A "pretty" photograph -- is that a flaw?

This is really a question about aesthetics and partly (visual) art

history.

 

Up to the middle of the XIX century the primary criterion for art was

beauty. Art had to be beautiful to be art, and the more beautiful it

was, the better art it was. This changed by the end of the XIX century

-- people got bored with bland predictable beauty and started

experimenting with unusual things. Art became more about making an

impact on the viewer and less about aesthetics.

 

Now, take a look at the most popular images here, or on photosig.com,

or on some other site. Throw out soft porn, which is in its own

category, popularity-wise. What will you be left with? Mostly a lot of

pretty pictures -- landscapes, nature. Spend some time going through

them and you'll realize that they are mostly the same.

 

"Correct" composition, check. Sharp and detailed, check. Early morning

or late evening light, check. Pretty, maybe even beautiful, check.

Yaaaaaawn.

 

Is "pretty" an antonym to "interesting"? Is it possible to make pretty

photographs which are at the same time deep and compelling and

unusual? Is there any destination for pretty images other than a

calendar on a dentist's office wall?

Pretty need not be the opposite of interesting IMO.

pretty "snapshots" can often be uninteresting.

Attractive images can be very interesting.

Of course it's possible to make pretty and interesting pictures, but remember tastes vary.

 

While some aspects of a photograph are directly empirical and objective others depend entirely on the audience or intended purpose of the shot. You can have technically perfect exposures of uninteresting subjects, and awful shots of unique things. Which is better? It depends on what you want to achieve, and who you want to appreciate your work.

 

I have a friend who bought a print years back which I think is just awful. It's a dreary picture of a boston road, out of focus, heavy vignetting, no clear subject or interesting key point. He loves it, others do to. He wanted it because of the mood it conveyed and because it was of a place he is familiar with. Was that the photographer's original intent? Maybe, maybe not. To me, this is a bad picture. To others it's not.

 

There's no reason you can't combine the two though. I personally value photographers that use a lot of creativity in making an image, and do it technically well. I may not think my coffee mug is interesting sitting here on my desk, but I assure you there are some artists out there that could compose a shot to make it so. Having a truly great image is a product of technical skill AND creativity. Luck also comes into play sometimes, there's no substitute for being in the right place at the right time.

Kaa,

 

Up to the middle of the 19th century most of the then known civilized world believed in one God and in most respects, believed in the similar things that God had given us in the Bible. Kind of like having one mind amongst all of us.

 

Then along came evolution, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mary Baker Eddy and others, who gave alternative choices to the overbearing factions of Christian leadership, who were more interested in giving us their own power, than in revealing God's love for us.

 

So along comes Picasso who couldn't draw to save his life so he established a new art form, which, rather than imitating God's creations, reflected the glory back to himself. So fast forward a few years and you get people throwing dung on something and calling it art. And, of course, there is always someone willing to swallow it whole, let's call them art critics, who wish to inflate their own ego's by enlightening us on the wheres and whys that make dung throwing an art. So we poor slobs can just look at it, shake our heads and say, "uh, huh".

 

This thought process requires the belief in a God so those reading this who believe something else will disagree. I'm not trying to start a debate on whether or not what I say is true. Either you believe or you don't. Look around at all the horrific things happening in the world today. People killing their own children, torture in the name of justice, flying planes into buildings, business executives robbing pension plan's. It goes on and on.

 

Anyway, I believe it and it fits my theories. We are close to the end of the age brothers and sisters.

 

I make pretty pictures and sell them. There will be someone out there who will see what you see even if it is throwing dung on the wall.

 

Kaa, landscape images become more impressive at 24x30 and 30x40 inches in a darkened room with a nice spotlight on them than viewing a low rez jpeg on the internet.

 

cheers,

You start with a false premise.<p><i>Up to the middle of the XIX century the primary criterion for art was beauty</i><p>

 

The history of art is filled with works of art that were not done for their "beauty." Even ancient cultures - Rome, for instance, or the Zapotecs of Mesoamerica - were filled with "grotesque" images that were designed to show anything but beauty. Many scenes of the crucifixion, dating back to medieveal times, and especially in the first few centuries of Catholicism in the Western Hemisphere, are gruesome and not the least bit concerned with "beauty." And there is Bosch...<p>

 

It could easily be argued that the "primary criterion for art" up through the 15th century or so was the ability to create strong religious messages, some of which had nothing to do with beauty.<p>

 

Comparing the history of art to the "most popular" photographs seen here and on other web sites is meaningless. One might as well judge journalism by the writing here, which would lead quickly to an obviously depressing conclusion.<p>

 

If you want to see great photography, pretty or not, get out and look at some prints. I think the argument becomes empty quite quickly.

