"ORIGINALITY and AESTHETICS"

<p>aes·thet·ics or es·thet·ics (s-th t ks) n. 1. (used with a sing. verb) a. The branch of philosophy that deals with the nature and expression of beauty, as in the fine arts.<br>

<strong>AesAesthetics</strong> or esthetics (also spelled <strong>æsthetics</strong>) is commonly known as the study of sensory or sensori-emotional values, sometimes called judgments of sentiment and taste. [1] More broadly, scholars in the field define <strong>aesthetics</strong> as "critical reflection on art, culture and nature<strong>thetics</strong> or esthetics (also spelled <strong>æsthetics</strong>) is commonly known as the study of sensory or sensori-emotional values, sometimes called judgments of sentiment and taste. [1] More broadly, scholars in the field define <strong>aesthetics</strong> as "critical reflection on art, culture and nature</p>

<p>o·rig·i·nal·i·ty [ ə rìjjə nállətee] noun : <strong>Definition</strong>: 1. newness: the quality of newness that exists in something not done before or not derived from anything else.</p>

<p>Originality is defined by the US Supreme Court, 1884 decision Burrow-Giles LIthgraphic Company v. Saroiny: "usefull, new, harmonious, characteristic, and graceful picture as exhibited by posing, selecting, arranging, lighting and shading".</p>

<p>A photo of a subject that has been photogrpahed before, such as a child laying on a Mother's stomach may be a 7 aestheticly but would only qualify as a 1 in originality as it is a photo that has been done and seen many times before and may not qualify for a copyright.</p>

<p>At the same time a photo may be very poor aestheticly and only be a 1; yet be in originality a 7 as it had not been shot before.</p>

<p>I bring this up as I had some confusion regarding my own critiques and ratings of others photos while not fully understanding the ratings of my own photos. I had previously asked questios concerning the ratings, but did not still understand how my photos were being rated or how I was properly rating others and I wished to be fair and knowledgable in my ratings and not be seen as someone how rated without knowing what I were doing.<br>

I ask for any comments here please.</p>

<p>I, upon receiving several recommendations here on this site and forums, purchased the following books a few weeks ago. I too must highly recommend them also to all here. The information in them is very valuable and usefull to all photographers.<br>

"LEGAL HANDBOOK FOR PHOTOGRAPHERS" by Bert Krages, esq. and<br>

"THE PROFESSIONAL PHOTOGRAPHERS LEGAL HANDBOOK" by Nancy E. Wolff.</p>

 

<p>Re:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>A photo of a subject that has been photogrpahed before, such as a child laying on a Mother's stomach may be a 7 aestheticly but would only qualify as a 1 in originality as it is a photo that has been done and seen many times before and may not qualify for a copyright.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There's a more recent decision that was on point. A company that does 3D modeling sued Toyota for copyright infringement (foolishly; they should have sued for breach of contract) and in the decision the court indicated that in photography, <em>any</em> creative decision indicating that the photographer had applied any sort of creativity or interpretation was originality and the image could be copyrighted. If you and I take photos of the same person and they're different in any way (I was 6 inches to the left and took the shot 10 seconds later), we've both got copyrightable property.</p>

<p>The ratings are greatly subjective and personal. It is probably impossible to give absolutelly objective rate because of prsonal preferances, context and criteria. It is also not necessary IMO. I would rather see given ratings as a starting point for discursion on personal level then a final jugement of given shot.</p>

<p>It is very difficult to come up with "new" subject matter. There can be originality in the vision, in the way a subject is seen and handled. Van Gogh has that wonderful painting of a chair. It's not an original subject. It's an original painting!</p>

<p>My father-in-law used to say that if all men perceived beauty in the same way we'd all want to marry the same woman. Diversity of opinion on what's esthetically pleasing is a good thing - until I get ratings of three on my favorite shot of a spiderwort that I got cold and wet for, photographing on my belly.</p><div></div>

