On 2012-07-28 12:27 , Robert Coe wrote:

This thread is degenerating into a murky, inconclusive analysis of analysis -
the sort of thing you might get in a prolonged debate between an Orthodox
rabbi and a Jesuit. I think we should simply acknowledge that comments are
good (at least they demonstrate interest), well thought-out comments are
better, and deep, penetrating insight is as valuable as it is rare. Then go
ahead and take the comments we receive for what they seem to be worth,
remembering always that pride and defensiveness are often a creative person's
worst enemies.

Well said.

Several years ago I wrote an addendum to the rulz for the SI regarding
"critique". Yep, they're still there at the bottom of the Rulz page:

/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \

Critiquing photos (This is not part of the rulz, just something to consider)

One of the interesting aspects of the SI is the reaction of others. We
all anticipate hearing good and not so good things about our
photographic efforts. Honest criticism has value, but as anything of
value it is not trivial to do. So please consider the following before
making a critique:

Simply saying "I don't like it" is not critique. Nor is simply saying
"I like it".

When criticizing a photo, consider and state its strong as well as its
weak points.

It is not all aesthetic and art.

It is not all technical.

It is not about whatever rules about photography you may be clinging to.

Every photo is unique.

So do comment and critique the work of others remembering that you can
only learn from their full, considered and honest critique, and likewise
they can only learn from your full, considered and honest critique.

\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /

--
"Civilization is the limitless multiplication of unnecessary necessities."
-Samuel Clemens.