Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 ... 8 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Forum etiquette—keep calm and carry on  (Read 8467 times)
dmerger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 686


« Reply #20 on: February 22, 2013, 10:44:46 AM »
ReplyReply

Probably the writer simply feels as if he is "simply calling a spade a spade."  Nothing derogatory about that, after all. 

James, you've got a wicked sense of humor!  Smiley
Logged

Dean Erger
Mjollnir
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 305


« Reply #21 on: February 22, 2013, 10:45:55 AM »
ReplyReply


I think the complaint here boils down to a handful of people who are incensed to rage that anyone would write more than a handful of words about a photograph. Maybe it is a recognition that "nice shot Joe" isn't a critique? Maybe it is a standard too high to actually have to put some content into a critique? Maybe it is resentment that an outsider is daring to comment on 'club' photos? Maybe it is that people have been shielded from the normal world of criticism in their photography? Whatever the reasons are, they are confined to a small group which accounts themselves the control faction of this forum. But in fact, taking aside that small group, pretty much all the others which I have commented to, have been appreciative of my comments. And why wouldn't they be? A critique consisting of no analysis is a pat on the back, or in the many cases of no comments at all, it is a simple rejection letter. How is that useful to a photographer? Why bother posting the photo?

Of course I use a lot of words. That's how ideas are constructed - with words. The more ideas you want to express, the more words you will need. I don't see the title of this forum as "pat on the back club." Start one of those, if you hate words. Make a simple check box for thumbs up and down and you can reduce it to no words. Nothing wrong with that. But this isn't that. One of the longest critiques I made here was 500 words. And knowing it would be that, I even provided a single sentence summary at the beginning for people whose eyes cross at the idea of reading 500 words. And that proved to me that it wasn't the length of my commentary that was objectionable, it was the content of it. For evidence, look to the long battles over the simple concept that a photograph reveals something of the photographer. Oddly, people will write at great length to attempt to discredit that idea.

Yes, my view of photography goes beyond the views of most here, because I view it as a larger more important art than many of these here. That's the conflict - not the length of my critique, but the idea I would dare touch on more than what was customary and comfortable. Which I will continue to do.

The attempts to chase me away with gutter level crudity didn't work, and won't work. Keep trying if you like, but it's a reflection on you, not me.


Uh-huh.

You see, when you immediately resort to hyperbole and delusional statements that don't reflect reality, you only dig yourself deeper into a hole of your own making.

To whit:

"Your bitter and filthy personal thoughts about the character of others don't fit into this forum purpose."

"a handful of people who are incensed to rage that anyone would write more than a handful of words about a photograph."

"he attempts to chase me away with gutter level crudity didn't work..."

The above have no basis in reality, but they do bring to mind the old adage that it's a certain kind of fool who likes to hear the sound of his own name.
Logged
Johnny_Johnson
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 131


« Reply #22 on: February 22, 2013, 10:48:00 AM »
ReplyReply

Try 6.

For example: Nice ambiguity, nice diagonals, very nice.

Later,
Johnny
Logged

------------------
Johnny Johnson
Cleveland, GA
nemo295
Guest
« Reply #23 on: February 22, 2013, 10:52:18 AM »
ReplyReply

Try 6.

25 words or less.

That's what they used to say in the essay contest rules on cereal boxes when I was a kid. If it worked for Kellogg's it can work here.
Logged
dmerger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 686


« Reply #24 on: February 22, 2013, 10:53:14 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi Dean, Well, let's start with the statement: ". . . members have used derogatory expressions, such as 'verbose' and 'fluff' to refer to . . . critiques." Damn right they have. They've used what Roger calls derogatory expressions after reading critiques that were verbose and full of fluff. There's nothing derogatory about calling a spade a spade.

I, for one, can't see any reason why we should hold still for huge chunks of verbose fluff posing as criticism without suggesting forcefully that the writer learn to be more concise. …
To refuse to object to a smelly explosion of verbal diarrhea is a demonstration of wussiness.

