I think the approach you guys are using to analyse this might be flawed for some type of work, some photos need to be evaluated as part of a whole, and even in an intended sequence (e.g. Robert Frank's "The Americans"). These are the photos that evaluated individualy are mundane but are elevated to a different level as part of a whole.
On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 9:45 AM, Tom C <caka...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 12:47 AM, Doug Brewer <d...@alphoto.com> wrote: > >>OK, if we're going to discuss this, first you have to define what exactly >>makes a good photograph, without saying "a good photo is not this..." or "a >>good photo is >not that..." > >>Fire when ready. > > Thought about in my sleep. :-) > > I'll cop out with the following: > > We and I may be mixing up the terms art and good in this discussion... > oh well... > > There can be be no single answer to the question because photographs > are taken for a variety of reasons. Some photographs are intended as a > form of artistic expression while others may be simply documentary. > Some are documentary of an event, say a party, while others are taken > for more mundane reasons. I believe some photos are taken for > practically no reason whatsoever - the person has a camera and > therefore is using it (similar to what happens if you give a child a > camera and they mostly, indiscriminately, start walking around > actuating the shutter). (Like Eggleston, IMO, wink) > > There's at least two ways of defining good when it's applied to photography: > > 1. Good because the image fulfills the requirements for which it was taken > 2. Good because the image possesses some attributes that make it stand > out in a positive way > > Individually we all define good somewhat differently. > > It seems to me that invoking/or not an emotional response is not the > whole thing either. First, one viewer is different from the next, so > will be impacted differently. Second, the viewer may have an emotional > response to the image that has little to do with the merits of the > image itself. > > Example 1: I love my baby, so a picture of my baby invokes an > emotional response. > Example 2: I remember the day JFK was shot, so when I see images of > that traumatic event, it invokes an emotional response. > > In both examples above the subject matter alone is what may produce a > response. I would think that a snapshot baby picture or a hastily > taken image documenting an event, likely does not qualify as art > unless it invokes a response for reasons other than the subject matter > itself. > > In the GESO I just posted of wide angle portraits. Are they good or > bad? Are they art? I didn't intend them to be art. Nor would I ever > submit that they are such. Yet, I took them with the sole purpose of > invoking an emotional response (which from what I read is either > amusement or horror). Are they good? IMO, yes, but only in that they > invoked the response I was hoping for). Are they good because they > possess some other qualities, such as excellent composition, lighting, > exposure control? No. > > In the end, I suppose, the only statements I can really make that are > unassailable is "I like that image" or "I think that's a good image". > My thoughts and emotions are my own and require no validation. If > someone disagrees, their opposite statements are just as valid. > > As I said, I think the PDML exhibit in Chicago was a far better > collection of images than the Eggleston exhibit. That's my opinion. > For instance I saw nothing artistic or good about the photographs of a > pile of garbage or the black porcelain interior of an oven. > > It's probably easier to define a bad photograph as opposed to a good one. > > A bad photograph is one that a person sees once and never cares to > look at again. > > Tom C. > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. > -- http://www.flickr.com/photos/ferand/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
