October 2020 No. 7
AESTHETICS vs TECHNICAL EXCELLENCE A PERSONAL VIEWPOINT ON CRITIQUING by Tom Lee FSWPP CrSWPP FMIPP ARPS The art world consistently rails against the acceptance of photography as an art form and we, as photographers, don’t help much. We insist on thinking that we are the next Avedon, Bailey or Lichfield, and have an unbeatable technique or skill that makes our images stand out from the crowd, only to be smacked down by critics in our own profession who ‘obviously’ think otherwise. Why are the positions of ‘creator’ and ‘critic’ so far apart? As an experienced judge myself, having sat on many international qualification and competition
panels over the last 35 years, I feel well equipped to comment on the disparity between these two viewpoints. I still enter photographic contests from time to time (although not as many as I used to), to gain a perspective on how others see my own work. It was a recent experience with one such event that encouraged me to write this monologue. The object of this discussion is not to denigrate my peers, but to merely point out some of the issues that we face when making constructive criticism over someone’s pride and joy. I will make the point at this
October 2020 No. 7 stage that the art world also has the same problems, but there the scales of moderation seem to be tipped in the opposing direction. This is often due to the fact that we are comparing apples and pears most of the time, particularly in ‘open competition’. How, for instance, do you compare a portrait to a landscape? Every submission for critique will usually require the author to abide by certain rules or guidelines, which are generally accepted without question. Panels for qualification are dealt with (for the most part) as a series of images that fit into a category or genre, whereas competition images are commonly viewed as a single entity. Panels, by and large, are easier to critique as the consistency of approach to aesthetics and technique should be fairly evident across the body of work submitted, removing two of the variables from questionable assessment.
Individual images often get a raw deal due to the over-scrutiny of technical merit. This is partly for the necessity of one image to be better than another, so a winner can be chosen and grading by technicality is easier to achieve. In reality, the judge/assessor has absolutely no idea how the image was created or derived in the first place. The image I recently submitted to competition was taken while on a trip to Cuba a few years ago: a fine art street image in black and white entitled ‘Neg01’. (The original title was lost in submission so somebody renamed it without consulting me.) Due to Covid-19, the competition was viewed online by two judges who gave completely opposing opinions and also made ‘assumptions’ that were incorrect; both their scores were at opposite ends of the scale. My consternation was not with the result of image scoring, but with the way in which the image was critiqued. The first judge waxed lyrical about the aesthetic. ‘Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe this to be medium format film? Look at that lovely grain! The frame works well with the shape of the window. I like the idea of the silent contemplation and the iconography elements in the image.’ Well, he got it half right and it scored quite highly. The iconography and content of the image were the main points of the image, which was cropped square to add a focus to the underlying subject matter, but it was not a film image, despite the title of ‘Neg01’. The image was part of a series on Cuba, prepared and exhibited in London during 2019. The second judge almost missed the aesthetic
entirely and waded in solely on the technical aspects of the image. ‘At first glance I loved the image, however...’ It’s at this point you tend to know what’s coming. The tirade of what was wrong with the image seemed the primary point of his concern - blown highlights, parallels and other lines not being straight, quality degraded because of poor scanning, it should have been printed, the grain is overpowering … and so on. Most of his assumptions and comments were, however, misplaced and not apparent in the 20x20 print. I was wondering when he was going to get to the constructive part of the critique (which never came), and it was given the lowest mark possible. If I had rectified his concerns, it would have made no difference to the message of the image and the first judge’s opinions would not have made any difference (other than making it more sterile). It was never a technical image to begin with, unlike, say, an architectural image might have been. Ordinarily, I would have ignored all comments regarding my image and just put it down to one of those things (I’m made of stern stuff!). However, this second judge seemed to miss a lot of similar ‘faults’ which were present in other images. I also noted that the two judges seemed to assess all the images in the competition in the same way, one more empathic towards the aesthetic and the other to technical issues. Can you imagine the art world behaving in the same way over a Picasso: ‘The colours are all over the place and the facial expression and perspective are all wrong’!
