Free On the importance of understanding the makers Intent

Pavel M

Pavel M

Messages
152
Name
Pavel M
Edit My Images
Yes
The most important part of a critique of an image is to determine the likely intent. ( Why did the artist create this work? What did (s)he try to say?). It is not absolutely essential that we guess the artist’s intent correctly. However if the comments on someone image are to be truly useful to the maker, we have to make an effort to see the image through the maker's eye. Otherwise we in effect substitute our intent (this is what I would do) for the maker's, making the review essentially irrelevant to the artist. We may ask ourselves the following questions:

> What do we think artist meant by this image based on what we know about the
work from the artist (title, artistic statement etc.) and based on the artistic tools used
to create the image? Why did the artist created the work?
> What does the image mean to us and how does it relate to our life and
experiences?
> What feelings and thoughts do we have when looking at this artwork? Is the
image about symbols or feelings or ideas?
> Are the various aspects of the techniques used to capture and process this
image in harmony with the image intent? Do the various aspects of composition
make the understanding and impact of the intent weaker or stronger? Make
suggestions for improvements that could clarify the intent or make the intent come
across more powerfully.
 
To some extent I disagree on two counts (at least :) ).

The first thing to say is that photography is a very broad field and in any discussion we need to be clear what we are talking about in the range from large format wet collodion through, weddings, wildlife and macro to mobile phone, cyanotype photograms, etc.

I think and have frequently argued on here that context and knowledge of a photographer's work very important when giving feedback, it is what allows us to understand what someone is trying to do and know if an image was intentional or just random. That said there is some validity in offering feedback as an independent third party without knowledge of intent, particularly for things like commercial photography where the photographer's intent in the image itself might count less if they want to sell it.

It is also valid to put our own intent on an artwork. In fact a lot of artists deliberately don't explain their intent, good art invokes emotions, the emotions I experience from a work might be different from someone else's.
 
Last edited:
Pavel M said:
The most important part of a critique of an image is to determine the likely intent. ( Why did the artist create this work? What did (s)he try to say?).
Click to expand...
What if they aren't an artist but a photographer?
 
Interesting, I mostly agree with the questions although I think the intro is overthinking it a bit. As a receiver of critique I want to know what impact did the image have on you rather than what you think I might have meant.
 
In my experience, the only criterion that really matters is the satisfaction of the "customer".

This "customer" may be...
  • someone who is paying for the picture
  • someone to whom the picture is being given
  • random viewers on the internet
  • the photographer himself.
If the "customer" expresses satisfaction with the picture, the image is a success, otherwise it may be considered a failure.

To my way of thinking, there is little more to be said on the subject.
 
sirch said:
To some extent I disagree on two counts (at least :) ).

The first thing to say is that photography is a very broad field and in any discussion we need to be clear what we are talking about in the range from large format wet collodion through, weddings, wildlife and macro to mobile phone, cyanotype photograms, etc.

I think and have frequently argued on here that context and knowledge of a photographer's work very important when giving feedback, it is what allows us to understand what someone is trying to do and know if an image was intentional or just random. That said there is some validity in offering feedback as an independent third party without knowledge of intent, particularly for things like commercial photography where the photographer's intent in the image itself might count less if they want to sell it.

It is also valid to put our own intent on an artwork. In fact a lot of artists deliberately don't explain their intent, good art invokes emotions, the emotions I experience from a work might be different from someone else's.
Click to expand...
Chris, I would argue that most, if not all photos have either conscious intent (you create an image to show a backlit red tulip radiating light) or subconscious intent (conveying a sense of peace and harmony in a sunrise landscape). This is independent of the tool you use to capture the image. Similarly, commercial work (wedding photography, say) has an intent to please clients and make them look good or to simply make the work look pleasing to potential buyers. I think that most if not all photographers that have developed reasonable craft skills do have subconscious intent (probably never thought about it, like many landscape photographers) or conscious intent.

We agree, that "many artists deliberately don't explain their intent". That is a good idea, because it promotes "active viewing". It encourages the viewers to think what it means to them in their life and with their experiences. It is however different when you critique or review the work and offer suggestions. If I for example create a high key image where almost all the photo is white, except for some dark areas, it does not help me if I get a comment that the highlights are blown (see below).

(
https://flic.kr/p/pZQpPn
View: https://www.flickr.com/photos/pavel_photophile2008/15750691431/in/album-72157627650432033/
),

In order for a review to be helpful to an advanced photographer with clear intent, the reviewer needs to invest some effort to understand the work and make the comments relevant.
 
