TP: What do you know about critiquing ???

brettania wrote: I used to write a lot about classical music and musicians, and would speak to them about their artistic ambitions, strengths and weaknesses.

Whoa! This is so cool! :)

edit: keeping with the topic, I'm still on the 'art' side where I just think I like or not like a picture. Am still learning a lot on 'critiquing' and the new look/rules of the photo forums is a great help on this regard. Thanks!

Edited by dogears - 26 April 2007 at 04:29

Good criteria omerbey.

I don't know anything about critiquing art. But there may be some overlap with this topic and my particular field. I am involved in theological education and my area is homiletics (preaching). In preaching classes we always do a lot of sermon critique and I have found that it pays to be very disciplined in how that is done. The basic guidelines I teach my students in critiquing sermons may be applicable to some extent.

1. What did I hear? What were the basic components of the sermon? (words, phrases, images etc.)

or: What do I see? What are the components of the photo?

2. What is the structure of the sermon? How are the components put together?

or: What is the structure of the photo and how are the components put together?

3. How did it play? i.e. what type of sermon was it? Narrative, imagery, reason...

or: What type of photo is it? How do the components interact with each other? Action, dreamy, abstract... etc.

4. Where was the sermon's energizing center or vital thrust? Where did I feel the energy?

or: What is the center or thrust of the photo? Where is the focal point?

5. How was I moved by this sermon?

or: How was I moved by this photo?

6. What costs and benefits do I see in this sermon's strategy and play?

or: What are the costs and benefits of setting up, shooting, croping and post-processing this way?

7. What would happen if... (Suggestions for possible improvement)

or: exactly the same question.

8. What do I hear that is distinctive in this preacher’s voice?

or: What do I see that is distinctive in this photographer's photos?

9. What other matters may be significant for fruitful discussion?

or: exactly the same question.

The main point of this method of critique is that the sermon is carefully observed, analyzed and unpacked in the first 5 steps and it is only after that is finished that comments about what was wrong with the sermon or how it could have been improved are addressed. My experience has been that students not only appreciate this kind of critique, but that it leads to a lot of helpful insights.

Of course we don't have the time to treat every photo with this kind of care; but perhaps some of the basic principles could be applied. For what it's worth...

Edited by revdocjim - 26 April 2007 at 16:12

I guess the first thing to do when trying to critique a picture is to look at it and see what reactions (positive or negative) it instils in you – If you get nothing from it either way, then maybe it is not a good time to try critiquing – be prepared to stop there and maybe come back to it later (sometimes seeing something that someone else has written in the interim can help).

If the overall impression the picture leaves you with is negative (and you are allowed to not like the picture) then look to see if you can spot what elements of it give you those negative feelings, and whether you can spot any saving graces (sometimes you might not like the subject, but may admire the way it has been composed).

If you like a picture (and if you do that can be the best starting point), see if you can spot the individual elements that make it strong for you – look for compositional elements like use of rule of thirds, diagonals, symmetry, pattern, colour, tonal range and technical ones like point of focus, depth of focus, exposure etc. Don’t be frightened to swot up on these, as this can be a great learning experience.

From there you might like to think about how the picture could have been improved or just treated differently – a different crop, placing the main subject in a particular part of the frame, using spot exposure, altering timing of the shot, changing the viewpoint (for instance by crouching low), or changing the way the picture is post-processed.

Once you have considered the above, think about which bits you want to write about (you don’t have to write it all every time). Think whether it will be helpful to the person asking for C&C and only go ahead if you think you have something constructive to say. Remember when you write the critique that the objective is to help, rather than look clever yourself. Be careful in the language used as English is a second language to many Dyxum members; the use of emotive terms may focus their attention on those alone, detracting from other things you have to say and may bring an overly defensive reply from them.

Anyone got any fresh ideas to add here?

brettania wrote: Anyone got any fresh ideas to add here?

Well, I'm very glad I didn't comment about this back in 2007 or I'd probably be very embarrassed today.... i.e. it takes time to learn how to critique at all effectively and the job of improving is never done.

Other thoughts - not necessarily fresh!

You need to try to understand the shooter's intentions to some extent or your comments will miss the mark. Likewise,it is good to estimate a shooter's level of experience or your comments may be both useless and unhelpful.

Some people don't like critique - their funeral, but each to their own and I would try to respect that ... but not too much - if they post in Open Views or a similar forum they should maybe expect it unless they state otherwise.

Critiquing is as much about finding what you like as what you don't like - and that is often the most difficult part for me, especially when I am short of time.

In a similar vein, there is a very fine line between constructive and destructive criticism; and a very fine line between constructive criticism and rose-tinted criticism (aka "white lies" or the "what do you think of my new haircut syndrome"). But there is nothing wrong with encouraging people either - it's good.

You don't have to critique to say what you think about a picture. Especially if it is a genre that you like, an expression of your thoughts might be useful/ helpful (aka "I love #6 but not sure about #1"). In fact a photo forum needs these posts to survive.

Critique is a learning experience for both sides, and it is a dialogue. If someone makes a comment that you think misses the point or is wrong, a counter-critique - with the same rule of avoiding pure negativity or defensiveness - is the ideal way to respond; or an explanation of your actual intentions. All well-intentioned critique should be respected.

A critique is always a personal opinion and it may be a good idea to liberally use phrases like "to/for me", "personally" and "I could be wrong, but...".

I could say more, but I look forward to hearing what others have to say, and I am repeating some of what has gone before as it is.