The hardest thing a judge has to do is to remove all personal prejudice from their decision making. By this, I mean that every judge will have a pet hate or favourite style that influences their personal taste in artwork. This has to be tempered - you either love or hate Marmite, but you cannot deny that it deserves its place in the supermarket. A competition with only one judge is not a good idea because judges get tired and the tendency for prejudice tends to creep in, particularly when so many ‘images of type’ come up. For instance, I will not judge any competition that has newborns in it. Although they are extremely popular with the public visually and commercially, they’re often well executed but look ‘samey’ and my prejudice for ‘type’ often creeps in. My best option (and for the author) is to remove myself from the process rather than get involved at all. Competitions with two judges fare little better as you may end up with a polarized
October 2020 No. 7 the original intent from the author, whereas technical subjects like architecture and scientific images demand more scrutiny, guided by the ‘rules’ of good image taking. Whilst panels for accreditation are graded, reviewers are cognisant of the ability of the worker and will make an allowance for the required standard to be attained. In open competition, the author’s capabilities are unknown (or should be), and a softer approach to criticism should be adopted, i.e. be constructive rather than negative. Scoring is almost irrelevant; the object is not only to win, but to improve. I have to admit my pride was dented (for about 10 seconds) and then a large dose of reality washed over me. The judges’ opinions were just poles apart and at least one of them didn’t like my image. This is the reality of the ‘Marmite syndrome’, something which we all encounter from time to time. The reality is that I know my own worth and have proved it throughout my long career; I don’t need to listen to detractors. Others should pick and choose what to take away from these situations and not be daunted by the need to conform (unless you want/need to). You control the way you want your images to look, it’s the viewer that decides whether they like it or not. If you like it, then there’s nothing wrong with it, it just doesn’t conform to someone else’s norm! I know I will not be the next Avedon, Bailey or Lichfield, but it doesn’t make me want to stop trying. viewpoint from both of them at opposite ends of the argument (as in this case). At least with 4 or 5 judges you will get a consensus of sorts, and less chance of bias towards a technique or genre. On social media by the RPS, several assessors have openly stated that ‘Content is King’, a view which I wholeheartedly endorse. RPS assessments are also strictly criteria driven, making it less likely for prejudice to creep in, and you will also be critiqued by someone who is familiar with the genre. Whilst panels are able to be submitted digitally, I would always recommend they be printed even at a review stage to take the ‘monitor screen variable’ out of the equation.
Authors never intend to submit images which are sub-standard or of poor quality. At least 50% (or more) of all marks should be allocated to the emotional content, wow factor, message, how does it make the viewer feel. This is
There is beauty in everything, but not everybody can see it. Confucius
Tom Lee is a UK-based international portrait and fine art photographer, recognised for his expertise in digital image capture, and has accumulated multiple international awards throughout his career. With a global reputation as a published author, he has written several books in his own right and collaborated with other renowned authors. He also writes extensively for the photographic press at home and abroad, including ‘Rangefinder’, ‘Professional ImageMaker’, ‘Digital Photographer’ and ‘Focal Points’. Tom is also a respected educator having given numerous seminars, and he has sat on several photographic judging panels internationally. Tom has recently completed photographic exhibitions in Malta and London, with invitations from galleries in Rome and America.
October 2020 No. 7 CENTENARY The Pictorial Group of the RPS was founded in 1921; many years later it became the Visual Art Group that we know today. Our plan to mark this milestone year was to stage a special event, to be held in Oxford’s Ashmolean Museum in June 2021. Our speaker was to be Julia Anna Gospodarou, one of the world’s leading architectural photographers. Sadly, the decision has been taken to cancel the event. With no end in sight to restrictions, the future is rather uncertain and we felt that we could not commit funds to an event we might have to cancel at short notice with painful financial consequences. We hope that we will find another way to celebrate this significant year and the subject is still under discussion.
