Nice HTML. :-) In the END, it does not matter... if we like we like it, and if we don't we don't... no one and nothing can makes us like or dislike something if we're inclined in one direction or another.
but... But... BUT... it might matter... in determining if the image is an empirically (debatable) good (debatable) image... You know as well as I, that if one likes the subject matter it's easier to like the image... I would like a photograph of a pristine mountain scene or a pretty girl more than I would like a photo of a garbage dump or a red lollipop laying in the gutter. Being personally touched by an image is not the criteria for judging whether it's meritorious in some way or another. All that means is, as you said, it's touched us. We've both commented onlist how there sometimes seems to be little criteria for praising an image... if the simple fact that an image touches someone is the deciding factor, then all images are good and we might as well stop trying. We've seen goofy sunset images over neighborhoods that have rooftops and powerlines, and the image is even otherwise poorly composed or exposed. Ooo, ahh, isn't it pretty? It has touched those people. Yes we all like sunsets. Sunsets are pretty, no doubt a gift from God, saying 'alright everybody, have a peaceful night's sleep'. But was it a good photograph? To me the image touching us/pathos are the same thing, and that's a subjectivea criteria. Tom C. On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 10:11 PM, William Robb <[email protected]> wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom C" > Subject: Re: Chicago > > >> On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 8:58 PM, Doug Brewer wrote >> :(regarding Eggleston) >> >>> I'm pretty sure Christine had a little epiphany about it too, but I'll >>> leave >>> that up to her. Even Mark Roberts allowed, a touch grudgingly, that there >>> might have been a couple of good photos in there. >>> >> >> I really thought one (Eggleston) was excellent and two others were >> very likeable. So I didn't totally dislike his exhbited work, though >> those three represent probably 5% of what was displayed. >> >> He just, IMO, seemed a charlatan. Maybe Picasso was too, based on >> some elementary school art exhibits I saw hanging in the local mall >> today. >> >> It seems to me a question of: >> >> 1. Do I like it because it was REALLY a good photograph? >> >> or >> >> 2. Do I like it because it brings back fond memories for me, despite >> it being a CRAPPY photograph? >> >> If #1, then it was probably a really good photograph. >> >> If #2, then it's because I'm in love with my own memories (nothing >> wrong with that) and my emotional response to the image has little to >> do with it's artisitic merit. >> > > Does it really matter why we like something and why we don't? > > At the end of the game, all that matters is that the image has touched us in > some way. > Nothing else. > > <rant> > What I don't understand is the need for pathos, and how often that is tied > to artistic merit. > Why do the important pictures make me want to slash my wrists? > </rant> > > William Robb > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and > follow the directions. > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
