Last night I commented that I regretted not having had an executive member give an honest opinion on a presentation I had given at my camera club. I promptly received the comment that I had talked too much. I then mentioned that after the break, I had not talked at all, as I played a self-produced video. So I now heard how terrible the sound synchronization was; but like a good critique he ended with a positive – that I didn’t chew gum while I spoke.

This was an interesting experience, as after an evening of excellent critiquing of the club’s landscape competition, I came to realize the fine balancing act that they have to do.

I have always felt that the person getting critiqued should be able to deal with whatever commentary they received. Never had really received any praise from my parents for what I did, I have felt a bit immune to criticism as the only person I have been trying to satisfy has been myself. When someone doesn’t like my images, I can attribute it to their taste, so it hasn’t bothered me.

This critique was more difficult for me to deal with as the presentation was not created for me but for the club membership. Consequently the opinion of it I received was much more important.

This experience made me contemplate critiquing in general and I have concluded that if the criticism is to be taken as constructive, there is a need to identify some good base for the person being critiqued to work on. If none is identified, one can walk away thinking that there was nothing of merit in what they presented.

One needs encouragement to improve for the future, and without it I can see how often the result is cocooning. I certainly did not need to create a presentation to find out that I had a skill at not chewing gum.

The good news is I may be a more empathetic person now; whether or not I will be a better presenter is more debatable.