Posted by Rick Denney on May 23, 2003 at 13:40:20:
In Reply to: Re: a dumb post here posted by Chris Horsch on May 23, 2003 at 12:08:50:
Nobody here would want to risk their friendship with Mike by saying negative things, even if there were negative things to say. That ain't the purpose of this conversation.
As a devoted photographer, I read View Camera magazine. Most of the photographers who are reviewed in that magazine do work that impresses the heck out of me. The reviewers spend time describing the technical and artistic processes of the photographer--how he chooses subjects, how he makes technical decisions, what he hopes to achieve with his work, and so on--in addition to how the reviewer responds to the work. In the latter category, I see comments like "his use of wide-angle perspective brings me into the image" and "if you dislike the typical soot-and-chalk overuse of contrast, you'll love this work with its commitment to subtle gray tones" and "I confess some confusion about the purpose of rendering the foreground unsharp in this image."
I enjoy these articles, and derive a lot of benefit from them even though they often find no fault in the artist's work.
In the current issue, there is a review of a photographer whose work I just don't get. It all looks like snapshots to me. The reviewer described how the photographer's work was selling for zillions in recent auctions, and then described how I'm supposed to feel upon viewing the work. Instead of telling me the artist's decision-making processes, the reviewer said things like (of a photograph showing tourists admiring a painting at the Louvre) "the formation of the crowd echos the forms of the painting, providing a dynamic balance between modern indifference and classical formalism." (These aren't the exact words, but it is the exact style). This is just the sort of review that you describe as "dwelling on texture and subtle nuance." So, the reviewer offered her judgment on the basis that 1.) effete gallery owners and art collectors are willing to pay a lot for the work, and 2.) that she can describe in flowing but meaningless grandiloquence her world view of visual art in general and how she can use it to "explain" the image in question. Thanks, but I don't want to hear the explanation--the art should speak for itself. Nothing in the review gave me any insight that would help me understand why these images weren't just snapshots. Had I known, for example, that the photographer waited three hours for the crowd in front of the painting to be arranged so that they seemed completely anonymous, and that was the reason why the people where kept out of focus, I might have at least appreciate that there was reason for what seemed to me just technical incompetence.
Note that View Camera is a magazine for photographers, and its good reviews understand that audience. Those good reviews seem to me appropriate for tuba players describing the performances of tuba players, when talking to other tuba players. Talking about mistakes usually does nothing to enhance my appreciation of art, though the good reviewer will couch complaints in ways that do enhance appreciation.
The bad reviews are written to stroke the ego of the reviewer, and thus should only be reviewed by the intended audience--the reviewer. Going on and on about mistakes is one tool for stroking that ego.
There is a fine line between the two, but we can see where we are when we write reviews by examing our motives. Are we really interested in enhancing appreciation for art, or are we just showing off? Those motives usually shine through whatever we say.
Consequently, for someone like me to stroke my tuba-playing ego when reviewing someone like Mike Roylance (just to name the example at hand) would be remarkably dangerous. The motive comes through and usually attracts the challenges it deserves.
Rick "agreeing with some but not seeing any purpose in negative reviews on Tubenet" Denney