It seems like you’re saying that if anyone determines for themselves that what someone else writes is “verbose and full of fluff”, then it is okay to be insulting?  Why not just give your opinion of the photo?  Let the readers read both opinions and decide for themselves which, if either, they agree with.  The purpose of “User Critiques” is to critique photos, not to critique other critiques.  By ranting on about someone else’s alleged verbosity and fluff, rather than commenting on the photo, you’re just distracting from the photo critique.  

Moreover, to refuse to object (in the insulting manner which has been done recently) to what you personally believe is a smelly explosion of verbal diarrhea is not a demonstration of wussiness.  It’s a demonstration of a civilized, mature, intelligent discussion.


Logged

Dean Erger
amolitor
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 797


WWW
« Reply #25 on: February 22, 2013, 10:53:26 AM »
ReplyReply

It makes me feel <and now you have two words to express an emotion>.
Logged

- Andrew

My awesome blog about photography: http://photothunk.blogspot.com
RedwoodGuy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 417


« Reply #26 on: February 22, 2013, 11:05:03 AM »
ReplyReply

Try 6.
Then use that as your guideline. There, that wasn't so hard then, was it? You thought about what you like to do, you came up with a number, and now you have a handy guide you can apply to your comments. That's what I was hoping for by asking the question. Each would decide on their own!

For me? Rarely will 6 suffice. So, short of the administrator making a "rule of 6," I am comfortable providing my own guidelines.
Logged
RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6035



WWW
« Reply #27 on: February 22, 2013, 11:12:39 AM »
ReplyReply

For me? Rarely will 6 suffice.

That probably will go down as the understatement of the century.
Logged

Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2652


« Reply #28 on: February 22, 2013, 12:15:33 PM »
ReplyReply

In my opinion, attacking a review or a reviewer because you do not understand their critique only establishes doubt as to your own intelligence.

No, but it does suggest that we don't truly welcome critique.


Quote
#87 Learn to accept criticism.

"Critique is the foundation of art school education, and learning to make constructive use of it is one of the most difficult and important lessons to absorb. Look at your own work, and the work of others, as dispassionately as you can. Being defensive or hurt, while a natural reaction, will not help you improve your work. Learn the biases of your instructors so that you make the most use of their comments. Disagreeing with criticism is not wrong, but unless your work succeeds on its own merits in the eyes of your instructors and peers, resistance may not be constructive or helpful. Be brave under fire."

101 Things to Learn in Art School


Take Pramote Laoprasert as the model -- apart from factual corrections to assumptions about the processing of his photographs, his habitual response is "Thank you very much friends! I truly appreciate your comments".
« Last Edit: February 22, 2013, 12:34:53 PM by Isaac » Logged
amolitor
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 797


WWW
« Reply #29 on: February 22, 2013, 12:18:52 PM »
ReplyReply

You know, there's only one person lately who's had much of a problem accepting negative critique.
Logged

- Andrew

My awesome blog about photography: http://photothunk.blogspot.com
Peter McLennan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1660


« Reply #30 on: February 22, 2013, 12:29:40 PM »
ReplyReply

Yup.  Concision, please.

Logged
dmerger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 686


« Reply #31 on: February 22, 2013, 12:30:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Damn, Dean, If you do not see how such "sensible suggestion" would turn the forum into a group of wusses, praising Emperor's new clothes, then it is indeed pathetic.

Perhaps you can explain it to me, please.

Slobodan, just to be clear, my request was serious.  I wasn’t trying to be flippant.  I truly don’t understand how asking people to avoid “derogatory expressions” and personal “attacks” , to not be “rude” but to be “polite”, would turn the forum into a group of wusses, praising Emperor's new clothes.  Being “polite in their critiques and refrain from attacking images and their makers” doesn’t mean that people can’t be critical.  It just means to do it in a mature, civil, intelligent manner.  

So, Slobodan, I’d really like to hear your explanation of how Roger’s suggestions would turn the forum into a group of wusses, praising Emperor's new clothes.
Logged

Dean Erger
dmerger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 686


« Reply #32 on: February 22, 2013, 12:41:49 PM »
ReplyReply

You know, there's only one person lately who's had much of a problem accepting negative critique.

