Aesthetics of the subject or the photograph?

Like all photography questions it depends on the situation and your goals but....how much

do you feel a photographer deserves credit for choosing aestheticly pleasing subjects?

There are a number of ways to look at it. I see the ravest reviews go to the hottest models

and to the "hardest place to get" shot. The shots that get the "I'd love to go there" aspect

covered irk me a little. The two main factors in any relationship are proximity and

familiarity. If a photographer can find subjects that are not close to viewers (travel shots)

or

chooses a subject that can breakdown someones familiarity barrier with a cute girl the

aesthetics (ratings?) will go up. Subject choice is very important to me and hard to master.

I love looking at a portfolio with overall subject choices in mind. Some people on this site

are incredible at it. Chris Blaszczyk (among others) takes insanely beautiful pictures. A lot

of the women he shoots are very beautiful. If the women weren't quite as aestheticly

pleasing his pictures would still be top notch. It all depends, I guess. What do you think?

What makes up a great subject for you? Also, I'm wondering, for

people who shoot people with the intent on giving them the pictures afterwards, do you

worry about there ability to judge the aesthetics of the photo relative to the aesthetics of

them (or how they look in the picture without regard to the overall final print)?

Currently showing at the Metropolitan Museum of Art is an exhibit of photographs of people's discarded chewing gum from the streets of New York. From what I saw they were all B&W macros of the gum as it lay on the pavement or sidewalk (along with whatever trash, cigarette butts etc happened to be near to them.)

 

The subject matter could hardly be called 'pleasing' but somebody decided that it was 'art' and worthy of a showing at a major cultural venue.

 

This either shows that the skill of the artist can make even mundane and homely subjects artistically valid...or that the art establishment don't know their ar*e from a hole in the ground. I tend to think it is the latter.

<I>...how much do you feel a photographer deserves credit for choosing aestheticly

pleasing subjects?</I><P>100% of the credit just as they deserve 100% of the blame for

creating dull, boring, uninspiring cliche rideen or sloppily created images no matter how

"aestheticly (dis)pleasing" the subject might be.<P><I>I see the ravest reviews go to the

hottest models and to the "hardest place to get" shot.</I><P>Ahh, the lure of the

exotic.<P><I>Chris Blaszczyk (among others) takes insanely beautiful pictures. A lot of

the women he shoots are very beautiful. If the women weren't quite as aestheticly pleasing

his pictures would still be top notch.</I><P>There you go.<P><I>What makes up a great

subject for you?</I><P>Whatever I am truly interested in.<P><I>do you worry about

there ability to judge the aesthetics of the photo relative to the aesthetics of them (or how

they look in the picture without regard to the overall final print)?

</I><P>No. What they think is their business. It isn't my job or place to preach to them. If

they are paying me I want them to be happy, preferably with work I am happy with too.

<I>This either shows that the skill of the artist can make even mundane and homely

subjects artistically valid...or that the art establishment don't know their ar*e from a hole

in the ground. I tend to think it is the latter.</I><P>A comment which just proves my

underlying point: "taste is in the mouth, nose, eyes, ears & brain" of the individual

audience meber. Meryl doesn't like those photos. They don't conform to her intellectual

prejudices. What we don't know is whether she saw them in person or reproduced small,

on a computer monitor. <P>Which leads to another question: Does the method of

experiencing an image change your perception of it? Which leads to another question:

does the degree of familiarity with a piece or a body of work change your perception of it

. Whic hleads to another question; As you age, your aesthetic understanding and

perceptions may change as well: Does this mean that your earlier critical evaluation of the

work was always invalid?<P> Which ultimately leads to the basic questions of philosophy

and

aesthetics: How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? And does that number

change if they start dancing to new rhythm?

I actually meant that the art establishment, as a whole, are brainless twits who have neither the talent nor the taste to ejudicate on what is 'art'. This was just another minor example.

