Jump to content

What makes a photo GREAT?


Recommended Posts

Is there any standard by which you can measure a photo to determine

it's "greatness"? Is it something that can only be seen in hindsight? Is it

determined by technical perfection, or aesthetic appeal? Or is it, ultimately,

that it has a broad enough generality to allow the viewer to attatch his own

emotions/thoughts/ideas to it and make it his own?

(i.e. the Flag raising in WWII, hijacked because of it's emotional value and

exploited {Im not devaluing it's cultural significance here, just for an

example})

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 80
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Here's a quote you might enjoy:

 

"...the receiver of a true artistic impression is so united to the artist that he feels as if the work were his own and not someone else's - as if what it expresses were just what he had long been wishing to express. A real work of art destroys, in the consciousness of the receiver, the separation between himself and the artist - not that alone, but also between himself and all whose minds receive this work of art. In this freeing of our personality from its separation and isolation, in this uniting of it with others, lies the chief characteristic and the great attractive force of art." - Leo Tolstoy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I liked the quote. I have said before in this forum that art is that which reveals to us in some way the connectedness we have with everything we call "other". If a photograph does that, it will work. Photographs that reveal the connections to many people will be called great photographs.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it something that can only be seen in hindsight? NO, WHY?

 

Is it determined by technical perfection? ABSOLUTELY NOT, Can you give an example of a painting that is so immortalised (considered great for its tech quality alone)

 

Is it determined by its aesthetic appeal? RATHER OBVIOUSLY, YES

 

Or is it, ultimately, that it has a broad enough generality to allow the viewer to attatch his own emotions/thoughts/ideas to it and make it his own? I THINK NOT. Greatness in a work of art does not relate to a particular individual appraisal, but to a collective appreciation or response

 

The Flag raising in WWII is a political-emotional message (if there was no flag in the shot, it might be interpreted more as a great photo because of the cumulation of the effort of those involved, a final point in resolving a challenge, etc., whereas the shot of the soldier at his moment of death in the Spanish Civil War is a human emotion, "little man destroyed", to which we can respond (the stupidity of war, the de-valorisation of the human being, and so on)

 

I think the Spanish shot is great, as it is more universal in its message.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me, a great photo produces a sense of tension at first glance, and perhaps some relief <i>from</i> that tension as your eye lingers longer. By tension, I don't necessarily mean anxiety. An initially unanswered question is key: How will the narrative be resolved? What is the explanation for a bit of visual mystery in the composition? What is it that the subject's eyes can see, off-camera? Is that glass being emptied, or filled? Even in a vacation shot... is that sun going down on a rich day, or rising before a new one? Is that figure model annoyed by me, or glad I'm looking? Will that soccer ball get into the net? In that architectural interior shot... what's through that next door?

<br><br>

If my first reaction to an image isn't to immediately wonder things, then... there's no wonder in the image. And, if those narrative elements (or prospects) are present, but aren't strong enough to overcome technical shortcomings in the execution of the final image, then the greatness is lost. Conversely, a subject that has little narrative power can be so breathtakingly recorded (in terms of technique) that even a non-photographer finds the narrative in wondering how the shot was achieved.

<br><br>

Huh. No WONDER I don't like very many of my images!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think a great photo writes its own caption; the picture nearly speaks outloud to you. Viewing the shot instantly evokes an emotion. A great image is universal, too; anyone can feel the image's message, regardless of age, nationality, gender and/or any bias of the viewer.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vince, I did enjoy the quote very much, thanks! It's almost exactly what I was looking for.

 

Arthur, what I meant about hindsight was that there have been instances when the quality of someones work was never appreciated in their lifetimes and only in a later generation was their work valued (thinking more of painters here)

And I know there are some "works of art" I dont personally find asthetically pleasing at all (particularly cubists and the scream)that are still considered "great."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, it will be personal, of course. I disagree with Tolstoy - great photographic art forces the viewer to have creative room to imagine and develop an appreciation, on perceiving the work. The higher the art form, the more it demands of its audience.

