A fair review

[markgozz]

Does knowing the photographer or the reputation of a photographer alter your opinion of an image .

I love to view other peoples photos , sometimes to get inspiration and sometimes just for the pleasure of it but what I have noticed is that some images from well established photographers receive amazing reviews from critics and their peers were images from unknown photographers are left in the dark .

My question is if an image was left anonymous do you think it would receive a fairer review ?

Mark

[GeoffWessex]

hmmmm - would a Van Gogh painting be worth millions if people thought it was by somebody unknown? I don't know how it happens, but some photographers get their work published all over the place and/or get well known through galleries, books etc. There must be a lot of self-promotion to be done, then you get to a point where your work starts to get recognised.

[markgozz]

This is my point Geoff .

Yes you need to be a good photographer to get recognized and to develop a good reputation but once you have done this does your reputation effect the way people view your work and is that fair .

Mark

[karenoliver]

Originally Posted by markgozz

Does knowing the photographer or the reputation of a photographer alter your opinion of an image .

I love to view other peoples photos , sometimes to get inspiration and sometimes just for the pleasure of it but what I have noticed is that some images from well established photographers receive amazing reviews from critics and their peers were images from unknown photographers are left in the dark .

My question is if an image was left anonymous do you think it would receive a fairer review ?

Mark

The reputation of a photographer or artist never influences my opinion of their work. Art critics and magazines can be pretty scathing of art/photography if they don't think the work is good enough. William Eggleston's colour work was severely attacked after his first major exhibition at the MoMa in Ny in 1976. Some loved his colour work, the black and white purists detested it. Since then people have had a love/hate relationship with him.
Martin Parr is another one who draws both good review and criticism. The critics and observers are quick enough to scorn someone's work I feel.

I also think there is truth in the saying that 'popularity breeds contempt' People who have 'made it' sometimes have their haters if you like simply because they have been sucessful.

There are some people who would gush over the current Turner Prize for example even if they thought it was crap! Pretentious people exist in the art world and you can't do anything about that. I do think though that most of the photographers who " make it" have worked really hard getting where they are, even if their work might not be as good sometimes as unknown peers. Isnt it just the same as footballers or singers who never record albums or play in the leagues? You have to get noticed and you need a lucky break.
When I look at some of the work in the British journal of photography or other arty photography mags I realise my photos are really rubbish in comparison and that's ok, there is always someone better in all areas of life. Have you got any examples of photographs that you think would be critiqued differently had they been published anonymously?

Karen

[markgozz]

Hi Karen and thanks for your response .

I don't have any particular instances in mind it's more of a general query about how other people are influenced by reputation , previous work or even a relationship like a friendship .

If a photographer puts on an exhibition then he / she is showing their own work and any critique good or bad should be based on the exhibition as a whole and the photographer's personality plays a big part in their work so I can understand why people might take their whole career into account .

However if a photographer is entering a competition like Photographer of the year they are now in direct competition with other photographers in the same categories and therefore the images in my opinion should stand alone to be compared on merit only and not on past work , reputation or friendship .

I think that this can only be achieved if the entries remained anonymous .

Mark

[Cathus]

of course critique and therefore value is influenced by reputation, otherwise someone wouldn't be able to sell a crap photo of a canal for $4million and Tracey Emin wouldn't be able to sell a copy of her bed surrounded by junk and used condoms.

Modern Art, & to a degree photography, truly is the epitome of the Emperor's New Clothes.

[markgozz]

Hi Cathus

I'd be lying if I said that those same sentiments didn't run through my head but my point still stands , if you have to pick which entry was the worst an anonymous competition would be the fairest way of doing it .

Mark

[markgozz]

Now this might sound a bit strange but just a few minutes ago I was reading another post on this thread which has now totally disappeared with out a trace before I could respond to it .

Is it possible to do this if you have changed your mind about posting ?

Mark

[karenoliver]

Originally Posted by markgozz

Now this might sound a bit strange but just a few minutes ago I was reading another post on this thread which has now totally disappeared with out a trace before I could respond to it .

Is it possible to do this if you have changed your mind about posting ?

Mark

Hi Mark,

Yeah I removed it, I just decided against getting involved in a thread where ( in my opinion) a silly conspiracy theory was getting alleged. I don't feel for one minute that friendships, reputations or anything like that would influence the DPOTY judges.

That's all I want to say really, I respect your right to have your opinion however. :-)

Karen

[Cathus]

it's always easier to be critical about the work of someone you don't know, we don't like offending friends or people we know, we also don't like going against the crowd, so if the consensus of opinion is that Fred Bloggs is a great photographer, we feel better about agreeing because it makes us feel part of that group.

It's why forums get so tetchy sometimes because people don't know their verbal opponents.

Once you get in with a group of people it can be hard to be critical about them because they are part of your group.

So yes, anonymous critique would probably be more honest.