Wrong to see your own work as great?

Some of you guys are arguing over the word 'great'... I dont' think that's the point here. I think the point is whether or not you can look at your photos and think "hmm, I like that one".

 

Personally... when I was younger, I thought I had some pretty good pictures, when really... it was a perception of greatness based on the fact that those pictures brought back some emotion or memory that made them appealing to me. Anyone else would look at the same pictures and go... meh.

 

Now I look back over my 3 years of 'serious' photography, and I still think I have a couple of good ones... but my perception of 'good' has changed. The good ones are also mixed in with a pile of ok ones, mixed in with a pile of total blandness, and that most of my old stuff (excepting out a few 'luck of the draw' shots) are pretty much crap, and nothing more than documentations of my life.

 

Oh wait a minute... when it comes down to it, isn't that what photography is? Documentation of life (the quality of said documentation could certainly be up for discussion on that note).

 

To me, a 'great' photo is all in the eye of the beholder. It sticks out, catches your eye, brings forth some emotion or another. Some people (some friends / family) think all my photos are great. I think they are crazy, and probably don't have a clue about photography. But who cares?

 

I enjoy doing it.

It's in interesting, Allen, that you should quote Orville. Anyone that actually produces work as good as his bears listening to, but also distorts this conversation a bit. He actually DOES have a reason to think highly of his work. I think that Kurt Holter's words, though, are more appropriate for this thread (and for reality, in general):

<Br><Br>

<i>In the minds of many of the respondents and lurkers, this whole process legitimizes the belief that "If this crap is good/legit/artistic, I must be a good street photographer too!" So, the circle of life perpetuates itself.</i>

Of course not, at least not for me. I don't mind to receive any kind of critiques and also I do criticize my work too. I like to show both results - the bad and the good one. The process of growing never ends.

When I photograph I feel freed, feeling these moments like a new dimensions. I can really feel that something has change in me during photographing. Somehow I know will I make a good photo, or an interesting project. Everything depends on my inner states and how much I have deeply touched by someone or something.

Interesting thread people.

 

The original post asked about whether it is wrong to see one's own work as great. For me that single question has two distinct threads. One relates to a definition of 'greatness' and the other relates to an individuals ability to recognise the same.

 

For me, 'Great' in a photographic sense means that the image stops me in my tracks - time after time... It means I'm drawn like a moth to a flame and want to spend time with this image. It means that every time I see it I 'see' more or it 'means' something else. You get my drift.

 

Anyone, absolutely anyone, is capable of taking such an image with any kind of equipment in any kind of circumstance. What seems to have happened through the thread though is that 'Great' has become, for want of a better description, greatness which, for me at least, is the ability to identify, isolate and execute 'great' images time after time.

 

I'll stick my neck out here and say that there are far more people who execute greatness than we recognise. It is only because they haven't been brought to our attention, maybe their work isn't in vogue, by those who dictate such things that they remain unknown.

 

Back to point two, can we recognise 'great'? Answer is, 'Hell yes!' what we do have to do though is be brave and not let our view of our own work be tempered by what 'Joe Public' is told to think of as Great. We watch and hope and have to hold the faith because, hopefully, one day it will be our turn... My motto, "Publish and be damned..."

 

David

 

Just my two penneth.

I simply enjoy creating something that evokes an emotion in myself and others. In the context of my own work, what is great to me now will be superseded by something new that I will create. Because no matter how emotional I feel about an image, that power seems to fade with familiarity.

 

That's why I like the concept of Flickr and "streams". The new stuff is always out front so I can enjoy my own work a bit, and the old stuff is still hanging around in case someone who has never seen it can benefit from the kick of emotion.

 

My definition of greatness involves the ability to create a strong emotion on a regular basis, better than the vast majority of my peers that attempt the same thing.