<I>Look around at all the horrific things happening in the world today. People killing their own children, torture in the name of justice, flying planes into buildings, business executives robbing pension plan's. It goes on and on.

<P>

Anyway, I believe it and it fits my theories. We are close to the end of the age brothers and sisters.</I>

<P>

Ummm, so all that stuff hasn't been happening for centuries? Minus the planes, of course. How 'bout all the Jews/Muslims/Native Americans/Africans killed/enslaved by good Christians? Surely, that totals up to a much bigger toll of brutality than the folks killed on 9/11. How about good Christian traders intentionally giving smallpox-contaminated blankets to Indians? That a good indicator of the end times, too?

<P>

Sorry for the rant. I've got to get back to working on my book about why white people, particularly Christian white people, are the most destructive force in the history of the world. Ciao.

<i>Picasso who couldn't draw to save his life</i><P>

I don't care much for Picasso, but he was a pretty competent draughtsman by any standard. Just see anything of his before he lost it/produced his best work - take your pick.

 

<P>To the original question, I'd say a shot of a building that is itself pretty in real life is just a souvenir, a record shot, unless it tells me something about how the photographer sees it.

<I>A "pretty" photograph -- is that a flaw?</I><P>Only if it is dull.<P>

<I>Up to the middle of the XIX century the primary criterion for art was beauty. Art had to

be beautiful to be art, and the more beautiful it was, the better art it was.</I><P> not

true.<P><I>This changed by the end of the XIX century -- people got bored with bland

predictable beauty and started experimenting with unusual things.</I>Again; not

true.<P><I>Art became more about making an impact on the viewer and less about

aesthetics.</I><P>the term aesthetics , like the woterm "homosexual' wasn't invented

until nearthe end ofthe 19th century -- and b ythe same people. Words define how you

think. The criteria yo uare using just wasn't there. The idea od beauty for its own sake is a

very 19th century idea.<P><I>Now, take a look at the most popular images here, or on

photosig.com, or on some other site.</I><P>Popular appeal is no kind of criteria at all.

otherwise Brittney Spears would still be revered as a goddess among singers.

Images which have mass appeal generally , by definition must be bland by their nature to

appeal to masses of people.<P><I>Is "pretty" an antonym to "interesting"? </I><P> No

pretty isn't. Being dull, having nothing intellectually stimulating and emotionally honest

going on behind the

facade, is the antonym of interesting.<P><I>Is there any destination for pretty images

other than a calendar on a dentist's office wall?

</I><P> There is much to be said for the rigor of working

to make beautiful images.

<I>Picasso who couldn't draw to save his life</I>

<P>

What nonsense, obviously you are not very familiar with Picasso. The man could draw and paint as well as any of the masters.

 

Regarding pretty pics...it's all judgemental anyway...i think Witkin makes pretty pics.

 

<a href="http://www.correnticalde.com/joelpeterwitkin/"> <u>http://www.correnticalde.com/joelpeterwitkin/</u></a>

Bernard,

 

I don't disagree with you. You missed the Sentence about overbearing Christian leaders.

 

Actually, my conclusions are drawn in large part by what I see going on in the name of Christianity, which is anything but Christian. Pastors telling people they are going to be rich. Fraudulent faith healers like Benny Hinn. You are right, bad things have happened all through the ages but now the churches are corrupt. They will tell you anything as long as you send them money.

 

cheers,

"pretty" often means that the image is merely "eye candy." or, it could be "pretty" in a more positive sense. depends on how the word is used. at best it is ambiguous. i am not sure the original question is "philosophical." but the idea that art before whatever century strove for beauty is obviously flawed as has been pointed out.

Please ignore my excursion into art history -- I formulated my thoughts badly and it's tangential to the issue anyway.

 

I am much more interested in placing this problem into the context of discussions about post-modernism and pictorialism that occurred on this board. Basically, if you look at non-photographic visual modern (and post-modern) art, very little of it can be described as "pretty". In fact, if you show a classic beautiful landscape photograph -- even a 24x30 well-done print :-) -- to some modern art critics, it would be met with yawns at best and laughter at worst.

 

I am not trying to say the art critics are right and the photographers are wrong. I am interested in exploring what seems to me a gap -- a gap between modern visual art which runs away from "pretty" as far and as fast as it can, and photography which often enough is content with well-lit Zion Canyon pictures.

 

Yes, I understand that everyone has his own personal tastes and preferences. I understand that we are not going to agree on what is beatiful or which photography is good and which is bad. What I want, I guess, is to work out a context, a framework in which we can usefully discuss contemporaty visual art and photography and why their criteria for what's good art seem to be different.

