kent_tolley2 Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 This is from last yearメs Camera Arts article by Michael More (Apr-May ム05) and Iメm passing it on to this forum because we seldom or never talk about what makes a good photograph. We all think we know what a good photograph is but I think these are mostly gut reactions and are probably more about you than what youメre viewing. (A likes cats, B hates cats) I always want to take more of myself out of the evaluation. Otherwise I just continue to espouse my own rightness which is boring and ultimately often violent. I think a work of art should be met on itメs own grounds and not be imposed upon by asking it to comply with anybody's expectations. <BR><BR> Ask yourself these 7 questions when evaluating the merit of a photograph:<BR><BR> 1. What was the photographer trying to do?<BR>2. How well did they accomplish that?<BR>3. Should it have been done at all?<BR><BR> The next 4 are from Phillip Larkin who sits on the Booker Prize committee evaluating entries for the best novel in Britain<BR><BR> 4. Could I read it?<BR>5. If I could read it, did I believe it?<BR>6. If I believed it, did I care?<BR>7. If I cared, what was the quality of my caring and would that caring last?<BR><BR> The Larkin criteria build on another so a good mark on #7 means you have to have previously gotten good marks on 4,5 & 6 to even qualify for evaluation at #7. Like the top of the pyramid, 7 is really difficult to attain but still the goal. With this we could raise the level of our criticism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john sypal Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 <p>The first 3 mean nothing to the photograph- "Intentionalism" is a flawed evaluation process when trying to determine the meaning of a photograph, or if it is any good or not. Just because someone makes a photograph that they say matches exactly what they wanted to do does not make the finished product a good photograph. Since no one can ever know exactly what the photographer was really trying to do- there is not much point in putting too much weight behund their intent.</p> <p>Take a look at this amazing site: <a href="http://www.moderna.org/lookatme">Look At Me</a>. This site is a fantastic example of how in the end the actual Photo is far more important than the intent of the photographer. We don't even know who took those photographs, much less <em>exactly</em> why they did, or what they were trying to do. You could say, "they were just taking a snapshot" and that is a fine answer. There is no reason that art needs to be anything more than that- surely there are photographs on that site that rank among some of the most haunting, most interesting, and most challenging that I have ever seen. And to think that this was all done without any idea of the photographer's intent, or opinion. But again, the Photographer's opinion means nothing too much more than my opinion of the work. Since we all can only own our photographs and not the meanings, it is what the viewer brings to these (and our) images, and how they work for them.</p> <p>In my university photograph class we used two text books-- "The Nature of Photographs" by Stephen Shore, and "Criticizing Photographs: an introduction to understanding images" by Terry Barrett. Great books-- I can't reccomend them enough. Without any hesitation I'd suggest to everyone who is interested in this sort of topic to click on over to a book store website and order them right away.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeremy freeland Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 It is an interesting set of criteria. I've found myself coming back to #7, mostly in the context of having been spending time with a big book of magnum shots and the emotion or atmosphere created and evoked by an image. #7 articulates why I find myself enjoying a lot of the shots that I do. And contrary to John's thoughts, and not just to be contrary, that ties back to #'s 1, 2 and 3. Maybe that's narrowing the approach to the communication between the photographer and the viewer, when good images stand in their own right regardless of the photographer's intentions ... I think #7 is significant for the street genre - the stronger shots (or at least, what I think are stronger shots) are empathetic with the people in them, or readily communicate atmosphere. If I try and think back to the shots I've seen on this forum in the past few months, it's those that I remember. But it is still pretty subjective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jack_lo_..._t_o Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 Unless I am mistaken, if you are referring to Philip Larkin, British poet, the man has been dead for 20+ years. As great a poet as he was, I maintain that he is therefore not qualified to sit on the Booker Prize ccomittee. He probably could lie flat on it tho'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeremy freeland Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 And maybe we should add a #8 -<br>Even if I care, and even if I care in a quality way, and even if that caring lasts, do I like the @#$% border? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leslie_cheung Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 >>>The first 3 mean nothing to the photograph- "Intentionalism" is a flawed evaluation process when trying to determine the meaning of a photograph, or if it is any good or not. Just because someone makes a photograph that they say matches exactly what they wanted to do does not make the finished product a good photograph. Since no one can ever know exactly what the photographer was really trying to do- there is not much point in putting too much weight behund their intent.<<< Intent is important and sometimes essential to some photographs especially doc. photos as opposed to art photography imo. Acourse the viewer can and will draw their own thought/meaning through their individual experiences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nels Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 The ONLY question in evaluating a photograph ought to be, What is the intended purpose of the photograph? Is it to please only yourself? Your friends and family? A paying client? A committee designated to pick a "winner" in some category?... In my never humble opinion, all other criteria are moot. Period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leslie_cheung Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 >>>Is it to please only yourself? Your friends and family? A paying client? A committee designated to pick a "winner" in some category?...