Someone posted a comment on a picture of mine (on another site) to this effect:

"There is really nothing to this portrait other than the fact that she's naked. The pose and the lighting aren't particularly flattering. Unless that is the effect you were going for? Hmmm."

Leaving aside that, as best I can tell, they created their account for the sole purpose of leaving me a disparaging comment (they created the account, left the comment literally a few minutes later, and immediately logged off, not having entered any information or work of their own) I really do have to wonder what this was supposed to accomplish. My response:

"... it's not a Newton, I'll grant you, but I thought it was pretty. Sometimes "pretty" is enough for me. If not you, then so be it. If you don't think it's pretty, I can't really argue. De gustibus, non disputandum."

It seems that people can, by and large, agree when a picture is good. That is, when there's something in it that appeals to a large cross-section of viewers. However, I find that other than really basic faux pas, like a picture that obviously was not focused in the proper plane, or bad retouching which is obviously bad retouching, it's hard to get people to agree on what makes a bad picture. For instance, I was watching ANTM last night and the judges commented on some of the pictures that the model had "no expression." In one case I quite agreed, and in another, I thought, "What are you, blind? She's emoting quite nicely." I could see the look she was trying to achieve without any particular problem.

This sort of thing happens quite a bit.

And we won't even get into things like Pollack or Mondrian, who are obviously artistic geniuses, but the question is, are they masters of visual artistry, or con artistry? Your answers will be all over the board on that one. Similarly, when is a photograph a little masterpiece of Holga-itricity and when is it just a bad snapshot with a crappy camera?

It beats the Hell out of me.

Your thoughts?

M

Further irony:

I just posted two versions of a picture to another site: one color, one black and white. (It's the newest picture in my MM portfolio if you want to see it.)

They *both* have a comment to the effect that the other one isn't nearly as good.

The defense smugly rests its case.

M

I was looking for a thread I responded to last night covering similar ground.  There certainly are issues between the three production-side activities that are creative effort, criticism, and teaching.  Each is its own country and yet inseparable from collision with the other two.

One thing that may be done with what seems your core concern about judgment is separate the artist and work from cultural or social effects: there's a lot to look at without looking at whether it makes money or friends.  The next is to determine the motive for looking at someone's work: to develop the artist; entertain one's self; define the effort? The answer determines the viewer's stance.

Next--the filters: conventions (e.g., traditional industrial ideals in photographic technology); dimensions (e.g., historical, literary, psychological analyses, etc.) ,  issues; opportunities associated with the art and applied through one philosophy of the art or another.  By the time the "Burghers of Callais" arrive for some heavy duty aesthetic-intellectual slicing and dicing, the artist, his critics, and his teachers have covered a lot of ground.  The value of it all: uncertain considering the elevated, even genteel, chit-chat takes place while someone else is being torn apart by lions or passing away starved to death.  Nonetheless, we make art, let it stand, enjoy it, marvel at it or meditate on it, and enjoy talking about it too.

IMHO, most casual criticism--"Tell me what you think about my pictures"--brings up for the viewer some set of dearly held conventions that then help him assess the work viewed in light of personally preferred values.