> -----Original Message----- > From: Tom C [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Somebody earlier questioned whether judgement of a photograph > to be good, bad, or indifferent was totally subjective. > > In my opinion, the answer has always been yes. > > I, me, myself, don't appreciate or enjoy street photography > in general and find the genre to be little more than > snapshots. It is a rare 'street photograph' that moves me. > Often, from what I can see, the photographer does little more > than bring the viewfinder to the eye and press the shutter > release. It's mostly pictures of mundane subjects that could > have been taken on any 'street corner', any where, by anyone. > The most intriguing part to me, is that they are a frozen > moment in time, like all photos. That being said, there are > some I have seen that I liked.
Most street photography is rubbish. But then, so is most photography, full stop. And so are most watercolours, sketches, guitar songs, drum solos, dances and pots. Most amateur art is rubbish. Street photography is no different from everything else. So when we say 'Gee, Bob, great photo', what we mostly mean is 'Gee, Bob, great photo for you. Pile of crap for HCB'. What really matters is the miniscule amount that is not rubbish. But I don't think it's completely subjective. There is widespread agreement within the photographic world about the central canon of greats, and this is not simply because the photo world is a self-perpetuating clique. There's more to it than that, although quite what it is, I don't completely know. Most people who spend time and effort looking at photographs agree, by and large, about which photographers, and which of their photographs, are really great. So to the extent that this agreement exists, there must be something objective about the quality of photography (and works in other media). -- Cheers, Bob