 

With that, I do perceive my own greatness, as long as I don't worry about the thousands of current photographers I don't know who are much greater than I am. :) Also, If I haven't been shooting for a while, I feel my greatness subside. When we shoot often, obsessively even, that's when greatness washes over us.

 

Just my own thoughts...

So, yeah.. Why not admire your own work?

Great... There are various reason for think you are great. I am great at figuring things out. I have strapped a number of techniques onto my belt. Digital, wet color printing, wet black and white, cyanotype, van dyke, gum prints, daguerreotypes. I have too many cameras, and have mastered none of them. But once in a while I take an exposure that shifts my focus. There are images that I see that inform my thought process and concepts. I scour every corner of my environment for new sights and ideas. In the end, none of that will make me great. To be great is a value that is affixed by critics, publications, exhibitions, collections and the like.

 

Once in a while, I come up with a great image. Great is just a benchmark. It is something to surpass, it's not the end all be all, it is a tick on a chart. Will it be your only tick mark, will you sit back and gloat over your genius? Hopefully not, you need to suck it up, let it take you places and let those places find your next great image. It's good to recognize your work in positive ways, but you have to accept it, share it and move on. Push the concept, surpass you greats until they are merely a half way mark to where you want to be.

How much I agree with you David Newton. The greatest things are the simplest things in life. Great words mate.

It's as wrong as declaring yourself a genius. Besides, who needs that kind of pressure when

even just good art or journalism requires an unstinting focus on what's going on? Adams was

great not only for the worth of his images per se but because of the effects his work had on

environmental consciousness in this country. We might not have the protected lands and

national parks we do today if not for him. I also believe that greatness will out, no matter

what the field of endeavor. If Adams had stayed the course as a pianist, I have little doubt he

would have been first-rate.

Thanks Reuben. How much do I owe you? ;-)

 

The more I think about this the more complex it gets?

 

Tyler. Whilst I agree that Great can be defined is simply A point, one has to remember that photography as a medium has as many observation perspectives as there are photographs? I?ll explain simplistically. You may look a an image and feel that ?great? is a technical issue; so if I showed you an out of focus shot of my son in front of a warehouse in downtown Dallas where you clearly see a man pointing a rifle the day JFK was shot, you?d might feel it was rubbish. However, Reuben may see it as the greatest image in the world politically and socially?

 

For me the above answers the original question. If, from YOUR perspective, the image is great then it IS great. All you have to do is find a body of people who agree with you?

 

Jeff. Sorry, but I don?t agree with your first sentence. History is littered with people who have flown in the face of their peers, current thinking and paradigms and been ostracised (even killed) for daring to be different. Thousands have subsequently have been proven to be 100% right. Part of the make up and drive of such people is a massive self belief which can easily be externally misinterpreted as them believing themselves to be a genius.

 

Great is indeed a point in time/experience. It is also a matter of context as I allude to above. If you look at something in total isolation it can appear trivial and insubstantial which is why some people feel Adams is so-so and some feel as you do he was far more. I see it a bit like land seed records. In the beginning some complete nutter (read dare devil) got on his wheels and reached the crazy speed of 30mph. People thought your skin would fly off etc etc. Today any half decent cyclist gets up to that speed on his daily commute to work (I wish?)

 

Our trouble as human beings is that we are very inwardly focussed. Instead of looking at the world in an empathetic light (i.e. seeing it from the perspective of others) we take entrenched and belligerent stand points where everyone else is deemed ?wrong?.

 

Maybe the message from this thread should be one of ?Look at what others do and are proud of and appreciate it??

 

David

Oh how I wish! But what would I do then if I did get that Great shot? I would hate to

make my everyday good shooting forever fall short of my Great piece. Great can be the

dream to constantly strive for, that photo that will be remembered by nearly everyone for

generations to come. Who would not like to leave something like that in this world? But I

am quite happy with Wonderful!