<p>". . . I bring this up as I had some confusion regarding my own critiques and ratings of others photos while not fully understanding the ratings of my own photos. " I got a good chuckle out of that. I wouldn't fuss over the ratings too much. Proceed with confidence. </p>

<p>So we are all going to get sued for mis-rating photos! Numbers mean nothing. It's words that count.</p>

<p><a href="../photo/6462312">Just Say No to ratings! A picture is worth a thousand words. Surely, we can take the time to write a few.</a></p>

<p>Do we all, at least I as one, not upload photos to have them viewed and critiqued, which can help us improve our photography?</p>

<p>I will view my photos and believe that they are pretty good and someone will give me a low rating with no critique. I will wonder why? However, I will see other photos that have high ratings that are, in my opinion, not near as good as mine. Then at the same time I may receive a low rating and a critique explaining why and I will again look at the photo and I will see why it may be rated low. I will adjust the photo and my future shots; then I improve.</p>

<p>At the same time. If I am to give a critique of a photo and a rating. I do wish to know what I am doing and what I am talking about.</p>

<p>But, I do agree that if a photo is rated it must have the critique attached which will explain the rating. And, if one, at least me, understands what the meanings of the ratings are then one can critique properly and not just be throwing numbers to the wind.<br>

Just a view.</p>

<p>James,<br>

As much as I both despise and admire people who read legal books, I commend you on your thoughtfulness about the subject of ratings. This is the best narrative I've seen on the distinction between originality and aesthetics. Thanks for taking the time to verbalize your thoughts and research.<br>

Flawed as the rating system is and, as much as I periodically complain about it, when I get multiple low ratings on an image, usually without a single critique, it causes me to look closely at the image to determine what the raters find objectionable to it. I'd say that about 75% of the time I come to see flaws in the image that "author's pride" had caused me to overlook when I posted the image. <br>

Thus, as much as I am angered by those 3/3's with no critique, I still think ratings without comments can be instructive in a passive way and a cause for self reflection. GJ</p>

 

<p>James,<br>

As much as I both despise and admire people who read legal books, I commend you on your thoughtfulness about the subject of ratings. This is the best narrative I've seen on the distinction between originality and aesthetics. Thanks for taking the time to verbalize your thoughts and research.<br>

Flawed as the rating system is and, as much as I periodically complain about it, when I get multiple low ratings on an image, usually without a single critique, it causes me to look closely at the image to determine what the raters find objectionable to it. I'd say that about 75% of the time I come to see flaws in the image that "author's pride" had caused me to overlook when I posted the image. <br>

Thus, as much as I am angered by those 3/3's with no critique, I still think ratings without comments can be instructive in a passive way and a cause for self reflection. GJ</p>

 

<p >James, thank you for this concise explaination about ratings. I would never have taken the time to search it out for myself. I mentioned in another post that I have never rated anyone’s photo but do like to leave comments and (hopefully) constructive critique. Never the less I truly do appreciate the explaination. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Having read this I’d imagine most of us should expect LOW ratings on originality. That’s not to imply that there is NOTHING new to photograph. But honestly hasn’t most every thing already BEEN photographed once, twice, a MILLION times? When it comes to rating aesthetics it’s all about WHO’s doing the rating. There’s as many different ‘tastes’ as there is people. So I wonder just how valuable rating esthetics is. Who do you believe or whose opinion really matters to the photographer? Does the professional’s opinion carry more weight and importance than the amateur? Or does ANY opinion no matter whose it is really matter? </p>

<p > </p>

<p >To me I’m thinking the only real value that ratings has is for the person who aspires to be a professional photographer and must learn the ‘rules’ of the trade, or perhaps one who wishes to become recognized as a great photographer in the art world. But for a person like me who is no more than an amateur the photographs I share with others already HAVE my ‘seal of approval’ so to speak. I already like them or I wouldn’t WANT to share them with others. There’s always going to be someone who doesn’t like what I do. And hopefully there will be people who actually LIKE what I do and want to let me know (yes, I too have an ego). But I’m sharing them because I LIKE them, I’m happy with them and I hope others will enjoy them too.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >I just don’t see ratings as very valuable for the most part other than being helpful when preparing for a profession, etc.</p>

