Mattdm had posted this link in a thread somewhere.
I found the comments to be sensible!? but at the end realized that it was a piece of dry humor.
I have heard several times that you should be very careful in choosing whom you listen to and whom to avoid, while taking a critique from someone.
How to separate helpful critiques from unhelpful ones?
Why are the critiques in the above link said to be a sarcastic joke? Are they wrong? In which way, if yes?
I’m going to suggest that all critique can be valid. It doesn’t really matter that much to me if somebody is being sarcastic or they have a strong view they want to express.
Whether or not you pay attention to them seems like it’s going to come down to personal choice. To me, the deciding factors are:
Remember that different opinions can exist and that that’s perfectly OK. Avoid entering into an argument about a critique that has been given. If there’s something you don’t understand, then asking for clarity is reasonable. But I’d really try to avoid trying to convince the person giving the critique that they’re wrong. If they’ve given an honest review, they’re entitled to their opinion and if they’re being sarcastic it’s probably what they’re looking for…
I would say that critiques worth listening are those of people that make photos that you see are better than yours and you really like.
When I just started taking pictures I had no clue how bad I was, so even if it was rather unpleasant, first rough critics I got have been useful for me.
On the other hand some great achievements (like Columbus' discovery of America) have been made just not listening to what the rest of the world said :D
All of the example pieces in Mike Johnston's humor piece are highly-regarded and successful photographs by some of the most accomplished photographers in history.
But the humor is more than just "Haha! Those commenters didn't know that they were looking at something famous!" After all, that just comes down to the logical fallacy of appeal to authority. Granted, that alone is kind of funny, but the actual point is that the "critics" each fail to actually look at the photograph and what the artist is attempting to say. Instead, they focus on rules and technical issues, often getting obsessed with some particular pet concern. On one level, that's funny because the photographers probably know much more about those things than the (fictional) commenters do. More importantly, the comments miss the point that not only are the rules really only guidelines, but that they're guidelines in the service of something, not as goals on their own.
So, for critique: take seriously people who are interested in what you're trying to say. You can take their suggestions under advisement — particularly if you're asking for them — but remember that you should be your own artistic compass.
I'm reminded of a great scene from the movie Amadeus, where the tone-deaf but music-loving Emperor provides his "critique" of Mozart's new opera, saying "Too many notes". And, I found a good article analyzing this scene as a lesson in critique which I recommend as relevant to photo-critique.
As an aside, there's a "part two" to Mike's article, and the "advice" given to Cartier-Bresson has a strong resemblance to what I say in my comments to Stack Exchange user Akram Mellice here. In my defense, though, Akram did ask for suggestions, and I don't start my answer with "In response to your request for a critique (which I assume you wanted because I have found your photo uploaded on the internet)...".
I think one of the points of the page you linked to (as well as poking fun at armchair critics on the internet) is that different advice applies to photographers at different levels of ability and experience. When you are beginning photography, it is helpful to follow some simple guidelines for good composition. When you are a proven master (like the famous photographers on the page you linked to), those broad guidelines are not so useful.
Good constructive criticism should offer you a clear route to improvement. A comment like "that's nice, good job" is just as useless as "that's rubbish", but concrete, specific advice like "try using selective depth of field to emphasize your subject" is something you can put into action.
I guess it's obvious that you should value the advice of photographers whose work you admire. Don't pay too much heed to someone's opinions if you haven't seen the quality of their own work.