 

I love to make my work look wonderful, you know, full of Wonder. And that I can do often

enough to make me incredibly proud of what I do. I always shoot the absolute best I can,

each and every time I press the shutter. Why would I not? Most of my shots don't reach

'Wonderful', and none have ever achieved Greatness, but the joy I feel in looking at my

own shots can be no less than what Ansel felt when looking at his own.

 

If you don't love your own work, I think it would make shooting a terribly empty

experience. Taking photos should be incredibly fulfilling. To arrive at that breathless

moment when looking through the viewfinder that time seems to stand still, the breathing

stops, the world disappears around you. Now that is what is great about shooting, every

time I press that little black button. Perhaps that is the Zen of it all. Great? I guess it is

nice not to need it.<div></div>

"A work of art is good if it has arisen out of necessity. That is the only way one can judge it. So, dear sir, I can't give you any advise but this: to go into yourself and see how deep the place is from which your life flows; at it source you will find the answer to the question of whether you *must* create."

 

"Works of art are an infinite solitude, and no means of approach is as useless as criticism. Only love can touch and hold them and be fair to them. Always trust yourself and your own feeling, argumentations, discussions, or introductions of that sort; if it turns out that you are wrong, then the natural growth of your inner life will eventually guide you to other insights."

 

-- Rainer Maria Rilke

 

I stopped writing poetry 25 years ago, when I no longer needed to. But I need to take photos.

I take a multitude of pics, keep the technically good ones and archive them.

I have learned to leave them be, not view them for a week or so because i'll go back and see them fresh and am often happily surprised, seeing them as if it isnt mine.

and that fresh view and thinking the picture is great is a rewarding feeling because others often back that up

<p class=indent>Anyone remember the movie "<a href="http://www.dailyscript.com/scripts/dead_poets_final.html">Dead Poet's Society</a>"?</p>

 

<p class=indent>Substitute "photography" for "poetry"... (emphasis is mine)<p>

<hr>

<p class=indent><i>Neil (reading from the introduction of a poetry book):</i><br>

 

A sonnet by Byron may score high on the vertical, but only

average on the horizontal. A Shakespearean sonnet, on the other

hand, would score high both horizontally and vertically, yielding

a massive total area, thereby revealing the poem to be <em>truly

great</em>. As you proceed through the poetry in this book, practice

this rating method. As your ability to evaluate poems in this matter

grows, so will - so will your enjoyment and understanding of poetry.</p>

 

<p class=indent><i>Keating:</i><br>

Excrement. That's what I think of Mr. J. Evans Pritchard.

<em>We're not laying pipe, we're talking about poetry.</em> I mean, how

can you describe poetry like American Bandstand? I like Byron,

I give him a 42, but I can't dance to it. Now I want you to rip

out that page. Go on, rip out the entire page. You heard me, rip

it out. Rip it out!</p>

 

<p class=indent><i>Keating again</i><br>

Thank you Mr. Dalton. <em>Armies of academics going forward,

measuring poetry. No, we will not have that here.</em> No more of

Mr. J. Evans Pritchard. Now in my class you will learn to think

for yourselves again. You will learn to savor words and language.

No matter what anybody tells you, words and ideas can change the

world.</p>

<hr>

<p class=indent>Does it really make sense to try and measure art? I looked at the <a href="http://www.masters-of-photography.com/S/salgado/salgado_covers.html">Salgado image</a> Bob Todrick offered as a "the universal photograph", and personally it doesn't work for me. If I took that photo, it would have ended up in the bin, unless I had some connection with the people in it or it triggered some memory for me. Bob, I'm glad for your sake that it didn't end up in the bin and that you've been able to enjoy it, but it certainly wouldn't get my vote as a great photo.</p>

 

<p class=indent>As others have already expressed, sometimes I take a photo and think to myself, "wow - that's great", only to find others I show it to disagree. So, I'll keep that image to enjoy myself, but won't keep showing it to other people. And other times I'll give people a photo I think is average, and they say, "Wow - that's great!"</p>

 