"art" including photographic "art" exists in that space between yawns and laughter. IMHO this is too broad of a topic and will result in the usual bickering. but who knows....maybe i am being pessimistic.

Define "pretty".

 

In the context of color photography, are we talking about high contrast, sharpness, warm colors, and a clean composition? It's a formula that works for an awful lot of people, but maybe we could try on some other words for those who are ready to look at things in a way that might have more staying power, like "appealing", "engaging", "thought provoking", "stimulating". Soon you end up with "shocking", and you begin to see that maybe it's all about being receptive to a range of emotions on the part of both the artist and viewer.

<i>Define "pretty".</i>

<p>

Pleasing.

Not quite beautiful.

My friend got a theory on pretty people and interesting people.

She said pretty people get by quite well without being too

interesting (or much else for that matter) yet average jane/joe

need to be far more interesting to get similar attention...so in

most cases, pretty people end up not being interesting cause

they need not to be.

(my take)* Some simplistic. dictionary searches: Art - ? = (orgasmic)* / Interesting -

arousing, awakening, stimulating = ( foreplay)* / Pretty - pleasure, satisfaction,

contentment = (after glow) . So physiologically, interesting and pretty have a

pornagraphic relationship, that might be deleted by the moderators.

Only pretty is interesting. The problem is, my pretty isn't your pretty.

"Beauty will be convulsive or it won't be."

.KAA wrote: >Is "pretty" an antonym to "interesting"? Is it possible to make pretty photographs which are at the same time deep and compelling and unusual?<

 

What I would call your attention to is this: You're looking for the answer to those esthetic questions from other people. But isn't esthetics about feeling, responding?.

 

It seems to me that the only way to make photographs that have a real depth and authenticity is to develop one's own esthetic sense. If you survey other people, and let their opinions guide your camera, you're just barely skating on the surface of art.

 

What kind of photos really move something in you? How do you respond to "beauty" (however you define that term)? Is conventional pictorial beauty trite to you? Is there beauty in "compelling ugliness" -- for you?

 

I've found that keeping a scrapbook (material or digital) has helped me to answer those questions for myself. I collect any images that catch my eye.

 

When I peruse them at my leisure, I think about what it is about them that I'm responding to. It's really helped me to develop my awareness of my own esthetics, and has pointed me in the direction of what kind of images I want to make myself.

 

I guess there's no harm in asking other people's opinions about art and esthetics -- but only so long as it doesn't interfere with your own process of finding out what *you* think and feel yourself.

 

I know of a couple of very talented artists that can't bear to hear other people's opinions on works of art. It's cuz they know they're vulnerable to influence; so they shield themselves from outside opinion.

 

Not ideal, I guess, to have to shut others out like that; but they're aware of the limits of their ability to stay centered on their own esthetic feelings. It's a very rare and delicate thing, staying true to your own feelings and vision.

 

Peter Wilson

Kaa.

 

"I'm-a notta gonna touch-a dis one:)"

 

But I will leave you with a bread crumb; clue.

 

Beautiful equals "Visually delightful to the senses," a very subjective definition.

 

It's now up to you sport to define "beautiful" or "pretty" and define your aesthetics in the process.

 

Wishing you luck as your answer won't develop over night, (No pun intended) as it's about what works for you as is the case in musical tastes; Punk, Rock, Classical, Blue Grass, Country Rock, Reggae, Rap, Hip-Hop, Blues, Jazz...ect., ect., ect; no one size fits all:)

I find my own pretty images to be interesting, but I don't expect others to

find them interesting. I sure don't find pretty images that were made by others

to be very interesting.

 

And Kaa, don't let my wife the dentist/photographer hear your "dentist's

calendar" stereotype. Yikes.

 

The problem with pretty pictures is that they are technically sharp and

conceptually dull. (From Ansel Adams "sharp picture of a fuzzy concept"

statement.) And unoriginal . . .Kaa, don't tell me you are just now figuring this

out. And what exactly is the photographer of pretty pictures thinking just as

he/she is about to trip the shutter? "My, what a pretty picture!" And what

exactly is so pretty about it? Probably they've seen it a thousand times before.

It's familiar. Familiarity is interesting. There's nothing wrong with it, as long as

it doesn't get pawned off as something it isn't. (Like, art.)

"(Like, art.)"

 

There's that word again; "art." :)

"So along comes Picasso who couldn't draw to save his life"

 

This is totally false. In fact as a student he was singled out because he was incredibly competent at both drawing and painting. He mastered both at a young age.