 

Like the idiot who got a major showing here in Toronto of (what amounted to a high-school science project) a series of jugs, pumps and pipes that digested food into a reasonable facsimile of human excrement. The establishment deemed this 'art' when it is, obviously, 'crap'.

<I>I actually meant that the art establishment, as a whole, are brainless twits who have

neither the talent nor the taste to ejudicate on what is 'art'. This was just another minor

example.</I><P>No they aren't, as a whole, brainless twits, but I doubt that anything will

change your point of view. The "problem" with "art" is that there is such a push for

constant newness that some individuals get more caught up in that chase for

sensationalism & trendiness than really do their job of looking at the work itself. I've been

reeading "Genius: The Life and Science of Richard Feymann" by James Gleick. in the middle

of the book he has a chapter on what is genius and why there appear to be fewer of them

today then there seems to have been in the past. Gleick discusses Mozart as an example:

<P><I> "Creative artists in modern times have laboured under the terrible weight of the

demand for novelty. Mozart's contemporaries expected him t owork within a fixed, shared

framework, not to break the bonds of convention. The standard forms of the sonata,

symphony, and opera were established before his birth and hardly changed in his lifetime;

the rules of harmonic progression made a cage as unyielding as the sonnet did for

Shakespeare. As unyielding and as liberating -- for later critics found the creators' genius

in the counterpoint of structure and freedom, rigor and inventiveness."</I><P> The

obvious point Gleick is striving to make is that the culture that contemporary artists,

curators and patrons work in now for the most for the most part has no rules to bounce

back off of, so you will get some piece like the one you describe that is done purely for the

sake of provikng reactions liek the one you had. <P>Irving Penn and Ernst Hass , both are

very much classicists in the form and boundaries of their work, made great

photographic art of rubbish they

found on the street.

>....how much do you feel a photographer deserves credit for choosing aestheticly pleasing subjects?<

 

which aesthetic? aesthetic values are not sizeable, they are perceived individually. for my mind the rule of thirds may look good most of time, but then my heart may apprecheate more if that rule is broken.

the "aesthetics" of my heart may prefer other qualities than the well designed. it may prefer the little "mistake".

 

>What makes up a great subject for you?<

any, the great subject is your perception of it. the inner music that will show up in your pictures.

>Like the idiot who got a major showing here in Toronto of (what amounted to a high-school science project) a series of jugs, pumps and pipes that digested food into a reasonable facsimile of human excrement. The establishment deemed this 'art' when it is, obviously, 'crap'.<

 

Meryl, your example reminds me of the Indian philosopher S. Aurobindo who said already in the first half of the last century that when he sees modern art two things are evident in it: uglyness and absurdity.

<a href="http://www.cloaca.be/">Cloaca</a>

"...your example reminds me of the Indian philosopher S. Aurobindo who said already in the first half of the last century that when he sees modern art two things are evident in it: uglyness and absurdity."

 

-------------------------------------------

 

Now that would be typical of Indian philosophy in general, wouldn't it? The denial of life and the contemplation of its ugliness.

 

I consider modern art, whether it be photography, painting or music, to be largely experimental. Most of it will fall by the wayside. There's often a pressure to be innovative, to command attention, to shock, to surprise, to stir the pot, to break out of the mold.

 

I see nothing intrinsically wrong with this. If a piece of 'crap' is recognised as such by the public, then that's a valuable piece of advice for the ... erh! .. artist. Don't pursue this line of activity if you want to earn a living.

 

On the other hand, if the artist feels strongly enough that his work is not crap, that it's deeply meaningful to him, he just might continue producing the stuff, hoping one day public perception will catch up. But life is generally full of compromises.

 

The working photographer is usually working for a client, or an imagined audience, therefore too much innovation is risky. Knowing what the client wants and having the photographic skill to produce the required result is often all that matters.

