Criticism

The following are excerpts from an article on Criticism written by Minor White. He served as a camera club judge monthly for two years prior to writing this article so he has some personal experience with the subject.

----

“Without great criticism there can be no great Photographs” Bruce Downs

It [the quote from Downs] is a magnificent idea, a mature one….

He [the critic] has to be the most sympathetic spectator, the most understanding, and the most persistent goad…a source of affirmation for reaching new ideas, the first to discern the creative individual and the creative work. That is one of his [the critics] duties. The other is to explain both photographer and medium to the spectator; for the critic is the first to realize that an unenlightened audience limits the expressiveness of any medium and curtails the photographer’s capacity to communicate.

“Judging” of course goes on, quantities of it; and all of it kindergarten criticism, if that. The judge may ask himself “What else can I do when I must award from the prints present instead of evaluating against all that I know is in photography?” He is standing, however, in the position to educate, to teach, to lead towards creative work, to encourage expressions of individuality. But somehow, mainly through lack of really knowing what judging means, he follows rules that he did not invent for himself, allows competition to be substituted for photography in his camera clubs, and thus does photography as a whole more harm than good. Perhaps he is merely unaware of his responsibility—which does not repair the harm he does.

The subject of analysis and criticism is rather complex, and a competent critic has to have a whale of a lot more than personal preference or his own technical achievement to go on. I realize that to present complexity to the modern reader is to invite yawns; but I think we have pursued the myth that photography is easy long enough—the status of pictorialism today is ample proof that always taking the easy path is as sterile as Lysol.

The critic has a thankless task...[but] driven by a passionate love of the medium, persists. The struggles of the beginners excite him, the bad makes him angry, the banal makes him sarcastic, the good warms his heart, the great--as it comes by on rare occasions--makes all the rest worthwhile.

Consequently this paper is aimed directly at the bottom rung of criticism, at the man who takes judging at camera clubs as a high responsibility.

White goes on to talk about Objective Criticism and the duties of the objective critic: the requirement for an objective attitude as opposed to personal preference and secondly, says that the critic can reach objectivity quickly by assuming that what he sees in a print is neither good or bad, but facts.

Rather than “I would have photographed it this way”, “What would happen if it had been photographed this way?” His suggestions arise from the implications deeply imbedded in the photographer’s work, and his “advice” will tend to strengthen and perhaps clarify hat the photographer is trying to do.

Únder A Tool of Objective Analysis, White says, a means of analysis is needed if the critic is to be able to keep a high impersonal attitude towards a print and still actively study it. Without some such tool the objective approach may leave the critic dangling between objectivity and having no feeling at all. Such a tool would include six major points—or more or less: purpose, craftsmanship and technique, composition, style and subject. They will be discussed separately.


----

White, correctly in my opinion, puts the emphasis on purpose. Actually, he says that nothing, absolutely nothing can proceed; no critique can be attempted until purpose has been established. I am always at a loss then I try to talk to photographers about purpose only to be met with the comment that the photographer has no idea what if any purpose he had in mind at the time the photograph was taken or even when the photograph was processed and printed for presentation.

This is as far as I have gotten into the article so I am not sure what follows but I will inject a strongly felt personal opinion: that purpose to be worthwhile must come from within the photographer and the deeper the better. It must be something that speaks to him and of him. If not, it is of no value to attempt continuing the critique. The conventional photographic wisdoms are simple enough to achieve and are all that is required to win a camera club ribbon.

I am not sure how to even think about helping someone improve their photography if they themselves have given their photography so little thought. Maybe they are simply embarrassed to confess the purpose. Maybe they are simply telling the truth and have no purpose. Either way I am totally at a loss. I very much know what White is saying when he says that the critic dangles between objectivity and no feeling at all.