<p class=indent>I understand the dictionary definition of the word "great", but what is the context of comparison? In everyday usage it's very rarely "compared to every other photo ever taken in the whole world". If I take a portrait and the subject says it's great, the implied context is "compared to every other photo of me I've seen". As far as I can see this does not destroy the meaning of the word. If you disagree, then my counter-argument (with tongue firmly in cheek) would be, "Fine, let's remove all restrictions on context - but how can you really say Shakespeare is great compared to what the aliens in another galaxy were producing 2 million years ago?"</p>

"how can you really say Shakespeare is great compared to what the aliens in another

galaxy

were producing 2 million years ago?"

 

A contextual argument. All the way down to 'Gee, this ice cream sundae sure is great.' (with tongue firmly in cheek) But to stretch it a bit, if aliens came to Earth and their

literature made every human laugh and cry with self-recognition, Shakespeare would still

be great. To put it another way: the alien's flying saucer would not obviate the

achievement of the Wright Bros. or the Apollo program.

Is it wrong to see your own work as great?

 

No, of course not. But it might be inaccurate.

Response #1: ("I'm not saying that you worship every negative you turn out ...") Uhhhhh ... what's a "negative"?

 

Response #2: Mr. Allen, your original posting contains many small imperfections that annoy me. Could you please edit your spelling, punctuation, and grammar? Thank you.

 

Response #3: You can like, love, enjoy, critique, improve, learn from, share, brag about, discuss, donate, publish, and/or sell your own photos. But neither you nor any other person can determine if a photo is great within a day, a week, a month, or even a year after first viewing it. Greatness is detemined by the majority opinion of many people over a long period of time.

Truly a great thread!

No, it's not wrong. Now let me explain.

 

There have beena myriad of responses on this thread and as a photographer who's been shooting for the better part of a decade and has run the gamut of subjects (from forensics in the military to weddings to car shows) I think that what this really comes down to isn't definition, it's context.

 

For example - "That was a great dinner, thank you." Was that the greatest dinner? Maybe for that point in time. Will there be others? You'd better believe it, and from that same chef too I'd be willing to bet. Are other 'great' dinners diminished because of the labeling of that one? Not in the least - there are many great dinners from both professional chefs and simple people cooking at home on a regular basis.

 

I sit in my office and there is a large print by Irving Penn on the wall next to me. Do I feel that image is great? Oh yes, I do - very much so. It's been great (to me) since it was first published in Vouge all those years ago. Now, having said that, do I consider any of my images great? Yes. Do I think I'm Irving Penn? No. I hope to one day be close, and strive to be thus, but no, right now I'm not at Irving Penn's level. Nor am I at Steichen's level. But Steichen is also great.

 

To me, greatness isn't a cheap word but it's also not an unattainable word. It's the context in which it's used. I know playwrights that are great - they're not Shakespeare but they are great. "Some women/men are born into greatness, and others have it thrust upon them." And in my mind, others acheive it. I think that if you'd like to call your images great, then do so. I think that if other people choose to call your image great, don't contradict them. Accept the compliment. And if still more people tell you that the image is great then youcan rest assured that they see in the image what you see in the image - and that is greatness. Greatness is a benchmark, a measuring point that we can hold our images up against and say "Did I get there with this one?" And if the answer is no, then move on to the next one. And when you run out, go take more and come back. There are great images everywhere and the word isn't cheapened by using it, it only means that more people are striving for that. If you don't see "what's so great" about an image, that's fine! There are other people in my office that look around at the Penns and Steichens on the wall and don't understand that they are great images. (the hell of the art dept bordering the acct dept) But does that diminish the greatness of the photographs? No. They are great to someone and that's what drives photographers to keep shooting - to see if they can take a picture that's 'greater' than someone else's.

 

If we didn't have that, how bland would our craft be? Too bland for my taste.

