats worth mentioning.

 

[Byker28i]

yeah we saw that with "bird gate"

Which I thought was a shameful part of this forums history. When viewed as a set they were genuinely interesting images, but by then a few of the forum had moved to full attack mode.


What's not being mentioned about critique is that the person critiquing also learns. Critique is an opinion and as such (provided it's not a personal attack, or says something like, it's crap) should be actively encouraged. It's a forum so discussion is encouraged, provided people can stay out the playground.

 

[MWHCVT]

Which I thought was a shameful part of this forums history. When viewed as a set they were genuinely interesting images, but by then a few of the forum had moved to full attack mode.


What's not being mentioned about critique is that the person critiquing also learns. Critique is an opinion and as such (provided it's not a personal attack, or says something like, it's crap) should be actively encouraged. It's a forum so discussion is encouraged, provided people can stay out the playground.

I tend to agree on that it was a shameful part of our history any one I'm still sorry for my part in and hope we never see the like of it again...

 

[big soft moose]

People assume that as soon as you start discussing this you mean that all photography has to be "art" and because Pete usually hits Wiki to try and out-knowledge me for some reason.

Actually i hit google to build up my background knowledge as i don't have a good grounding in art history , so it was interesting to explore why Constable might have painted the haywain (although it did confirm that it had bugger all to do with providing mementoes to the displaced rural poor).

I know and freely admit that you have a greater knowledge than me about photographic theory - but its unfortunate that you seem to have fallen into the common trap for highly qualified academics of thinking that mastery of your subject also indicates mastery of other areas, your knowledge of social history and working class living conditions during the industrial revoloution , on the basis of this thread, is distinctly not greater than mine , and my knowledge on that subject is not derived from wikipedia

However leaving all that aside my original point in mentioning constable was that he was recording a rural scene as it existed - ie in photographic terms it was a documentary shot (no ammount of waffle about what it came to mean later changes that ) so the idea that all art has to mean something to the creator is flawed - in fact moving aay from constable, much of what we consider great art these days was painted on commision for the nobility of the time (ie the equivalent of potraiture), so the creator wasn't trying to say anything in particular, he was just getting paid to create a 'shot' of lord so and so and his wife ... however these painting are still 'art'

 

[big soft moose]

Which I thought was a shameful part of this forums history. When viewed as a set they were genuinely interesting images, but by then a few of the forum had moved to full attack mode.

I'd agree to an extent - although as i said to yinny the 'attack mode' stuff (which i agree was pretty shameful) happened after the poster had a collosal dummy spit about people giving him crit on his images... if he didnt want crit, he should have said so , and I (and others) wouldnt have wasted our time giving constructive pointers on points like how best to acheive a decent tonal range in black and white conversion

also if he wanted them viewed as a set, posting them as a set , with some explanation of what they were suposed to represent and what he was aiming to achieve would have been a good move

What's not being mentioned about critique is that the person critiquing also learns. Critique is an opinion and as such (provided it's not a personal attack, or says something like, it's crap) should be actively encouraged. It's a forum so discussion is encouraged, provided people can stay out the playground.

this is a good point - in a good crit threat everyone learns including numerous onlookers , which is why theres nothing wrong with disputing crit if you disagree with it so long as its done intelligently and constructively. Thing is though that just as there is a massive difference between " you could have done X, y, z " and "what a load of crap", so there is also a difference between " thanks for your input but I don't entirely agree with X, you see I was trying to acheive A,B, C and in my view it works because... " and " you don't know what you are talking about , my images are perfect in every possible way "

 

[Pookeyhead]

No - it has meaning in your opinion

No.. they have meaning based on common knowledge from a shared culture and perspective.

as to the example you gve higher up you seem to have an obsession with fashion models looking like prostitutes - in november last year you were claiming to see this over and over again in people work ( i don't think ive ever seen one such on hee except where it was intended)

Same image, same thread I was referring to. It's the most blatant example of someone just not considering the implied meaning of an image I've come across recently.

What matters from the point of view of giving constructive crit is what the photographer intended and whether he has acheived it

Assuming we know what their intention was, as most don't bother saying. Most don't have any intention beyond making something nice. That's the problem. Many seldom stop to consider how they represent people, or places, or buildings, or cars.. or anything.

- what you think he might have meant is not important to anyone other than you.

The irony of you implying I'm arrogant, and then assuming you have the authority to say with confidence what matters to everyone else, hopefully is not lost on the others reading this thread

okay so if he intended gritty glamour and you feel he's made the model look like a cheap whore then he clearly hasn't suceeded in your opinion , and thats worth mentioning.

It is worth mentioning, isn't it? It's not that he's succeeded in his goals or not that's important, it's that it is a misrepresentation he clearly hasn't noticed. And I don't know why you're arguing with me, because if you saw a similarly clad young woman standing on teh corner of a dark alley way at night, you'd probably make some similar assumptions, as anyone would. You're just arguing for the sake of it.. because that's what you do... argue with me. It's just what you do. A similar thread of a similarly scantily clad model (why is it always scantily clad, I mean.. how unimaginative are some people?) in an abandoned court room comes to mind too. The images just made her look like a rape victim, yet it never crossed the author's mind. He just thought they looked cool. It wasn't just my opinion either. It was blatant to anyone with eyes.

Actually i hit google to build up my background knowledge as i don't have a good grounding in art history , so it was interesting to explore why Constable might have painted the haywain (although it did confirm that it had bugger all to do with providing mementoes to the displaced rural poor).

I'm rferring to what the image was about, not WHY he painted it. NO one paints anything to give away to poor people. I've tried to explain this three times now.. never mind. If you don't get it after three attempt, you never will.