One of my favorite things to do when I'm shooting[especially medium format] is to discover something most people don't even notice and try to make a great photo out of it. A good deal of my abstract photography is like this. Other famous photographers in this Tradition: Aaron Siskind, Minor White, Brett Weston, Harry Callahan, Ray Metzker, Ed Weston[ nothing like a great toilet shot], and my memory fades to black.

IMO, the photographer deserves <i>all</i> credit for <i>every</i> image that they make themselves (ie, no collaborations, or the credit must then be divided). However, I see your point Michael: I agree that 'beautiful' people in photographs <i>can</i> and <i>do</i> draw praise, even when the photograph itself is ordinary (or worse)! I feel that these raters are rating the subject, not the photograph. That being said, who's to say that one should <i>not</i> produce beautiful photographs that please the viewers?!

"That being said, who's to say that one should not produce beautiful photographs that please the viewers?!"

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Only the photographer. As has been said many a time, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. If photographers want to make a living from their art, there's an obvious requirement to produce images that are beautiful in the eye of the viewer, or at least news worthy, interesting or unusual in some way.

<i>I actually meant that the art establishment, as a whole, are brainless twits</i><p>

 

Can you name these brainless twits and give some examples where specific brainless twits have demonstrated their brainless twitiness?<p>

 

I'm serious. I hear these kinds of comments all the time, but nobody really seems to be able to back it up. I mean, aren't these brainless twits the same as the old brainless twits that never changed anything and said photography could never be art? If they aren't, why not? And why do these castigations of anonymous individuals, always identified as part of some obscure elite class never named precisely, show up so often on this forum? Especially on questions that were well-directed and had nothing to do with brainless twits but with some more interesting points?

those observations also showed up in the Stalinist Soviet Union, the Khmer Rouge, the Taliban, Randall Terry's book destroying Operation Rescue and now in the assassination and harassment of doctors and academics in Iraq. You're in good company Meryl, when you attack people for being too intelligent... t

>Now that would be typical of Indian philosophy in general, wouldn't it? The denial of life and the contemplation of its ugliness.<

 

In general, your view is wrong because Indian philosophy is as vast and manifold as it could be. If you read Aurobindo you will find no denial at all and you would confirm that too, for sure. By the way, some of his student have been excellent artist, poets, musicians.

>You're in good company Meryl, when you attack people for being too intelligent... t<

 

Tom, and you are too intelligent for really believing that. Where is your tolerance? Why go to the extreme so easily?

"In general, your view is wrong because Indian philosophy is as vast and manifold as it could be. If you read Aurobindo you will find no denial at all and you would confirm that too, for sure. By the way, some of his student have been excellent artist, poets, musicians."

 

I think you misunderstand me. I didn't say the negation of life and the contemplation of ugliness is typical of Aurobindo, but it is a characteristic of Indian philosophy, or the Perennial Philosophy and its derivative, Buddhism. At least, that's the impression I get, with its emphasis on sexual abstinence, tortuous penance and all sorts of extreme activities such as sitting alone in a cave for 20 years without speaking.

 

I don't know much about Aurobindo, but it's a fair bet he was very much influenced by traditional Indian philosophy and Yoga. His retirement into seclusion in 1926 until his death in 1950 seems to smack of some sort of denial, although you could call it by another name.

Raymond, I could start now writing you a very long reply, but I will keep it short. I did not misunderstand you, I just think you were repeating a cliche. In the minds of many people Indian philosophy is reduced to the negation of the world, the Shankara philosophy or as you called Buddhism. While that is one aspect it is not the full picture. Aurobindos philosophy is that of accepting and transforming life. While he himself was choosing seclusion to do pioneering work, his "Life Divine" clearly pointed out that his Yoga was one of acceptance.

Before Buddhism, life was accepted as well (were are talking here time spans of thousands of years). The negation of the world was a fairly new trend and it seems that with the rise of Aurobindo and others the dynamic changes again.