TimHughes said:
Interesting, I mostly agree with the questions although I think the intro is overthinking it a bit. As a receiver of critique I want to know what impact did the image have on you rather than what you think I might have meant.
Click to expand...
A good point Tim. You do want to know if the image had impact and that should be a part of any review. However, when you offer comments on how to improve the work, it makes a huge difference if you understand what the maker intended. If you as a photographer intended to capture the gentle subtle morning lighting and rosy colours on the lake as the fog is rising and somebody suggest that by massively increasing the contrast and turning it into BW, you can turn the work into nasty storm is coming, you may not act on the advice.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
In my experience, the only criterion that really matters is the satisfaction of the "customer".

This "customer" may be...
  • someone who is paying for the picture
  • someone to whom the picture is being given
  • random viewers on the internet
  • the photographer himself.
If the "customer" expresses satisfaction with the picture, the image is a success, otherwise it may be considered a failure.

To my way of thinking, there is little more to be said on the subject.
Click to expand...
All true, Andrew, but it seems a bit off topic. My post was on how to make the comments on photos more relevant to the maker.
 
My take on this is that it is a load of intellectual twaddle.
If you do something for yourself, then you can judge your intent, but as soon as you "release" it then you have to accept that everybody will put their own spin on it regardless of your intent.

Nudes and glamour on here provides an interesting case. We are constantly told not to critise the model but the photograph, but they are one photograph they can't really be separated. (as much as some people try)

Take my Avatar, there are in essence two bits to it, the object I made and the photograph of that object. Do you need to know my intent to critique the photograph or is it the photograph you should be critiquing but the object?
 
munch said:
My take on this is that it is a load of intellectual twaddle.
Click to expand...


^^^^
This :)

If I post a picture for critique i want the persons opinion.... A wide range of people will hopefully give there opinion and I can then guage the reaction... Seems pointless if I am to make everyone think like me and try to get them to react like me... I already know what i think of it :)
 
Pavel M said:
You can be both ;)
Click to expand...
There are photographers who openly refuse to be called artists (e.g. Don McCullin)

But you can be neither - i.e. "someone who takes photographs". :D
 
Pavel M said:
If I for example create a high key image where almost all the photo is white, except for some dark areas, it does not help me if I get a comment that the highlights are blown (see below).
Click to expand...

For a specific group of photographers, I largely agree with your original list, especially the importance of intent, which has been discussed on here before. But for many people who take photographs, their intent is much simpler: they just want help to take "better" photographs.

I think the establishing question that comes before making use of your list, which affects whether that list is appropriate or not, is one of context. Which can often be assessed by simply looking at the photograph being critiqued. Which brings me to your tree post.

Had this tree photograph been one of my neighbours children playing in the snow, then a comment about blown highlights and advice on how to avoid it might well be helpful.

But reading the tree image makes it obvious that a lot of work has gone into reducing what I presume started out as a photograph, into a few simple tones, and the effect is intentional. In fact, with this image I wouldn't even see this as a blown highlights but as intentional manipulation, which matches the manipulation of the tones in other parts of the image. Which taken together work well as a piece of graphic design. This wouldn't prevent a discussion on how well the graphical elements work together and how they might be improved, but it would prevent any comment on blown highlights.

I have nothing against conceptual photography, or photographs that need words to add context, but generally, I think "expressive" photographers have some responsibility to make their intent obvious through the images they make, at least for most of the time.

If the first response to a photograph is one of noticing details like blown highlights, massive amounts of noise, a lack of sharpness, odd composition, weird lighting or strange subject treatment, which detract from responding to the image as a whole, then maybe these things need addressed. As a critic, how you address these things will depend on the context of the photograph.

Some of the time it well be essential to understand the expressive intent of the photographer and work with them on how they might better express this intent, but on other occasions it might simply be about explaining how slow shutter speeds are more likely to give blurry pictures.
 
Last edited:
The comments so far illustrate the problem that photography isn’t really just one thing. About the only thing almost all photographs have in common is that they were taken with a camera.

Analogies are always dangerous but it’s like seeing the product of all people who wield a paintbrush as producing the same thing. Some people paint houses and they are artists, others paint houses and they are house painters (painters & decorators) but the tools are essentially the same.

Wedding photography has already been mentioned but similar considerations apply to sports, wildlife, product and various ’commercial’ photographs. The product of any of those can be looked as art when taken away from their original purpose.

Looking at the OP’s Flickr it seems he mainly takes abstract photos which probably puts him in the ‘artist’ category but the use of patterns and shapes can also enhance the impact of any photography, documentary, wildlife or whatever.

My twaddle ;)
 
Not sure if it belongs here or not, but my intent was to promote self-expressionism. (whatever that is)
1624782567436.png
 
sphexx said:
My twaddle ;)
Click to expand...
Your twaddle makes sense to me.

