On 2010-06-29 20:58, William Robb wrote:
He was, IIRC, commenting on a very bland photo that was well below the
level that the photographer was capable of, and Shel told him that,
almost to the letter.
And all of a sudden people started throwing poo at him.
And that's the main reason that I offer criticism "personally"
(one-on-one) instead of "out there in the ether". I can discuss
virtually anything with equanimity, most people can't, regardless of
their posturings.
I appreciate the kind words that my images earn, but I also appreciate
when the flaws get picked out, as this is how I improve as a
photographer and as an image editor.
I'm completely on board. But I can learn, anyone that can learn, can
learn from a critique offered in private, just as well as one offered in
public. What we lose, we lose as a group, not necessarily as
individuals. We lose the "learning from others' mistakes" aspect.
I don't think we take the same care any more, and I think it shows.
I surely don't. I'm still learning. A large part of that learning is
to shoot a lot at different settings and see what happens. That used to
be more expensive than I could afford, what with wet processes and all.
Digital has made it a lot cheaper for me to learn, in some ways,
though it has surely burdened me in other ways. I mean, c'mon, four or
five thousand shots to review for a long weekend?
What pisses me off is when I make a suggestion about how to improve a
photograph and get told that the picture is what it is, and that I
should judge it on it's own merits, and not the merits of a picture that
could have been.
Have you noticed (I have) that these responses often don't come from the
photographer, but "hangers on" or self-selected "protectors of the
list/forum/club/society/etc."? Like those pecker heads that get in the
leftmost (fastest) of six lanes and go two miles an hour below the speed
limit while a forty ton semi bears down on them a +20 MPH.
But because I care, [...]
There's a larger discussion waiting to be had on that, but it's not
strictly about photography. It boils down to what you care about, what
you define as worth caring about, and how you deal with "assaults" on
those beliefs. How much tact you can or will manage in response.
Bill, you "know" me (electronically), and you know I'm not aiming this
at you, personally. It's a discussion that needs to be had, though.
It's also one unlikely to produce constructive results in many venues.
Too many people just can't "get outside themselves" when "debating"
things they care deeply about.
Additionally, those sorts of "critique me" questions often are asked
begging a congratulatory response rather than "the truth". You and I
both know of many photo (and other) sites built on and dedicated to
exactly that formula.
Sometimes, though, even open minded askers don't have the fortitude to
handle a scathing, though non-personal response. They were genuine in
their query, and the response was genuine, educational, and polite. But
the asker wasn't emotionally prepared to handle harsh opinion. And
sometimes, well meaning respondents can't manage an appropriate level of
tact to get over the psychological hurdles of the recipient, however
modest and reasonable.
As I recall, though, Shel committed the unpardonable sin of debate: he
personalized it. I don't recall the verbatim quotation, but it ran
along the lines that the photographer should have been ashamed to
present such dreck publicly. That's far, far over the line. Shel
presented an otherwise valid argument in such divisive and uselessly,
hopelessly perjorative terms that the "teaching moment" evaporated.
He had valid criticisms of the work that could have helped the original
photographer and others to become better. But he proposed it in a way
that was unacceptable to much of the audience. And he lost them. And
we all lost the opportunity to teach and to learn in the furious
acrimony that followed.
And sometimes, that involves telling someone that I wouldn't have pushed
the button.
And why I wouldn't have.
And if that is harsh, it is because I am a man of few carefully chosen
words.
Well, the responsibility certainly lies on both sides. Something that
really disturbs me about a lot of so called "modern discourse" is the
overt, self-aggrandized polarity of it. They don't just disagree with
us, they're "black" and we're "white" (not racially, but as in the
"black versus white" view of the world).
But the net-net is that fewer and fewer people seem to be less and less
inclined to even make the attempt to see the counter-argument's side of
the debate.
That does not generally lead to an environment conducive to helpful,
practical solutions.
--
Thanks,
DougF (KG4LMZ)
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