Bernd,

You're right. I WAS repeating a cliche. (Art is full of cliches and stereotypes). Perhaps I should have written, 'a characteristic' of Indian philosophy instead of 'typical' of Indian philosophy. The bizarre, the unusual, the exception, the fantastic, the weird, the amazing etc etc often stick in the mind and take on a prominence that is out of proportion to the over all picture. It happens all the time.

 

But you're right again, Indian culture is vast and diverse and accommodates all sorts of views. In fact, culture by its very definition HAS to be diverse, ie. is UNAVOIDABLY diverse. True monocultures tend to apply only to agriculture where a single crop is isolated from the competition of diversity by application of weed killers etc.

 

To rephrase my perceived attack on Aurobindo's comments about modern art being absurd and ugly, I was trying to express the idea that any culture that hangs on tenaciously to traditional forms, as some cultures of the East tend to, whether it be India, Arabia or China (although clearly things are now changing rapidly in those parts of the world), will tend to abhor any art that breaks away from those traditions.

 

In a way, this is self-evident. Were it not true, then such countries that we perceive to be steeped in tradition, would not be so. I think modern India is in many ways quite different from the India of Aurobindo's time, but in other ways quite the same.

 

I would also make the general point that we in the West have a tradition of 'breaking with tradition' in both the arts and sciences. We should not forget that some of Beethoven's symphonies, that are now considered to be almost perfect compositions that are so 'right' it's difficult to imagine them being different or improved upon, were in their time considered by some to be absurd and ugly.

"<i>Tom, and you are too intelligent for really believing that. Where is your tolerance? Why go to the extreme so easily?</i>" I go to the extreme so quickly because this line of thinking goes too often unchallenged here. <p>Don't try to turn that intolerance on me, Meryl. I'm not intolerant, I'm <b>pissed</b>. <p>I see the camel's nose in the tent and I'm pointing it out. This creeping polarizing of society is entirely too reminiscent of 1930's Germany and Bolshevik anti-intelectualism prior to their shit hitting their respective fans. <p>I am not tolerant of intolerance. Just because someone reads books, studies the history of a topic and applies that study to their life's work doesn't make them a threat to normalcy. <p>Anti-intelectualism has shown it's true face too many times for me to ignore it's advance propagandists whether they're drinking in the pub, ranting on the corner or posting on the internet. It's brown shirt politics at it's most insipid and I publicly refute it... t

I'm still looking for an answer - <i>who are these brainless twits? </i> Meryl seems to have studied debating in the same school as Thomas Gardner and Rush Limbaugh - make wild statements, name unkown enemies, but never document anything. It's a great way to never lose an argument.

Tom and Jeff, this kind of topic really touches a nerve. While I do not need to defend Meryls statements, she was giving her opinion on an example. There is nothing wrong with that, except her first comment being too general. Do you expect she will give the name of the person who is responsible spending money on the given example?

 

I live in Germany, a country that has a deep complex about its recent history. You meet people here that are insecure, radical, ignorant, sensible etc. etc. about this past. One reason for that is, the holocaust as a shocking part of history has mutated into a handy axe, a cliche that is just too often cleverly used by people to suppress other peoples opinion.

 

As an example: Using here the term "entartete Kunst" will bring you close to public punishment, no matter what you have done, good or bad, or how your art is.

 

I personally really dont care if someone who is making art is intelligent or stupid, modern or old fashioned, what country that person comes from or how his political or religious views are, as long as his / her work contains something that I can apprecheate as a human heart with good-will, who likes to see what moves others inwardly.

 

Again, there is nothing wrong to dislike something if you feel so.

 

But to put persons into cliches being made of history's extreme outgrows is a criminal act as long as you dont have real evidence about a persons foul intentions, which is here obviously not the case.

it looks like meryl has left the gum ridden walled building...

bernd, what meryl consistently does here is state things as if they were facts, not opinions, big difference.....and as jeff pointed out, she has very little experience to back up any statements, opinion or not....