 

So yes, I think that some of my images are great, and I express that to people. If they agree then I keep shooting. If they don't I keep shooting. Either way, my craft is spurred on so nothing is lost, only gained.

Have you seen Martin Scorsese's The King of Comedy? In the film, a perennial stalker and

pest, Rupert Pupkin, kidnaps the host of the Tonite Show. The ransom is an opportunity to

perform live himself. The substitute host introduces him as one who is 'destined for

greatness, of one kind or another.'

 

One kind or another could mean greatest hero or greatest fool. Take your pick. It's all good.

Yes Erika you certainly hit the point of it all. Greatness is all around us, its just relative, it is the way you see it that changes everything. I do sometimes receive compliments on some of my shots and to say the truth sometimes I do not always accept them but then I remember this relativity thing and holla I see that greatness in that shot.

Still don't agree Ericka.

 

So what do we do with the word 'good'? There are a very large number of 'good' photographers out there...just as I've had many a 'good' meal.

 

But great.

 

Not so many, in my opinion.

 

I've noticed you've been shooting for 10 years. You must be a far better photographer than I because, after nearly 4 decades of shooting I have yet to produce an image that would be considered by the majority to be 'great'.

 

Good yes...great, again, not so much.

 

I guess the problem I have with the whole issue (and for such a seemingly minor issue it sure has garnered a lot of responses) is that it is just another indication of our current western society where no one is a failure, no child in school is told they are screwing up and everyone has an excuse when they do screw up..."I had to shoot the Quikee-Mart clerk because I wasn't loved as a child".

 

So now good has become 'great' and no bad photographs are made.

 

A sad world in my opinion.

Since photography and art are entirely subjective, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

 

I think a lot of posts here assume that greatness in photography is something more than a popularity contest.

 

I can call a photo of the inside of my lens cap great, and you can't prove me wrong. But if thousands of people call it great, then it adds weight to my claim. And if a few really popular people call it great, then it's in.

 

So again, if you think your own work is great, then by definition, it's great to at least one person.

 

Go out and shoot!

Bob,

I'm sorry that you don't agree with me but I can agree with you on some of your points.

 

Yes, it is a flaw of the western world that we don't tell children that they're good or bad, the whole "no child left behind" project was doomed from the start and yes, some children are more special than others. It's a tragedy that we're not more realistic with our children. The world isn't so coddling as our educational system.

 

Now, having said that, I have to make the point that "greatness", as the word applies to things of extraordinary nature, is attainable by every photographer who tries. There is no qustion of that in my mind. Should every image be called Great? No. Is every photograph called Great? No, they better not be. But can, occasionally, one photo stand out as greater than other works by that one photogrpaher? Yes. Can that image, in among the many in that one photographers portfolio be called great? Yes. Does that make it Great in the grand scheme and history of Photography? No. Does it make it Good? Possibly.

 

Do you see the distinction there? For one photogrpaher, against his or her own work, and image can be great. Against the masses? Probably not. Would I dare call any of my images great when talking to my peers? No. And I didn't, if you read that again. Inside the confines of my own portfolio, showing fellow photographers along with my friends and family (my mother, by the way, is a curator of American Art and has told me without hesitation when a shot doesn't cut it) a few images stand out as great. Those are the images I then present to the masses, to garner their critiques, comments and criticisms. And I never expect anyone here to say my images are Great. I know I'm not to that level yet on the world stage. But that boost that I get knowing that among my group one or two images stand out as great... it spurrs me on to work harder and create more images, to expand my vision and to strive harder to be a "Really Good" photographer. When I'm there, eventually, then I'll strive to be Great. But not yet. I know I'm not there yet. But that's what this is all about for me. One phrase that sums up this whole thread.

 

I'm not great - but I'm working on it.

 

It makes sense to me...

Erika,

you are saying very objective. I agree with you.

Can I see some of your photos? The link on your web site isn't working.

 

I'm still using chemical films and as long as the photo looks OK and nice I can sell it here in Croatia.