John, I would hope that Edward doesn't aspire to be a Bresson or a Newton or a Gibson. What's the point of trying to copy someone else's style? All those aforementioned photographers sought out to define the singular clarity of their own vision. (Which, by the way, all artists should do: Edward, myself, anyone). This is why to a certain extent when one runs into criticism that's so diametrically opposed to what one is doing I think you have to take it with a big grain of salt.(posted 8815 days ago)There are many different approaches to portraiture that are valid. When I look at Edward's portrait, I don't see it as something done by a polished professional. I see something experimental in nature, with both merits and flaws. So do I judge it by the same criterion that I would judge a published print made by Ralph Gibson? I don't think so.
Now if you are going to come back with a response saying that you do not compromise you critical opinions no matter what the context of the work is because that would compromise you integrity, then we just simply disagree on approach.
My comparison of Edward to the "rest of us" in this forum is not an accusation of mediocrity, that is unless you are assuming that we are all mediocre. I am assuming this forum is made up of photographers of many skill levels, but with a common love (hope that's not too warm and fuzzy). It's just that I assumed that none of us are dead or famous. I apologize to anyone if that's not true.
You obviously have put a lot of thought into your subsequent posts on this thread, and they offer some valid opinions on style and criticism, but my major objection was to your first post which was blatantly adversarial and counterproductive to this forum.
To Edward; I obviously don't know you, and I feel that you're name is being batted around like a beach ball, Thanks for inadvertantly creating an interesting and thought provoking discussion.