Intersting, Andrew.  Here is what you wrote recently in the “other” thread where I critiqued your calling another forum member an idiot.

“I decline to be lectured to, and stand by my opinion that he is an idiot … .”


Logged

Dean Erger
amolitor
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 797


WWW
« Reply #33 on: February 22, 2013, 12:44:30 PM »
ReplyReply

I meant, of course, negative critique about posted photographs.

ETA: critique and criticism are not synonyms.
« Last Edit: February 22, 2013, 12:49:18 PM by amolitor » Logged

- Andrew

My awesome blog about photography: http://photothunk.blogspot.com
dmerger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 686


« Reply #34 on: February 22, 2013, 12:49:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Okay, but then just who are you referring to?  How about a quote or link?
Logged

Dean Erger
dmerger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 686


« Reply #35 on: February 22, 2013, 01:03:59 PM »
ReplyReply

ETA: critique and criticism are not synonyms.

“Critique … Synonyms: … criticism” 

“criticism … Synonyms: … critique” 

http://thesaurus.com/browse/critique
Logged

Dean Erger
amolitor
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 797


WWW
« Reply #36 on: February 22, 2013, 01:07:55 PM »
ReplyReply

Oh for the love of god.

Criticism: the expression of disapproval of someone or something based on perceived faults or mistakes.
Critique: a detailed analysis and assessment of something, esp. a literary, philosophical, or political theory.

Criticism also has another definition, number 2 in my dictionary, which means Critique. That definition doesn't apply to your cute little lecture on my mean behavior. The definition that DOES apply is definition 1, in my dictionary, which is quoted above, and which does not mean critique.

And now I am going to stop splitting these stupid semantic hairs with yet another person who clearly just wants to pick a fight.
Logged

- Andrew

My awesome blog about photography: http://photothunk.blogspot.com
rogerxnz
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 267


« Reply #37 on: February 22, 2013, 01:12:10 PM »
ReplyReply

For example: Nice ambiguity, nice diagonals, very nice.

Later,
Johnny

The discussion so far proves my point! There are those who appreciate detailed critiques and those who want a word limit of 6 or 25.

I, personally, would find Johnny's critique stunted in the sense it does not help me make successful images in the future. I would want to know why there is "nice" ambiguity, why there are "nice" diagonals and why it's all "nice". Frankly, I am not much interested in "nice" pictures but my real point is that without knowing the whys, you cannot develop your skills.

But, I would not criticise him for his review and I would thank him.

What I cannot understand is why members who want short critiques want to attack and denigrate longer critiques. Someone has put a lot of effort into a longer review and they complain. How rude is that?

Why can they not just say "thank you" and move on? Why do they feel they have to criticise the review and, often, the reviewer?

All I would like to see is posters politely responding to all critiques. If you cannot do that, may I suggest you refrain from submitting images.
Roger
Logged

Roger Hayman
Wellington, New Zealand
rogerxnz
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 267


« Reply #38 on: February 22, 2013, 01:27:50 PM »
ReplyReply

You know, there's only one person lately who's had much of a problem accepting negative critique.


I don't know whom you are referring to but I find this comment unhelpful. The thread is not about negative critiques or criticism but about the reaction of some to long and detailed critiques, irrespective of whether they are negative or positive.

It's also unhelpful because you are singling out a member personally for comment if not criticising a member for his behaviour. I want to encourage members to focus on the critiques and just give thanks for the critiques even if they are not to their liking.

Would be great if you could do that.
Roger
Logged

Roger Hayman
Wellington, New Zealand
amolitor
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 797


WWW
« Reply #39 on: February 22, 2013, 01:32:42 PM »
ReplyReply

Nobody wants a word limit (in general) of 6 or 25, and nobody is objecting (in general) to long critique. Those are red herrings.

I would describe what IS actually being objected to except that in the first place anybody who cares should be able to work it out themselves, and in the second place I would likely be accused of singling someone out for criticism again.
Logged

- Andrew

My awesome blog about photography: http://photothunk.blogspot.com
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 ... 8 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad