Re: A critique suggestion

I know I replied to your post, but my post wasn't referring to anything you said, specifically. However, I will address what I think you have said. Apologies if I get this wrong, but I believe you are saying that for you your opinion is as good as anyone else's opinion. OK, sure. In fact, I'll go one further: for you, your opinion matters more, 'cause even if you agree with what someone else says, you're just changing your opinion in their direction, so, in the end, it's still your opinion that matters.

But, what I think others are saying is, if you knew what they did -- not if you had their aesthetics -- but if you knew what they did about art, would you still have the same opinion? For example, let's say someone knowledgeable about art criticizes one of my photos and I totally disagree. But would I have disagreed if I knew what they did about art? Well, we'll never know, 'cause I don't know what they know, and I probably never will. But if I did, would I still disagree?

I think that's the point being made: others' opinions may matter more than yours, because others are more educated in art than you. It doesn't mean their opinions mean more to you, but to the "readership", they mean more. For example, I'm pretty good at math and physics. If I were arguing with someone ignorant in math or physics about something that deals with math or physics, my take matters more than theirs. Not to them (which is unfortunately way to obvious in current society), but to the readership, yes, it does. It doesn't mean I'm necessarily right (I thought I made a mistake once, but the mistake was thinking I had made a mistake, so... 😁), it just means that because I'm educated and work in that field, my opinion carries more weight than someone not educated and not working in that field.

And so it is for criticism in art. The opinion of someone educated in the field carries more weight. It doesn't mean they are right. It doesn't mean you have to agree. It just means their opinion has more "oomph" behind it than yours. For example, I'm not going to agree with a trained climatologist who says Global Warming is a hoax. But their opinion on the matter carries more weight than mine -- even though they're wrong. 😁

So, if someone is just posting photos for praise, I think they should say something like "Kind comments only, please!" Otherwise, the default should be that people can give their honest criticism, right or wrong. But the photographer is under no obligation to accept said criticism. And I think this is actually in line with what you've been saying, more or less. Again, if I got it wrong, my apologies.

We are going round in circles GB.

What I said earlier is that everyone can take the opinions they receive for whatever they believe it is worth to them.

If a person knows next to nothing about the concepts behind art they might or might not put much weight on opinions about their imagex they receive from people who claim to have some training in art because they might have reason to suspect the person claiming to have training in art to be BS'ing.

It's when people try to impose their opinions on someone else or when people critique other people's opinions, especially in forums like this, that conflicts arise.

People need to let the person receiving opinions from various sources to judge for themselves, unless they ask for assistance, how much weight they place on the opinions they receive.

A picture does not have to be perfect or even close to perfect to give some pleasure to people, so the concepts of art can be justifiably meaningless to many people when they create their images.

In that situation the opinion of a person trained in art can mean much less than the opinion of someone untrained in art.

So it all comes down to what I said earlier - that everyone can take the opinions they receive for whatever they believe it is worth to them.

Art 😁

That's as good a recipe as any for stagnation.

Art? or Communication...?

It depends on what the final goal is.

The path to what goal is being stagnated?

I am making a wild guess but I suspect the concepts and principles behind art is close to the last thing, if at all, the overwhelming majority of people who post images in forums like this think of when framing a shot.

So I wonder what percentage of people posting images in forums like this place much emphasis or weight on art training based critiques of their images.

It's the head that stagnates. But if you are happy with that... so be it.

I don't know anyone who lines up a shot and thinks "I'm making art." Neither is it about doing an Arts course. Again, your lack of understanding about what is being discussed here is breathtaking. Especially in someone who spends so much time telling people about their images.
I suspect you are telling us about your approach to life in general. David, I can see no point at all in us exchanging views on anything.
But I acknowledge having learnt something from you. I have recorded these posts on screenshots.

I think an art is being practiced and I've got a fair idea what's being communicated.

Yes I believe so.

Art has been used in this discussion as an example. And Donald posted a pic titled Art. In this pic I saw it as Communication and I thought that was relevant to the theme of the thread...

In that case, then since nothing is resolved and all we have is a variety of opinions in this thread, it comes back to everyone putting as much or as little weight as they feel is appropriate for them on whatever critique they receive for their images in forums like this.

Artistic concepts were just being used as an example. I could have an idea / opinion about something wrong with my car. The mechanic - being more experienced - may or may not agree.
The point that has been raised in this thread is experience and how it relates to our perceptions / opinions. To gain experience we need to be open to new concepts so we can broaden our perceptions.

The overall point has been that if we view things in black and white (excuse the pun - I don't mean as a b&w pic), with a narrow perception, we will often miss the intent of the work we are viewing. When we see the intent of the work, other minor things mostly don't matter.

What Mike, Nigel and GB have been trying to get across is that there are other potential viewpoints. It helps to continue to broaden them.

That is true but everyone has different interests, ambitions and the way they want to develop their skills in photography.