<<< Some people actually photograph for reasons BEYOND just simply pleasing someone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nels Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 "Some people actually photograph for reasons BEYOND just simply pleasing someone." Elaborate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bruno Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 Kent, I think your approach is too much analytic. After all arts should appeal to emotions (you might disagree, but this is what I want them to do to me). Therefore I trust my gut instinct. I don't like, e.g., conceptual photography and most of the coldish stuff coming from artists as Andreas Gursky or Candida Hoefer or Bernd & Hilla Becher. And the thing that they might express something or not or that they hang in a museum doesn't mean anything to me. Their picture don't speak to me... and in this sense the snapshots that my girlfriend takes are to me more interesting. I like pictures that are able to trigger a reaction in me. This reaction may happen for different reasons, some are completely irrational (the portrait of that person might remind me of somebody I knew...) some are more keen to be described (composition, light) and structured. Just look at the POW of this week. That picture "has it". Most of the picture we post here "don't have it". It's not about being pleasant or well composed or with a good balance of colors or a good grayscale... after having seen 100000 pictures of people drinking coffee at starbucks and staring out of the window with the cup in their hand without that the photo shows anything new actually it was taken with a 200mm while hiding in a care because the photographer was fearing to be confronted... they should ban photography in subways and coffee shops just to try to push people to get more creative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael s. Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 Today, I'm much less concered with what I think the photographer might have meant or what he/she might have been trying to accomplish than I am with whether a picture takes me anyplace -- <i>literally anyplace</i>: anyplace funny, sad, anxious, tranquil, frightening, resentful, self-conscious .... <p> I often can't tell what the photographer intended, and even when I believe I can, what if I've "guessed wrong?" Surely that shouldn't mean I've got to take back my opinion or my feelings about a picture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nels Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 There's also another myth bandied about by people in commenting on various photographs. "This photograph tells a story..." Bullsh*t. Photographs don't tell stories. You tell stories to yourself when you look at a photograph. Your story may be completely different from the story your neighbor tells himself or herself when they look at the exact same pic. The photographer's own intended purpose is of little to no value in judging the success of a photograph, because the success criteria are different for different people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leslie_cheung Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 Nels--- The obvious... Les Americans by R. Frank Inferno by Nachtwey Eugene Richards's Cocaine True, Cocaine Blue Cindy Sherman's conceptual film stills Do you really think they were merely just shooting to simply please themselves? or their editors? or clients? Perhaps they were trying to say somthing thru their photos...no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad_ Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 Pretty much agree with Michael. Taking it a bit further, for me, a successful street photo first has to let me easily conjure a story about the situation or circumstances - that's essential in capturing my interest. Evoking emotion and/or portraying humor/irony/mystery/ambiguity/ etc as does tension between elements greatly helps. The random person walking down the sidewalk or snapped against a wall doesn't cut it for me anymore. I have never thought about the photographer's intent. www.citysnaps.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nels Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 Many excellent photographs in those collections, Leslie. "Do you really think they were merely just shooting to simply please themselves? or their editors? or clients?" All of the above, perhaps. For each person who is pleased with any individual photograph in the collections you cite above, I can show you two people who couldn't care less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sprouty Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 I take photographs to show how I see the world. I don't see how "why I do it" would or should have any bearing on whether or not they are good. They become good photographs if they resonate in the viewer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael s. Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 Nels, as I read your 6:50 and 7:30 posts, it seems as though they contradict one another. Or quite possibly I've misunderstood? I think Kent's opener asks whether there's an external, repeatable, objective set of criteria by which we might judge photos, even though there will be subjectivity inherent in the ways each of us analyze the agreed-upon criteria. That's a very good question, but certainly not an easy one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nels Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 Michael, What I'm trying to say is, the success criteria - external, internal, or whatever - that people employ in judging a successful picture are as individual as people, i.e. they're mostly all subjective. There are some rules of thumb suggested as mere guidelines to make photographs more pleasing to the eye, but for each photograph that employs those rules, there's an equally pleasing image that breaks those rules. You can have the most beautifully lit B/W studio portrait of a baby and if the mother just prefers color, a simple poorly lit and ill-composed color snapshot of her baby is more successful for her. That's the one she will display on her fridge or her wall. Who are you to argue with her choices? Would you tell her that your criteria are somehow more objective and "external" than hers? Even if she understands your arguments, does she care? