Why do photographers offer critiques and not interpretations?

Question

I have a free writing job writing art reviews about once a month. I am assigned to go to a gallery and write a 600-word or so art review about the work (painting or sculpture). I always focus on style, interpretation, and theme, and I think if you read art history or art magazines that's basically what you find. Why is it that it seems most photo magazines, zines, and websites focus on explaining what method was used to get the shot: the camera, lens, aperture, natural or artificial light, darkroom (not much now that most everything seems digital) or software used like photoshop. There's also a focus on "This could be improved if..." or "I like "this" about the photo but not "that." Or "the photo would be improved if..." But it seems you hardly ever read things about the meaning or theme of a photograph.

Answer 1

I think it is because on the surface photography appears to be the easiest art form in the world.

I think it is just the opposite. It is easy to take a "good" Photograph The next level up relies heavily on mastering the technical aspects of photography.Unfortunetly this is where most people studying photography stop. Most photographers do not realize the simple difference between "taking" and "creating" a photograph.
Considering the sheer volume of photographs that are out there today, most do not have much to say. Those that do typically fall under the documentary umbrella and are lacking in either technical and, or artistic skills. Then there are those produced by the "art" universities where the students do not feel they have the need to perfect their craft.
So I think your observation is very telling on the state of Photography in general, which is sad as we have been provided greater tools then ever. Now I am not saying there aren't very good pictures out there. There are even some superb ones. But it is rare to come across an iconic one, one that will be important for generations to come.
The masters spent years upon years trying to perfect and master their craft and for anyone that really wants to take it to the next level, people should go back and study them. The best advice I ever had was too take drawing classes. This will provides a level of insight into composition, movement and feel that photography classes usually do not provide.
With the new technology our medium can be taken to an even higher level. But it will take people that will not accept that merely good is the standard that one should strive for.

Answer 2

I see your point, but this observation depends on what publication you look at, not all are the same. JPG magazine never critiques technique, most of that is reserved for their message boards, what makes it into the magazine is definitely theme and interpretation based. There are usually two divides within photography, the artistic side and the technical side. The technically minded critics focus on the need for some to be better than others, while the artists simply create photographs to please whomever looks at it. A photograph, such as any type of art, is interpretive by nature and subjective to individual styles. The line between what is considered art, and simply a technically perfect photograph is thinning these days. It is sad that there are people who can't tell the difference.

Excellent question, by the way.

Answer 3

It depends on the audience. If the audience is photographers (or artists), they want to know how the picture was taken (or how the painting was done, type of paint, canvas used, etc.)