Shawn rather obliquely posed the question of the purpose of critiques recently:(posted 8819 days ago)"...why does everything seem so bloody serious with these critiques? Most of the time, it's like nobody has anything good to say. There's constructive criticism, then there being just plain miserable (even if it's masked in a mockingly half-pleasant tone)..."
I come from a teaching background, so to me, the essence of learning is a self-concious critical approach. If I know what you were attempting to do, I can look at what you did and tell you why you were or weren't successful. The problem with most of the pictures posted here is that there is no context with which to judge them. Are they attempting to be portraits, fine art, fashion, photojournalism, or what?
The first response to that criticism by some is that they don't want to be judged based on some artificial category; they want their work to be judged "on its own merits." Anyone versed in cultural studies will tell you that's impossible. Anyone who's making a living selling their work will too. After all, art directors and editors pick works that meet explicit requirements - not what they just happen to like that day.
I never post my work for critique; not because I'm thin-skinned, but because I'm a much stronger critic of my work than anyone else. I know exactly what look I was attempting to create when I took the picture and I can quite easily tell whether or not I succeeded and to what extent. I then spend a lot of time analyzing why - was it lighting, makeup, the background, the model? - and determining what to do differently next time.
I won't consider myself a competent fashion photographer until I can replicate exactly any look I see in a contemporary fashion magazine. I won't consider myself a good fashion photographer until I can go beyond that stage and create my own identifiable style. Unfortunately, too many aspiring photographers think they can skip that first step.