Pretty or Gritty?

<p>My question for PNet members is: how important is it for a photograph to be pretty (as opposed to having an 'aesthetically high quality') to move the viewer?<br>

If you see the highest rated photos in the gallery here, most of them are pretty colour pictures, a lot of landscape, wide-angles, surreal colours, totally smooth and pleasing to the eye. Should my photo be just pleasing to the eye to be called good?<br>

Thanks in advance for answers.</p>

<p>If your goal is to produce art, then a 'good' image is one that moves the viewer, or causes them to react somehow, good or bad. A well craft picture is a good one, but good is so subjective. I find beautiful landscape images boring. I started out taking them, but then I moved into other areas that I found more challenging. Now I take mostly fine art documentary images and wedding shots. I like more gritty-type images or romantic vingnetted images that are unique. I have looked at millions of images. I want something original that has impact. Everyone is different. Photograph to please yourself first and don't worry about pleasing other people. Find your unique style and vision. Your photos should be real, not just pretty pictures. Show your joy of photography through your own unique work. Find some photographer's work that you really like and study it. Then start ingraining pieces of that into your work. Good luck.</p>

Shoot what makes you happy and satisfies your curiosity.

<p>What Brad said and I find most pretty pictures boring myself but not all. And it's all subjective...what's "pretty" and "gritty"...</p>

<p>Not all art is "pretty." Moreover, the artwork that grabs me usually is not.</p>

<p>Gritty <em>is</em> pretty.</p>

 

<p>An interesting question.<br>

Gritty can be pretty-ish.<br>

Shoot the stuff that interests you and see if you can get that to be "pretty". Looking at your portfolio, you have some very "pretty" images, even the gritty ones. Some others are not quite that impressive. I look forward to seeing what else you deliver.</p>

<p>I think of "pretty" as lacking in unique attributes, though that is a personal generalization that cannot be accurately taken wholesale. Most of my photographs are not pretty, as I tend toward industrial ruins and urban decay. But pretty and aesthetically pleasing are not synonymous; and gritty and aesthetically pleasing are not mutually exclusive concepts. JR</p>

<p>I believe you need to differentiate "pretty" from "having an aesthetically high quality" (and I think that's at the root of some of the other responses you've received). I think the two categories may overlap to an extent, but I believe there are "pretty" pictures that would be somewhat inappropriate to describe as "having an aesthetically high quality" (e.g., IMO, a photo of a pretty girl or a pretty baby). </p>

<p>Having an aesthetically high quality, to me, is based on elements in the composition that come together to strike a positive emotional response in terms of their arrangement, color, light, or other attributes. While some of these arrangements, colors, etc. may be seen as "pretty," I don't think that the two are necessarily synonymous. For example, a field of alpine flowers may be termed both "pretty" and "having an aesthetically high quality," but a complex arrangement of sand dunes or a moss-laden maple tree devoid of leaves are probably best described (by most people at least) as "having an aesthetically high quality" when the compositions of those sand dunes or that maple tree are carefully composed so that the elements, light, color, etc. produce a positive emotional response.</p>

<p>As a biologist, I'm interesting in different habitat types, and some photos of a habitat type have the attributes that strike an emotional chord in me and I deem them aesthetically pleasing but not necessarily "pretty." I usually spend a lot of time in an old growth forest looking for the right combination of snags, understory, logs, tree trunks, and canopy that capture the essence of an old growth forest in an aesthetically pleasing way -- such arrangements are not common. Even when I do find one, some viewers will still see nothing but a mess of a forest. Viewers have different chords available for striking regarding emotional responses to photographs.</p>

<p>Finally, as several pointed out, not all emotional responses stem from photos that are "pretty" or "have an aesthetically high quality." A fireman carrying an injured child is one such example. I'm guessing that Jeremy's photos of urban decay are another example.</p>

 

<p>If <em>pretty</em> (photography) means "pleasing to the eye" it would be somewhat strange to declare that we don't like it and also strange if it was not linked to what we, each one of us, consider <em>esthetic,</em> meaning <em>beautiful</em> and of <em>good taste</em>. It is very difficult to separate the two. Both 'move" the viewer because it corresponds to what he/she likes to look at. So, if you wish to satisfy viewers need for looking at "pretty scenes" and high ratings on PN go for shooting exactly that. <strong>Anirban</strong>, you describe these pictures fairly well in your question above.</p>

<p>If you want to rebel, one way of liberating oneself from the straightjacket of what others consider prettiness and of esthetic values is of course, as mentioned above, to shoot the ugly, the deviant, the freaks and the decay you might meet around you. It would not be pretty and neither esthetic according to the common view, but it might move some viewers to the same degree as pretty pictures move others. If moving the viewer is the objective of photography - either way forward are proven roads to success.</p>

<p>Photography, like other fine arts, uses however prettiness, ugliness and esthetics also for other ends than merely moving the viewer. Some photos are created as mainly cerebral and uses prettiness and ugliness to catch attention and make the viewer reflect. The quality of such photos is therefor not hidden in esthetic values but in how such values are put to work for transmitting reflections, messages and provoke reactions on the part of the viewer. In such cases, if the viewer only see prettiness or ugliness, the artist has failed miserably - or the viewer has failed to open the eyes and interpret what he/she sees.</p>

<p>For you to choose what fits you best,<strong> Anirban</strong>.</p>

<p>Let me first thank all you folks for the enlightening responses.<br /><br />I'll elaborate on what I would consider gritty (this is HCB):<br>

<br /><img src="http://www.afterimagegallery.com/BressonHyeresnew.jpg" alt="" width="640" height="429" /><br /><br />http://www.afterimagegallery.com/BressonHyeresnew.jpg</p>

<p>In photo.net galleries, this one I would consider griity:<br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/11646008-lg.jpg" alt="" width="458" height="700" /><br /><br />http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/11646008-lg.jpg<br /><br />or<br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/8968823-lg.jpg" alt="" /><br>

<br />http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/8968823-lg.jpg<br /><br />All three above capture the raw emotion of the moment ...<br /><br /><br />And this is pretty:<br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/11271295-md.jpg" alt="" width="679" height="460" /><br>

http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/11271295-md.jpg<br /><br />(I don't disparage the word pretty, I don't want to be snobbish and claim pretty equals shallow.<br />Prettiness is what captures attention and makes the first impression.)<br /><br />But then, look how many people were moved enough by the prettier picture to leave "wow" comments ...<br /><br /><br /><br />?</p>

<p><br />Anirban, here's my take on your question:</p>

<p>I think people make snap-judgements when viewing an image - it either appeals to them nor not in an instant. Unlike law or engineering where volumes of research and irrefutable evidence leads to conclusions, art is just the opposite relying instead on perception and intuition.</p>

<p>This might explain the reason members can view the rating cue and click numbers as fast as slide shows and be just as accurate as hours of chin-stroking analysis on each image. This snap judgement, known as thin-slicing in psychology, is a way of making instant yet reliable decisions based on our training and life experiences. For the same reasons, our snap judgements will differ relative to our experiences.</p>

<p>None of your sited images appeal to me because I look for something entirely different which connects with my unique experiences. It's not to say my tastes are in some way superior; they aren't, just different. So, if you find a particular style or rendering to have mass appeal, and you wish to appeal to the same masses, then your options are clear. Personally, I would heed to Brad's remark and probably should have used just as few words to say it.</p>

<p>So tell me...is this pretty or gritty..</p>

<p><img src="../photo/8663475" alt="" /></p>

<p> </p>

<p><strong>Clint</strong> you have to show it - or it's gritty !</p>