<p>I originally posted this to Casual Photo Conversations. I think if it were also in that section it would receive much more attention and could be beneficial. the moderators moved the post to this forum.</p>

<p>I liken originality to uniqueness. By that I mean there are probably millions of photos of the Grand Canyon, but to get there when the light is unique, it creates an original interpretation of the scene. At least that is how I can justify giving higher scores in the originality category when, like others have said, most everything has been photographed.</p>

<p>Aesthetics, at least for me, is a more tangible quality and is certainly easier to explain.</p>

<p>Your view of originality appears most correct. A photo of a dog on a leash is very common, yet a cat with a leash holding and walking a dog would most probably me considered original, and rightfully so.</p>

<p>James, as of this moment, your own history of average ratings given to others is precisely the same: 4.58/4.58</p>

<p>Pretty much the same as everyone else's ratings given (with the exception of the cliques).</p>

<p>In time you will realize that ratings and artistic criticism, like photography itself, like the wind that both fills the sails of a becalmed ship and knocks little old ladies to the ground, like moderator decisions, like all discussions about ratings and critiques initiated by newer members, and like all things ironic, are all intended to bemuse the initiates and amuse the gods.</p>

<p>My grandpappy said of credulous people: "She's like a goose. Wakes up in a new world every day." Therefore, every sunset is original and unique, at least to some geese.</p>

<p>However, this thread has been more interesting than the other two-hundred and eighty-seven threads I've read on the same topic over the years. And it appears to be reasonably free of self-interest, which otherwise would have merited an Originality of 1. So I'll give it O=3, A=6.</p>

<p>LEX:<br>

You are exactly correct about my ratings. And.... I was more interested in "MYSELF" when I delved into the Legal and judiciary definition of Originality and Aesthetics when I began my search. I "KNEW" that what I was rating and how I was rating was uneducated and less usefull to both the photographer as well as myself.<br>

I began this to inform myself about what I was looking at and for.</p>

<p>I also wished to know factually how my own photos were being rated and why.</p>

<p>Thus I have learned much and will apply this knowledge in the future as well as I hope others will learn much and also apply this knowledge in the future.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I also wished to know factually how my own photos were being rated and why.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No. You don't. Trust me on this. It's like sausages and laws. You don't really want to see how they're made.</p>

<p>OOOOOOOHHHHHHH YYYYYYYEEEEEESSSSSS IIIIIII DDDDDDDDOOOOOOOO. Maybe it is from my law school days, (but I am not an attorney).<br>

At least now I know what I am looking at and WHY?</p>

<p>At least now I can look at my photos more objectively and have a better understanding when I critique my own photos, as well as others, and WHY?</p>

<p>At least now if I give a critique or rating I will do so with some kind of understanding and WHY? I will not be just throwing numbers to the wind as I have done in the past and as others do also.</p>

<p>PS: when i lived on the farm years ago we made our own sausage? (and butter)</p>

 

<p>Lex:<br>

PS:<br>

I like your photos. You are extreme, but I think that is what makes you and your photography; your photos are a reflection of you and not of others.</p>

 

<p>Well, since you've made sausage you're in good shape to deal with the dark underbelly.</p>

<p>I value the separate categories for originality and aesthetics. While I don't always give differing numbers when rating others' photos for originality and aesthetics I do consciously try to evaluate each as a distinct criterion. So while many of the ratings I've given are 3/3, 4/4, 6/6, etc., it's not unusual for me to rate a photo O=6, A=3, to acknowledge a valiant but failed effort.</p>

<p>In my personal definition, originality deals with the concept, aesthetics with the execution of the concept. I see many beginning and intermediate photographers obviously struggling to push the envelope beyond the safe confines of purty pitchers and even when the execution falls short I believe it's important to acknowledge the effort.</p>

