Modern people's views on the original photography studio

Looking at some discussion articles about photography criticism, we will find that the current "criticism" in photography still stays at the level of traditional criticism, or a discourse system with good/bad as the basic semantic opposition, rather than theoretical criticism in the modern sense. Although people in the circle are generally deeply dissatisfied with the present situation of photography criticism, they still oppose photography criticism with the old saying of binary opposition of praise (good)/criticism (bad). For example, some people think that the disadvantages of photography criticism are that there are too many "supporting good words" and too few "saying bad things to offend people". So what I want to ask is: Is it difficult to speak ill of others and do a good job in photography criticism? In fact, this discourse mode in photography still stays in the thinking mode of the so-called "Goethe"/"immoral" discussion in the literary world in the early 1980s. This simple binary opposition is also manifested in many so-called "documentary photography"-either "good deeds" or "critical exposure", thus making photography superficial, utilitarian and lacking in connotation.

This kind of good/bad criticism is mostly impromptu, random and subjective, and often lacks theoretical depth and academic rigor. For example, if you think a text (whether written or visual) is "good/bad", this expression can hardly explain anything except your personal inclination, preference and attitude. Because you have not pointed out the theoretical basis of the "good/bad" standard, is this standard reliable, what is the deep relationship behind it as a product of "historicization", and which "ideologies" have been covered up? For example, the standard of "good" in "Jose" is very different from that in domestic film competitions. Why? Is it really as simple as you think? In addition, do you really understand the text (although all reading is misunderstood), do you go deep into the text, or are you just confused by its rhetorical appearance and act as an ideology (mainstream discourse ideology? Daily life ideology? "accomplice" Wait ... Although this kind of critical criticism also has its existence value (such as the demand of mass culture market), it is not the real theoretical criticism I am interested in. Although it is also helpful to photography, it is difficult to promote the renewal of photographic discourse-symbol system.