I suppose I would fall into the artsy photography bracket. Still life being my main genre, but not my only one. All of my images are for me, I share them for feedback, some I agree with, some I don't. But because they're artsy, people will have differing opinions.
 
sphexx said:
My twaddle ;)
Click to expand...
Not twaddle. :LOL:

Years ago, I overheard a bloke in a pub declaim: "If someone tells you they're an artist, they're not". I still think that's true. :naughty:
 
I'll start by saying I think there's a vast amount of overthinking going on here on the part of the OP, at least in terms of how the majority of people think about this irrespective of whether they consider themselves to be photographers, artists, or both - but I'd argue understanding intent is almost counter-productive when talking about critique. Part of the point of critique is to understand someone else's point of view and how someone else has interpreted your work, if you're just going to say 'well that's how I intended it to be' then it makes the whole concept of critique somewhat pointless to me.

Moving this into the context of my profession (music), I don't need to know a songwriter's intent to have an emotional response to a piece of music, and that emotional response may be completely different from how the writer feels about it. My emotional response is a result of my experience in life and what makes me up as a human being, if I try to understand a piece of music from the writer's perspective it might end up having no meaning whatsoever for me - and in understanding my point of view the writer may feel differently about their own work. This concept applies equally to photography or any other art form.

People often make the mistake of thinking critique is purely about criticising and it very much isn't, it's also about understanding other people and expanding how you think about things.
 
PMN said:
People often make the mistake of thinking critique is purely about criticising and it very much isn't, it's also about understanding other people and expanding how you think about things.
Click to expand...
"Art" is derived from the Latin "Artem", which I believe is generally translated into "skill", hence the word "artisan" describes someone who employs a skill.

"Critic" is derived from the Greek "kritikos" which is often translated as "able to discern", whence "krites" or "one who is able to make a judgement".

In that context, it seems to me that "criticism" should apply purely to an assessment of the technical skill employed in the making of the object.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Sky
AndrewFlannigan said:
"Art" is derived from the Latin "Artem", which I believe is generally translated into "skill", hence the word "artisan" describes someone who employs a skill.
Click to expand...

But that definition was lost around 1500 during the Renaissance when painting, sculpture and architecture were promoted into a higher form of art that went beyond craft or skill.

During the enlightenment, philosophers decided that these three forms of art along with music and poetry should be formally grouped into the "fine arts" as activities that required genius and imagination.

In the 19th century the "fine" was dropped and "Art" became activities defined by requiring genius and imagination.

From Getlein, M (2020) Living with art. 12th edition. McGraw Hill.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
"Art" is derived from the Latin "Artem", which I believe is generally translated into "skill", hence the word "artisan" describes someone who employs a skill.

"Critic" is derived from the Greek "kritikos" which is often translated as "able to discern", whence "krites" or "one who is able to make a judgement".

In that context, it seems to me that "criticism" should apply purely to an assessment of the technical skill employed in the making of the object.
Click to expand...

In that context you're probably right, although I don't know of anyone who thinks of critique in a sense of what the original Latin words described!
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
"Art" is derived from the Latin "Artem", which I believe is generally translated into "skill", hence the word "artisan" describes someone who employs a skill.

"Critic" is derived from the Greek "kritikos" which is often translated as "able to discern", whence "krites" or "one who is able to make a judgement".

In that context, it seems to me that "criticism" should apply purely to an assessment of the technical skill employed in the making of the object.
Click to expand...
I have to confess that I'm failing to see the relevance of that, unless you're simply telling us that you share the principles and values that predominated during the bygone ages you refer to. In which case, errr... okay, knock yourself out.
 
Without knowing where the words we use come from, we can't help but misuse them and confuse our audience. Or, as the schoolmaster allegedly said: "if you don't say what you mean, you can't mean what you say".

It can never be a bad thing to consider the true meaning of the words we are using.

myotis said:
During the enlightenment, philosophers decided that these three forms of art along with music and poetry should be formally grouped into the "fine arts" as activities that required genius and imagination.
Click to expand...
The best definition of a philospher I can recall is "a man who would rather sit in the dark and discuss why the light bulb shouldn't need changing." :naughty:
 
Last edited:
Sky said:
How do you know there's an artist/pilot/vegan in the room?

Because they'll tell you. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
How do you know there's an artist/pilot/vegan/Yorkshire person in the room?

Because they'll tell you.

FTFY :)
 
sphexx said:
How do you know there's an artist/pilot/vegan/Yorkshire person in the room?
Click to expand...
My sister lives in Yorkshire. She likes them. :wideyed: :naughty:
 
sphexx said:
How do you know there's an artist/pilot/vegan/Yorkshire person in the room?

Because they'll tell you.

FTFY :)
Click to expand...
The Yorkshire person will be the one who's always right. :exit:
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
My sister lives in Yorkshire. She likes them. :wideyed: :naughty:
Click to expand...

I have lived in Yorkshire for 25+ years and I like them but nevertheless that bit about them telling you is true in my experience :)
 
You can make a photograph of any kind for your own purposes - the intent is yours alone. Others may never see it.

