I have, and will, try to see each show at least twice.

The first time, I 'try' to get over the effect of seeing the pictures in that specific gallery, since most galleries have some distinct negative points and many shows are just plain hung poorly. I make notes on which pictures and which artists seem to be the most successful at showing what they are attempting to show.

Then I go home and write down some initial reactions and, before the impressions from the first visit recede, visit the show again and home in on the one or two photos that seem to be the best examples of how each artist works.

All that being said, I am not an 'art critic' who understands the history of the entire genre and attempts to relate any specific artist's work to that flow.   But I am a fairly experienced photographer and over the years have developed a good sense of what about a show or an individual image keeps me from really enjoying it fully.

And that is what I know.

And that is how I approach these reviews, looking at all the characteristics of the shows and the images that affect how I see them.

And if I say something technically specific about the gallery, framing or images, it is because those are the characteristics that kept me from appreciating the images as completely as I wished or the maker wanted.