Why do photographers offer critiques and not interpretations?
I have a free writing job writing art reviews about once a month. I am assigned to go to a gallery and write a 600-word or so art review about the work (painting or sculpture). I always focus on style, interpretation, and theme, and I think if you read art history or art magazines that’s basically what you find. Why is it that it seems most photo magazines, zines, and websites focus on explaining what method was used to get the shot: the camera, lens, aperture, natural or artificial light, darkroom (not much now that most everything seems digital) or software used like photoshop. There’s also a focus on “This could be improved if…” or “I like “this” about the photo but not “that.” Or “the photo would be improved if…” But it seems you hardly ever read things about the meaning or theme of a photograph.
That is a very interesting observation.
What I can tell you is this. Most of the people who read “photo” magazines are more interested in learning technique, so they can improve their photo taking skills. Things like shutter speed, aperture, lens selection, lighting, location and a little about the nature of the shoot are collected by the readers like prospectors after gold dust.
Critical insight into form, style, color, composition and interpretation of the subject by both the artist and observer is left to those who review photo gallery shows … maybe.
That said, some photo classes incorporate both aspects of image critique. Discussion includes both technique and interpretation of the subject, with participation by the other students in the class, led by the instructor. This may be one of the most important aspects of attending photo classes at community colleges.
DOWNLOAD Corel Painter Essentials 4 FULL VERSION FREE