Agree with you post but add the following:

"Arty" training is not just about placing things in a logical order, or defining by reason. It's also about developing a more empirical approach, one that allows you to see past the logic and make the abstract connections that are a lot more in parallel with the human emotive state. Because cameras are technical tools there is a tendency on photo forums for a technical approach. Fine when operating the camera, but often it overlaps into the image in the way that aperture choice and shutter speed have a visual impact and so must have an emotive one as well. We define the image by the metrics we understand.
Visual literacy is about both seeing the metrics you don't understand, and letting go of the need to fit everything into a logical order. After all, human emotion is anything but logical and so rational thought is almost it's opposite. So visual literacy is also about developing those abstract connections, understanding in terms of memory and the emotions attached to those memories. Which takes practice.
So yes there is "something" about the image you posted, and it's something that's outside your understanding, and it happened by accident. So expand your understanding.
It is a very definite and deliberate strategy to introduce a random or abstract element in a process for the exact reason of looking for that "happy accident", something that make that emotive connection, breaking out of the "logical" and finding the abstract connections with memory. Then developing it. For instance see the image as a whole and ask how the process has contributed to the sence of "rush" or "hurry", is that a logical connection or does it reside more in memory as in this is what rushed shots usually look like rather than being a function of the actual aperture selection used in a rush. Does the viewpoint help you relate personally with the man on the crossing, and how does memory play a part in that. The colour scheme as a cohesive whole is synonymous with what kind of day, and not in an exact weather forecast but in personal mood.
It's not to say that you have to use a random process, in fact most common denominator stuff can be read from a rulebook, and often is. Our irrational emotions become very predictable on a base level it seems.

For example, if an image doesn't obey the one-thirds rule, some will mark it down just for that, others won't care - that being but one factor of many in an image.

For myself, if placement is important, I prefer the Golden Ratio and place the centroid of the subject.

The rule of thirds is a gross approximation of the Golden Section.

The Golden Section is useful if you want to stress harmony and calm. It you want to stress tension you need to do something different.

I suspect that Dan had not bothered to read the article I suggested. It doesn't set out rules for approaching seeing. It's only a beginning, a doorway to encouraging opening your eyes when you look at images, to actively work on developing your ability to see. It is only an encouragement to begin a process of looking at images with an active head. It doesn't in the slightest set out rules. It gives what is only a beginning to prompt your head when you look at an image. The other article on the Dprev site on looking at B&W does much the same.
Emphatically, it's the opposite of approaching discussing images with a "Wow that pops" "Gee that's sharp" mindset when looking at photos.
IMNHO, we are considering what The Photo (Dprev) tries to be about. It is what distinguishes the aims of this site from gear based sites.

I see it as part of a wider picture. Everyone has a choice. You can go along with the "dumbing down" push that sees education as elitist. It rejects anything that smacks of formal studies as constraints on thinking. Those who have done formal art studies will know that rejecting formal studies on such grounds is nonsense, Again and again, art history is littered with attempts to formalize 'the rules" and again and again the rules have been rejected and rethought. It's still useful to be aware of what some of the many art movements were. Formal studies if anything however shows that trying to set rules doesn't work.
Or you can see education in a wider sense. This is all about a state of mind. Some people approach the world with a sense of curiosity and pleasure in growth. Some find this threatening. It's the difference between fundamentalism and having an open mind.

The rule of thirds along with the other commonly referred to composition "rules" are obviously just guides and not actual rules.

One uses them whenever one feels they might help frame an interesting composition.

The composition techniques in photography are mere guidelines to help beginners capture eye-catching images

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photographic_composition

And here I'm also picking up the point that Dan has just made.
Things such as the Rule of Thirds and The Golden Mean aren't rules and they aren't guides. I've written on this previously. They are the outcomes of centuries of observation about how brains create meaning. Some meaning appears to be innate and some is probably culturally acquired, for example some responses may depend on whether we are used to reading left to right or vertically.
Some things have nothing to do with composition as such. What impresses person A undoubtedly impresses them. Person B with more experience will not be impressed because they recognize the same thing as a cliche. Does person A have anything to gain by swapping notes with person B? Or is it enough for A to dismiss B as "thinking they know better."
A person familiar with the development of impressionist painting is likely to think about sharpness in a photo in a different way to someone without that experience.
Picking up symbols or references (intended or not by the artist/composer/writer/photographer etc) changes the response of the person receiving the input. People viewing a Christian Church or a Muslim mosque appear to see the same thing but internally "see" quite differently depending on the cultural experience they have of what the eye is seeing.
Anyone who has read Ansel Adams or Cartier-Bresson on photography (and they have a completely different point of view) is likely to have thoughts tucked away in their head that influence what they see when they look at photos.
These examples are only scratching the surface of the subject. None of them are rules that any artist must follow. Many of them have changed over the years. It's probably closer to think of this kind of experience as something like "awareness."
Yes, I agree that we all see different things when what we see, gets to the brain. Being content with this is the mindset of stagnation. What gets interesting is when we are open to build our awareness in sharing and discussing images (or any other art form). That's where experience comes in. It may be, but doesn't have to be, from formal courses. I suggest that the pleasure a photographer gets from images is considerably deepened by building the awareness.

You can call them what you like but people use them as guides to help guide an image element to one of the intersection points to help create an interesting composition.

That is a generalisation that is undoubtedly not true in all cases.

Obviously it depends on the image and the taste, preferences etc etc of Person B.

I have no reason to believe Person B will always be not impressed by images from Person A.

In any case what if Person A receives opinions from other more experienced people than just Person B?

Are seriously saying that all of those other people will definitely be not impressed?