I was reading this (abbreviated below) today on how to be a good critic on photography. The only one I REALLY disagree with is the final point. I don’t think it is the critics job to make a suggestion on how to improve the work. It’s the artists job to take all of the comments and work on how their own perception along with the criticism received (valid or not!) will improve or affect their work. Often criticism is taken as a way of reworking already created pieces, when I think it should also be seen as another mode of thought or perception of the work. Otherwise these are 4 good rules to start with when being critical about photography. (I also disagree partially with the final part of the third point, I don’t think every person pours their heart and soul out when making work! It’s this assumption that can lead to weaker critical thought or the ‘cotton wool’ affect.)
1) One must respect the artist whose work one is criticising. That doesn’t mean that one has to like everything but rather that one must try and understand the creator’s motives and approach.
2) It is beholden on the critic to be knowledgeable about photography – not in some narrow, parochial way but in a deep and broad way.
3) The judge should be humble. The critics’ role should be to serve the photographers whose work they are appraising. He or she must bear in mind that whatever they feel about the image presented to them the person whose vision it is has no doubt poured their heart and soul into its making.
4) The critic must supply a reasoned argument for their opinion. It simply isn’t good enough to say that one doesn’t like something without backing up that opinion with reasons and examples to support one’s viewpoint.
5) The critic should make suggestions on how to improve a work. If they don’t have any suggestions they have no business being critical!
Post a Comment