Its relevance to others might depend on them finding meaning in it. This can be emotional / intellectual, and should be able to be described in words. It has little to do with 'liking' or 'not liking', those mainstays of the untutored and social media.

Some images are documentary - journalistic, if you like. Some images are merely decorative. Some images are allusive ...
 
Working on the adage that one can't control what or how other people see, it's always going to be tricky to get people to see what one is trying to convey unless it's a simple message.

If people don't get the intent, that's either because the photographer wasn't clear enough (for the viewer) with their intent, or because the viewer doesn't have the patience/time/skill/investment to spend the time providing a more thoughtful review. Or it could be a combination thereof.

Providing supporting information reduces the chance of misunderstood feedback, which then increases the chance the viewer will understand the intent, and thus be able to be more constructive. I don't see how this harms the original photographer and would argue that it gives more relevant feedback.

On Talk Photography, I rarely comment on images with no supporting text. There is just as much chance of me wasting my time as there is of providing something useful. However if someone is asking for specific feedback (or if I really like the image) I will tend to comment if I feel I have something to add. As I get to "know" the work of some photographers here, I can start to see a bit more about what they might be trying to achieve and perhaps see it from their point of view. I'd probably still be reluctant to voice that opinion because it's less confrontational to say "I think ..." rather than "You should....". I tend to shy away from speaking about how the work might be improved simply because I could easily be wrong.

e.g.

"I think there is too much sky in this image and you should have included more foreground"
"I think there's quite a bit of sky in the foreground and I'd be tempted to crop it"

One is telling you what to do (which many find offensive - especially if the photographer thinks they're plain wrong) and one is much easier for the photographer to "let go of" because it's not pointing the finger. If someone said the latter to me, I'd easily be able to let it go because it's their opinion of how they would do it.
 
droj said:
It has little to do with 'liking' or 'not liking', those mainstays of the untutored and social media.
Click to expand...
On that I must disagree with you because, under analysis, all such opinions come down to "like or not".

There has never been a proven, objective standard of artistic "goodness". This was brilliantly satirised by Terry Pratchett in "Thief of Time", where some of the characters reduce a painting to its molecular components in a vain attempt to discover why it is "a great work of art".
 
The majority of this thread deserves to be printed in Private Eye's 'Pseud's Corner'.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
all such opinions come down to "like or not"
Click to expand...
No, let's move on from liking, which in the current context says little & is just a casual response.

There are two components - technique and meaning. They can both be subject to analysis, and hopefully consensus.
 
droj said:
There are two components - technique and meaning.
Click to expand...
Let's take those and apply them to our picture, which, for the purposes of discussion, is one I prepared earlier...

Woman kissing bald man's head P1010255.JPG

So: what can we say about the technique?
  • It's a grabbed shot using a digital camera and a long focussed zoom.
  • The colour's been dropped.
  • The composition is just what was there at the time.
  • The position of the figures is nothing to do with the photographer.
  • The man's eye visible between the stems of the plant is an accident.
That was a slice, eh? Let's try the meaning.
  • I have no idea who they are - so no meaning there.
  • I have no idea why they were there - again no meaning.
  • The kiss suggests they like each other -perhaps this is a picture about affection.
  • The man is bald - perhaps that means women are attracted to bald men so they can kiss their heads without getting a mouth full of greasy hair.
At the end of the day, then, there's nothing we can say about this picture other than that it's an image that I liked when I saw it in the viewfinder. Some people have indicated that they like it and far, far more of the viewers have not.

Ipso facto, the sole thing we can learn from this is that people like pictures or they don't.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
Let's take those and apply them to our picture, which, for the purposes of discussion, is one I prepared earlier...

View attachment 322520

So: what can we say about the technique?
  • It's a grabbed shot using a digital camera and a long focussed zoom.
  • The colour's been dropped.
  • The composition is just what was there at the time.
  • The position of the figures is nothing to do with the photographer.
  • The man's eye visible between the stems of the plant is an accident.
That was a slice, eh? Let's try the meaning.
  • I have no idea who they are - so no meaning there.
  • I have no idea why they were there - again no meaning.
  • The kiss suggests they like each other -perhaps this is a picture about affection.
  • The man is bald - perhaps that means women are attracted to bald men so they can kiss their heads without getting a mouth full of greasy hair.
At the end of the day, then, there's nothing we can say about this picture other than that it's an image that I liked when I saw it in the viewfinder. Some people have indicated that they like it and far, far more of the viewers have not.

Ipso facto, the sole thing we can learn from this is that people like pictures or they don't.
Click to expand...

Let‘s see … obviously you took the photo because of the repetition of the vee shapes: the angle of the torsos, the plant, trestle tables …but it’s a bit of a fail though as the pattern isn’t strong enough ;):exit:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top