Critiquing the Critique
I attended a photo critique organized by the Atlanta Photography Group today. Having been mostly self-taught, I have not had much interaction with other photographers, and was looking forward to learning from other amateurs and professionals' photographs and critiques. Sadly, I was disappointed.
This was my second critique session, and I found that discussion (again) centered around photographic equipment (stereoscopic 8x10 pinholes, digital backs, Nikon D100s), archaic - albeit imaginative - production techniques (tea-soaked toning), and photographic locations and history. The actual photograph seemed to be less important than the mechanics and equipment used in achieving it. Personally, I would like the photo to speak for itself. Complicated narrations of darkroom chemical process iterations, photo setup requirements, deliberate errors in exposure, processing and printing, though (marginally) educational, serve little purpose if the end result is not appealing.
I liked one aspect of the creative critiques - an aspect I find commonly in the individualistic psyche of most Americans - that the art object is the artist's brainchild. There are no prescriptive rules in art (e.g. the image must be cropped square, the subject must be placed two-third from the right, exposure must spread equally across all gray levels) - only guidelines. If an artist ignores them, it is his creative choice. Only out of this acceptance of rule-breaking does true creativity rise. This is a refreshing change from the self-doubting, let-me-tell-you-the-correct-way mindset with which creativity is taught in India.
However, I felt that the group took this mindset too much to heart. There was little actual critique in the meeting. The vaguest, ugliest, most pointless photo would receive only positive reviews ("If this is what (s)he wanted to show, who am I to judge?"). However, for improvement and growth, the positives need to be reinforced and negatives discouraged (or atleast, pointed out). Without a dissenting opinion, a critique is a mere sycophantic ego-booster. Simon Cowell is necessary, entertaining evil.
Another interesting feature of the critique was the photographers' creative usage of their multicultural background. By culture, I mean patterned beliefs and behavior resulting from orthogonal creative ecosystems - other art forms. People used their background in music, painting and sculpture, and applied them to their photography, with curious results.
Like any hobby group, my expectations and skill level needs to be in line with the group to benefit from them. I don't feel this group is the right fit for me.
This was my second critique session, and I found that discussion (again) centered around photographic equipment (stereoscopic 8x10 pinholes, digital backs, Nikon D100s), archaic - albeit imaginative - production techniques (tea-soaked toning), and photographic locations and history. The actual photograph seemed to be less important than the mechanics and equipment used in achieving it. Personally, I would like the photo to speak for itself. Complicated narrations of darkroom chemical process iterations, photo setup requirements, deliberate errors in exposure, processing and printing, though (marginally) educational, serve little purpose if the end result is not appealing.
I liked one aspect of the creative critiques - an aspect I find commonly in the individualistic psyche of most Americans - that the art object is the artist's brainchild. There are no prescriptive rules in art (e.g. the image must be cropped square, the subject must be placed two-third from the right, exposure must spread equally across all gray levels) - only guidelines. If an artist ignores them, it is his creative choice. Only out of this acceptance of rule-breaking does true creativity rise. This is a refreshing change from the self-doubting, let-me-tell-you-the-correct-way mindset with which creativity is taught in India.
However, I felt that the group took this mindset too much to heart. There was little actual critique in the meeting. The vaguest, ugliest, most pointless photo would receive only positive reviews ("If this is what (s)he wanted to show, who am I to judge?"). However, for improvement and growth, the positives need to be reinforced and negatives discouraged (or atleast, pointed out). Without a dissenting opinion, a critique is a mere sycophantic ego-booster. Simon Cowell is necessary, entertaining evil.
Another interesting feature of the critique was the photographers' creative usage of their multicultural background. By culture, I mean patterned beliefs and behavior resulting from orthogonal creative ecosystems - other art forms. People used their background in music, painting and sculpture, and applied them to their photography, with curious results.
Like any hobby group, my expectations and skill level needs to be in line with the group to benefit from them. I don't feel this group is the right fit for me.