THE SECRET OF THE TYNG COLLECTION by Andrew Leeming LRPS That the Victoria and Albert Museum holds the RPS Collection of over a quarter of a million photographic objects – equipment, books, periodicals, documents – will be familiar to most of us. However, the fact that the Visual Art Group has its ‘own’ Collection in the V&A may be a little like a best-kept secret. In 1927 a wealthy New Yorker, Stephen H. Tyng, donated a fund to the Royal Photographic Society to finance the acquisition of outstanding pictorial photographs. Each year such a photograph is chosen by a small group of selectors for the Tyng Collection. Presently there are 221 photographs in the Tyng, including portraits of Helen Keller and composer Jean Sibelius by Yousuf Karsh and scenes by Tim Rudman, Joan Wakelin, Ian Berry and Tony Worobiec. The RPS Pictorial Group was the forerunner of the present-day Visual Art Group, so the VAG Committee continues the historical involvement of the RPS in the Tyng Collection by inviting Selectors to choose photographic prints. What is pictorialism? For many years, the Tyng was run by Alastair McGhee ARPS. To guide the Selectors in their choice of prints, he indicated ‘beauty of subject’, ‘tonality’ and ‘composition’ as ideals. Consequently, the Tyng Collection is comprised of a wide range of subjects: still life, portraits, landscapes, nature, everyday scenes of people and events, even a 1938 portrait of Stephen H. Tyng himself. The Chairman of the Tyng Foundation Trustees, Professor Ray Clarke OBE, remarked that the V&A especially value the 1927 masterpiece Bewegungsstudie
(Motion Study) of dancers from the Vienna State Opera by Rudolf Koppitz. Please internet search on ‘Rudolf Koppitz Wikipedia’ for a more complete discussion of the Jugendstil (art nouveau, avant-garde) photography of Koppitz, which echoes the style of the painter Gustav Klimt. Reference is made in this Wikipedia entry to the early 20th Century American Photo-Secessionist movement of Alfred Stieglitz, who believed that Pictorialist art photographers should be creative during the printing process – as painters are when they produce unique works of art - by applying sepia or platinum toning, by using soft focus or by different printing techniques, such as bromoil, the carbon/Fresson process, photogravure, gum bichromate or by using Gevaluxe warm-toned paper, all of which feature in the earlier photographs in the Tyng Collection. Andrew Leeming is a Trustee of the Tyng Foundation and Tyng Co-ordinator on the VAG Committee. He will follow this article with a discussion of Pictorialism.
October 2020 No. 7 Annual General Meeting Thank you to all those members who responded to the voting form enclosed with this year’s AGM papers. Being unable to meet physically and enjoy a convivial weekend away whilst conducting this business was a problem. However, the adaption of an existing system to run the business of the AGM digitally was used successfully. Should future such meetings be compromised by Covid-19 or anything else, we know that we now have a workable alternative method. All resolutions were carried nem con, and your committee members for the current year are: Andreas Klatt ARPS Chairman Andrew Leeming LRPS Treasurer / Tyng Co-ordinator
All is not lost. Plans are now afoot to show the 2020 exhibition prints at Patchings in October/November 2021, to give those pictures a chance to be seen and admired. Furthermore, we are looking at a slightly different approach to the 2021 print exhibition which will be featured in a generous and high-quality catalogue, to be based on either a digital or a physical display which could be taken to the Edinburgh Festival and the Michael Heseltine Gallery in Middleton Cheney (Northamptonshire). It would be wonderful if everything works out, but we are at the mercy of the virus. Please watch this space as plans develop – we shall keep you informed. Wendy Meagher EWG Lead
John Cavana ARPS Secretary David Wood ARPS Vice Chairman Mark Deutsch LRPS Membership Secretary Gill Dishart ARPS Circles Secretary Michael Butterworth LRPS Web Editor Wendy Meagher LRPS EWG Lead Robert Herringshaw ARPS EWG Mike Kitchingman LRPS General Member Claire Carroll General Member The new committee will have its first Zoom meeting in early November.
Exhibition Plans First of all, we bid farewell to Janie Chapman LRPS, who retired in order to pursue her dream of exploring new photographic avenues. We are pleased to welcome Martyn Pearse to our Exhibitions Working Group (EWG). He is Chairman of the Adderbury, Deddington and District Photographic Society and has valuable experience in setting up exhibitions. We look forward to working with him. As we all appreciate, this has been a difficult year in many respects, not least for our exhibition plans for 2020. Sadly, the Members’ Print Exhibition, due to be held last March to May at Patchings, Nottingham, was cancelled under Covid-19 restrictions, indicating uncertainty for future events. Subsequently all our exhibition plans were cancelled. But we are hopeful for next year.
E-Circles and Print Portfolios Our peer review circles are continuing to operate despite the virus. There is no problem for the email circles, and the print circles are taking greater precautions. Last year several people were disappointed when I had a waiting list, but things change, and now I have a few vacancies for email and one or two for print members. So, if you’d like to join, just drop me a line. If you have a question, just ask. I’ll be glad to help. Print circle members will need to be able to access a post office, or use a courier. Email circle members will need to confirm that they are using up-to-date antimalware software and to agree that their email address will be shared with the other members of their circle. Come and join us. You’ll be very welcome. Just email me at gill@dishart.plus.com Gill Dishart Circles Secretary
Useful Committee Contacts Chairman: Andreas Klatt ARPS visualart@rps.org Secretary: John Cavana ARPS visualartsec@rps.org Membership Secretary: Mark Deutsch LRPS mrkdeutsch@aol.com Circles: Gill Dishart ARPS gill@dishart.plus.com
https://rps.org/groups/visual-art/