I know and freely admit that you have a greater knowledge than me about photographic theory - but its unfortunate that you seem to have fallen into the common trap for highly qualified academics of thinking that mastery of your subject also indicates mastery of other areas, your knowledge of social history and working class living conditions during the industrial revoloution , on the basis of this thread, is distinctly not greater than mine , and my knowledge on that subject is not derived from wikipedia

Do all the research you like then... merchants, shop keepers, brewers, watchmakers... all working class, but far from the destitute wrecks you describe, and all thriving in the newly expanding cities.

However leaving all that aside my original point in mentioning constable was that he was recording a rural scene as it existed - ie in photographic terms it was a documentary shot (no ammount of waffle about what it came to mean later changes that ) so the idea that all art has to mean something to the creator is flawed - in fact moving aay from constable, much of what we consider great art these days was painted on commision for the nobility of the time (ie the equivalent of potraiture), so the creator wasn't trying to say anything in particular, he was just getting paid to create a 'shot' of lord so and so and his wife ... however these painting are still 'art'

So.. portrait photography is not art? Who cares why portraits were commissioned. They're portraits. To decry them as anything less, is also to decry any portrait photographers work now. the fact that these were paintings is irrelevant.Are you therefore saying that portrait photography is not art?

 

[Byker28i]

No - it has meaning in your opinion

as to the example you gve higher up you seem to have an obsession with fashion models looking like prostitutes - in november last year you were claiming to see this over and over again in people work ( i don't think ive ever seen one such on hee except where it was intended)

What matters from the point of view of giving constructive crit is what the photographer intended and whether he has acheived it - what you think he might have meant is not important to anyone other than you.

okay so if he intended gritty glamour and you feel he's made the model look like a cheap whore then he clearly hasn't suceeded in your opinion , and thats worth mentioning.

If it's the image I'm thinking off then I think he had a point, but it depends on the intention of the photographer. I guess that comes down to the critique. "You made her look like a cheap whore" is a little harsh, where perhaps " what was your intention or proposed market" might get the answer.

I've no problem with referencing to other historical or current photographers. Sometimes that's really interesting to make the comparisons. Same with critique other than technical.

 

[Pookeyhead]

I never said "You've made her look like a cheap whore" though. Pete, as usual, is paraphrasing me... badly.

 

[MWHCVT]

Well I've made a mistake today...that has now been rectified...I'll just say this, I hope the quality of critique improves and I'll continue to do what I can but until a mass culture shift occurs I struggle to see the light at the end of the tunnel

 

[Byker28i]

I never said "You've made her look like a cheap whore" though. Pete, as usual, is paraphrasing me... badly.

Ok, but I was using that as an example of different ways...

The secret is not to take things personally and encourage discussion.

 

[Pookeyhead]

Well I've made a mistake today...that has now been rectified...I'll just say this, I hope the quality of critique improves and I'll continue to do what I can but until a mass culture shift occurs I struggle to see the light at the end of the tunnel

Not sure why you, or anyone else is trying to unify crit into some formula. Give crit how you see fit. Just make it honest. I'll continue to give feedback on the image's content as well as technical crit. Many think that's pointless. I don't. Other may ignore the imagery and just give technical crit... fine, if that's their comfort zone. I think the only thing needs to be avoided is false praise where it's not deserved, and b****x, such as saying it's sharp when it's not. Avoid that, and you'll just be giving an honest opinion.

 

[big soft moose]

No.. they have meaning based on common knowledge from a shared culture and perspective.

in your opinion - the point you keep missing, just because you think this is so doesnt mean I have to agree with you :bang:

Same image, same thread I was referring to. It's the most blatant example of someone just not considering the implied meaning of an image I've come across recently.

that was in a thread about a butternut squash - I didnt see any picture of prostitutes

The irony of you implying I'm arrogant, and then assuming you have the authority to say with confidence what matters to everyone else, hopefully is not lost on the others reading this thread

along with the irony of you claiming you arent arrogant but in the same breath assuming your opinion will matter to everyone else

A similar thread of a similarly scantily clad model (why is it always scantily clad, I mean.. how unimaginative are some people?) in an abandoned court room comes to mind too. The images just made her look like a rape victim, yet it never crossed the author's mind. He just thought they looked cool. It wasn't just my opinion either. It was blatant to anyone with eyes.

in your opinion (see how this works)

I'm rferring to what the image was about, not WHY he painted it. NO one paints anything to give away to poor people. I've tried to explain this three times now.. never mind. If you don't get it after three attempt, you never will.

I got that the first time - the point ive tried to explain an equaly number of times is that you don't have a greater grasp od what its about than the person who created it (whatever 'it' is)

Do all the research you like then... merchants, shop keepers, brewers, watchmakers... all working class, but far from the destitute wrecks you describe, and all thriving in the newly expanding cities.

none of these are working class - those are all middle class occupations , none of whom were displaced from the countryside to the towns by the industrial revolution - the working class (who were displaced) were the rank and file factory workers , who were largely farm labourers or those who had cottage industries put out of work by the increased mechanisation and forced to take low paid work in factories ... none of whom had enough money for food and clothing let alone prints of art to hang on their walls

So.. portrait phtography is not art? Who cares why portraits were commissioned. They're portraits. To decry them as anything less, is also to decry any portrait photographers work now. Are you therefore saying that portrait photography is not art?

um no , it was you who was implying that when you said that any photograph not taken with a purely artistic motivation was crap

 

[big soft moose]

I never said "You've made her look like a cheap whore" though. Pete, as usual, is paraphrasing me... badly.

okay you sauid " did you mean your model to look like a prostitute " ... the semantic difference between a street prostitute and a cheap whore escapes me i'm afraid