Brooke Shaden

I recently received a comment from someone who I will leave anonymous. The comment stirred in me a question that I would like to bring forth here. The question is this: is there an art to critique? I will post here some segments of the comment that I found pertinent to the argument. The comment draws some points about lines that could potentially be crossed when critiquing an artist. For example, when does the critique stop being helpful and directed toward the art, and when does it become personal?  Is there or should there be an etiquette to critique?

Comment: “Your photography is done well with photoshop. You do seem to go for the “creepy” horror movie art direction look however.”

Note how the commenter uses the word “however” at the end of the sentence. It is as though he/she is trying to say that even though my photos are well done, they are not legitimate because they contain “creepy horror movie art direction”. It is as though that somehow forces the pieces of art to lose its credibility.

Comment: “In comparing to painting you are missing the boat on the spiritual, iconographic and deep emotional themes far beyond the surface of the initial reaction to shock value. I am not even mention the historical relevance of a pice like ‘Ophelia’”

In response to this part of the comment, I agree that I can not capture the historical aspects of a piece. However, the only reason that the piece has historical connections is because it was made in that time, when those events were occurring. My piece is a “take” on the original. I am not attempting, necessarily, to capture the essence of history; I am trying to capture the essence of the painting (sometimes brushstrokes, sometimes symbolism, sometimes a direct visual representation).

Comment: “You work is set design like a movie it feels surface. It feels like shock value like art direction. Which is fine if that is what you are going for . However if you cannot see the nuances in Balthus that is far beyond a physical representation of pose. It has to do with body language and deeper meanings that go beyond the surface.  Don’t be shallow dig deeper you have a great talent but that talent needs to be stretched..it needs a soul. This is what separates the good from the great my dear…Anyone can make things look good with photoshop it is like plastic surgery..decide how you are going to pull it together and take the next step.”

To respond to this last segment of the comment, I should point out a few key words: “surface” and “shock value”. When this person says that my photos are like “art direction”, I take it as a compliment. Every single photo needs some sort of art direction, and I often feel that good art direction in a photo can make or break the image. But certainly simply having art direction does not constitute a photograph as being less worthy of art. The fact that this person calls my photography “surface” is probably the most personally insulting thing said. However, this person can have their own opinion.  I could go into detail refuting the claims. For example, I very much understand the implications of a Balthus pose. But it is as I have described: I am not always embodying everything that a painting represents when I recreate it. Sometimes I am taking certain elements of a painting, and in the Balthus case, I took the pose and nothing else about it. But again, anyone can say what they like. It brings me to my overall point in writing this.

I am a member of flickr. I am posting my photos in a forum that invites insult as much as praise, critical comments as well as glowing comments. I joined flickr because I have always believed in the art of critique. I enjoy studying art (photography, painting, literature) and critiquing it, as well as receiving it. I think that if I did not receive critical comments I would not be doing anything worth mentioning, so I am grateful for those critiques, they remind me that art is subjective and it will stir different emotions in everyone. But it also makes me wonder if there is a line in critiquing that should not be crossed. I think not, because I am posting my photos for anyone in the world to comment on. But is there an etiquette? Should there be?

The above comment, from which I have chosen select portions to share, raises exactly the questions I have brought up. Does this person have the right to make such claims? Yes, I have asked for critique on my photos. But no, I did not ask for anyone to judge me in such a personal way. This person assumes that I do not understand the paintings I am recreating. This person assumes that I do not think deeply enough about my own photos, going so far as to say that “my talent…needs a soul”. Who is this person to say that? Who is anyone to tell an artist what their art means to them? Perhaps I would not be taking this comment so harshly if the person had said “To me, your art has no soul”. But instead the person does not say that. They say, in very firm terms, that my art has no soul, as though the statement is a fact. There are so many assumptions in this comment, such as saying that “Anyone can make things look good with Photoshop”. Fundamentally this is true, it is plausible that anyone and everyone could learn Photoshop, but the fact is that not everyone does. Photoshop is not a magical heal tool that fixes photographs. The trick is what the artist does with it.

Back to my main point, then.  Is there a line that should not be crossed? When this person says “decide how you are going to pull it together and take the next step”, that person is giving me an order, telling me that I must do this because my art is simply not up to professional standards. Fine, then, is what I say. I am the only person who knows how much time and effort I put into my photos, and I know that this person’s comments are utterly false. Is my art simply “shock value”? To this person, yes, but I find that unfortunate because of how much meaning and symbolism I put into my photos. This is just another reminder that not everyone will see what I see.

Critique is an art in itself. There is no correct way to critique someone. We could compare the art of critique to any other opinion-based system out there.  I recently had a meeting with an art gallery, at which they reviewed my physical portfolio. The men who were reviewing were essentially critiquing me, doing the same thing that people do on flickr through comments except that I was sitting right in front of them. They went through, piece by piece, and told me the good and bad, in their opinion, about every single piece they looked at. However, never once did they say to me “this is what you must do to succeed, to move on to the next level of photography”. Instead, they put the pieces aside that they did not care for, and told me why. They also looked at the pieces that they did like in depth, and they explained why. It was extremely constructive, and that is the same critique I look for on flickr.

There is a helpful way to critique someone. The above comment was utterly useless to me, except to remind me that everyone has different tastes and motives. If that person were really trying to help me “take the next step” I doubt that he/she would give me such a vague idea of how to move on to the next step. In fact, I probably should not have spent so much time thinking about the comment in the first place; but every comment deserves thought. I believe that everyone should be able to comment in any fashion they would like, and it is up to the artist to sift through and figure out which comments are constructive, and which are not.