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nels Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 Michael, Re-reading my "6:50" post, "intended purpose" could have been better substituted with "end goal" of the photograph (not the photographer!). Cheers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uhooru Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 I have to agree with MIchael for "street" photography. In terms of analysis of a photo, what Kent suggests is one way, but often an artist's intent is merely one text. Many good photos have many texts, and many sub-texts which makes analysis and critique an intellectual exercise albeit sometimes a rich and meaningful one. Sometimes they are just simple but interact on a deep level beyond reason..but to me whatever it has, it has to have "something". Even though I'm guilty of it myself, just getting a passer by or shooting into a crowd and calling it "street" doesn't make it "good". Then again, depending, sometimes it does:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ray . Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 <i>You can have the most beautifully lit B/W studio portrait of a baby and if the mother just prefers color, a simple poorly lit and ill-composed color snapshot of her baby is more successful for her. </i><p> You made a judgement call that the portrait was beautifully lit. By saying that you're implying there is a consensus on what qualifies as beautiful lighting. Of course individuals can have differing opinions, but there's a reason someone like Robert Frank is held in high esteem in the world of photography and Joe Blow is not. It's because a significant number of people who study photography have agreed on something. <p> Did Duke Ellington create greater music than most other jazz musicians? There's a general consensus among people who care about this type of music that he did. What's truly of value will survive through time, the rest will fall away or be of lesser notice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nacio_brown1 Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 To me the lesson of the "Look At Me" site is not that the intent of the photographer is irrelevant. Instead I think it shows that a distinction needs to be maintained between evaluating a single photograph and evaluating a body of work. There are lots of arresting images at "Look At Me" and in the recent books, "Anonymous" and "Snapshots." Even so, I don't think any of us would care to venture an opinion as to the level of skill of any of the photographers involved. To make a judgement about a photographer you need to see what he/she is up to and you can do this only by seeing numerous images. As a photographer's body of work grows judgements about the photographer become more sure. Also, there are photographers whose conception involves multiple photographs from the get go. To judge this or that particular shot in Cindy Sherman's "Film Stills" misses the point entirely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomas_sullivan Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 well, Nels's last analogy about a photograph done for the mom of her baby splits the photographs into two groups. So, we should actually have two sets of rules.......one for hire pics......and one with no immediate person designed to please. And then of course we should have a set of rules that is for a pic eventually targetted to a certain type of person. Of course now that has to be divided into two groups also........whether it is for advertising, or for art patrons. Which come to think of it, brings us back to the mom pic....perhaps the pic is not acceptable by the mom and she gives up all rights to it, and then the photographer exhibits it in a gallery and it just WOWs everybody in the art world....now would that be a duality set of rules based on a possible target group, but immediately a for hire job? ....and then of course, there is the snapshots of the immediate family.......which is a whole other set of criteria....did you cut off Uncle Bob's head.....no......great pic! and what about artists who's work is scorned.......until well after their death..........ummmmmm........where does that fall? How was/is that to be evaluated......let's see........first...is he alive, or is he dead........second..... there are no criteria........the artist does what they want......and the viewer judges as they want to........and that is it. IMHO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_hall1 Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 I often say that there is art based on affinities and art based on symbolisms...and that there is not a fine line between the two. Then recently it occurred to me that humor could be a middle ground between the two genres... But most art based on affinities is going to get immediate recognition for artistic composition. Now for instance if a bride and groom are standing to get married but their heads are not included in the picture then that is either bad composition or that is symbolism... So basic composition must be immediately accepted while symbolism requires evaluation... Well this is a street photography forum, so basic theme must be immediately accepted while symbolism requires evaluation... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kent_tolley2 Posted February 23, 2006 Author Share Posted February 23, 2006 Interesting responses. I'm suspicious of those who state, one way or the other, that their opinion is the only thing that counts and, by the way, everyone else's opinion is garbage. That is precisely what I'm trying to go beyond with this thread. And to those who feel they must say so with contempt or ridicule or sarcasm, I ask why? <BR><BR> I'm not suggesting that the artist's intent is the only criteria or even the most important. Many of you got stuck on this one point and argued pro or con while ignoring the subsequent criteria. Intent and it's accomplishment is a factor for me, especially in evaluating my own photos and it's certainly in my mind when I decide to take a photo. Later when I look at the negative I want to see how well I met my intent. Sometimes I get things beyond my wildest dreams but I was lucky and I can't always depend on that. I need to have a dream or an objective (call it intent) and I strive in that direction or "what's a heaven for?" <BR><BR> Bruno is right that I'm being analytical. I come from a scientific background. But there are two sides of your brain and both may get activated by a photograph. I'm trying to get beyond the purely subjective "I like it" or "I donメt" which is precisely what Bruno seems to be saying. That may be enough if you're only considering what photographs you personally admire, but as Ray says, there is a reason Duke Ellington will survive and Lawrence Welk will not.<BR><BR> What Michael says about whether or not a photograph moves me is important. A photo has to grab me in the first few seconds and what usually gets my attention is something the photo makes me feel. Otherwise I think "that's interesting" (not really) and move on unaffected. But beyond your immediate reaction or feeling I suggest there are further criteria of merit which can be considered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now