<p>Without going into tedious detail about my personal criteria, I do have a set of guidelines that I tend to adhere to fairly consistently.</p>

<p>I don't know how many others rating photos distinguish between the two. Not many, I suspect, judging from casual observations but I don't have access to the data to support my impression.</p>

<p>Lex:<br>

How would you rate this photo of mine? untilizing what we have discussed herein?<br>

And,,,, does this photo qualify for a copyright?<br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/site-help-forum/photo?photo_id=9100391&size=lg"><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/9100391-md.jpg" border="0" alt="ROSE BUDS" width="680" height="997" /></a></p>

<p>Regarding the copyright factor, it's a red herring. How a court interprets originality is irrelevant to a criticism of the visual arts, music, literature or performing arts. The concepts common to the critique process predate the US Supreme Court by a couple of millennia. The legal definition is relevant only within a limited context.</p>

<p>I evaluate originality in terms of the steps of progress typically shown by photographers as they mature in ability, technique and creative imagination. The middle ground, in terms of photo.net's 1-7 scale, is 4, a competent demonstration of either originality or aesthetic appeal with no significant flaws nor significant strengths.</p>

<p>I suspect I'm pretty much in line with most photo.netters, considering the typical average ratings given to others tends to be between 4 and 5, assuming the photo.netter is rating all or almost all photos seen via the critiques or ratings queues, rather than cherry picking. The exceptions are the mate-raters and gamers, who never saw their buddies make any photo less than a 6; and those who cherry pick, choosing to rate only photos they see as a 5 or higher, which skews their averages.</p>

<p>Short and sweet version, I'd call that flower photo O=4, A=3. The composition is solid, if unimaginative, and it's underexposed. Focus is okay, despite the shallow DOF, otherwise I'd rate it lower. I strongly suspect many photo.netters would rate it considerably lower, probably O=3, A=2, but my personal system is based on progress typically shown by most photographers. Some may apply a sort of Pilgrim's Progress evaluation; others a Dante's Inferno type. Depends on whether their hell is half full or half empty, I suppose.</p>

<p>Lex:<br>

I thank you for your input and your honest critique; I was hoping for that. I honestly would rate the photo a 3/4; honestly, just opposite of your rating. It is NOT Original as many have shot the photo of a rose bud, and some are done very well. I just went out back to shoot this photo for this purpose. Aesthetics is OK, but as you said it is a bit overexposed. I shot this using a flash, which I hardly ever do. I just put the photo up for a ratings and they appear to be equal O and A; as is what we have been chatting about here all along; they are just doing the numbers.</p>

<p>I have had a couple of members who have emailed me stating that if I were to rate their photos they will in turn RATE mine. To this I have not responded. However, review of the portfolios revealed many 7's and 6's?</p>

<p>I as a new photographer CAN NOT LEARN by cheating the ratings and I will not do it. I learn from honesty and knowledge. I have learned so much here and intend on continuing to do so.<br>

Again, thank you Lex for your knowledge and honesty.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I have had a couple of members who have emailed me stating that if I were to rate their photos they will in turn RATE mine. To this I have not responded. However, review of the portfolios revealed many 7's and 6's?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm sorry to hear that. I've suspected it's been going on amongst one or more cliques for quite awhile. It's easy to follow the bread crumb trail that appears to lead to evidence of collusion, but difficult to prove.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I as a new photographer CAN NOT LEARN by cheating the ratings and I will not do it. I learn from honesty and knowledge. I have learned so much here and intend on continuing to do so.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I wish more people had that sense of integrity and determination. Too many are willing to settle for insincere praise, gratuitous comments that are neither critiques nor any sort of feedback but merely social networking, in order to show affirmation of inflated ratings given to each other. I can't imagine how they can take any pride in themselves or their photography through such tactics. Ironically, some of them do produce some very good photos now and then. But how can they discriminate between the good, average and mediocre when they assure each other that everything is wonderful? I've heard of being damned with faint praise. I suppose this is being deafened and blinded by insincere adulation.</p>