 

Also disagree with the technical perfection line. Some of the finest photographs in a technical sense are of little or no consequence. And the converse is true.

 

Tension - no; or perhaps better rephrased as 'engagement'. Like a good hook in a song or piece of music. The initial interest that leads to a deeper exploration.

 

Aesthetics - not as important as interest; we have Eggleston as well as Michael Kenna.

 

The longer I live, the more I feel that great art, including photographs, must represent or maintain the essential mystery of existence; must engage its audience on an unconscious level, must embody a certain mysticism; and if anything, must mandate a *distance* from easy comprehension; in this way the spell remains.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The public, in a general sense, are interested in photographs but legitimately have many more pressing concerns such as keeping the car running, paying for the house, or getting the kids through school. They do not have the time to critically assess photographs but rely on the opinions of influential critics, picture magazines, and newspapers to form their values.

 

The Iwo Jima flag raising mentioned at the beginning of this thread is a salient example. The photograph of it is technically and aesthetically ok (for a staged picture) but the enormous publicity exploiting its propaganda, patriotic, and persuasive potential elevated it to "great" picture status. But this applied only on one side of the line. Is the "Iwo Jima flag" great in Japan? No.

 

In a nutshell, great photographs are those that we are prepared to accept and accredit on the say so of commentators who we would not conceive of being wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To lend transparency to my above, the older (more experienced) I get, the more I realize how much we live in a 1984 world where our thoughts are controlled by others (The Media) and how little we realize what a "Matrix" world we live in today. The less telly (disconnect?) I watch, the more I become aware of my above and the bias' that we've been taught (how to think), from birth.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its interesting that you bring that up, Thomas, I've felt the same way since I got rid of MY television. In some ways I feel disconnected from the "NOW" but in others I feel more connected on a deeper level than I did before.

 

We do all have our own bias' that we bring to anything we consider (whether we realize it or not) from photograhs to literature but perhaps something is great when it forces you to put aside those bias' and see the world in a different light?

 

Russ, I agree with you completely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting quotation Vince, it reminds me of the attempt to answer the question: How long is a piece of string? One answer would be twice the distance from one end to the middle. Tolstoy describes what happens, but I didn't derive an answer to how it happens.

 

There is no formula that defines greatness because for each of us it is a matter of not just our individual tastes, but also the mood we inhabit in the moment, or even just the light we are under while viewing the image. For me at least, I would never entrust my personal assessment of greatness to what others think, even if they constitute a vast majority.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are of course nice, good, great, and really exceptionally great photographs and I'll refer to the later. It is interesting that most of we humans regardless of our cutural, social, and ethnic backgrounds, aesthetic and art orientations react somewhat similarly to great photographs. And usually the reaction is rather immediate. For me that immediate reaction to some images is an important quality though it is true that there are some truly great images that are more slow to rise in appreciation and others that provoke such a reaction only to soon be appraised as also flawed thus not great. That tends to show that we humans share some level of similar visual sensory and mental characteristics in response to subejct, form, geometry, lines, colors, tones, and shades that we might crudely outline some aspects of what tends to be aesthetic and what doesn't. Of course there is more to just the aesthetic nature in some photographic subjects as artist of all media have long found ways to captivate our sensory responses and intelligent minds. But generally most great photographs also have strong aesthetic appeal.

 

...David

http://www.davidsenesac.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps good marketing, mainstream taste providers, or profs giving the same course over and over and....

 

But while you are perhaps right, that doesn't exclude a lot of superior and subtle images, that never make it to the marketplace (public attention), and are truly great, yet virtually unknown....but noi less undeniably great.

 

The greatness isn't a function of public recognition, but a property of the image as such.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"For me that immediate reaction to some images is an important quality though it is true that there are some truly great images that are more slow to rise in appreciation and others that provoke such a reaction only to soon be appraised as also flawed thus not great. That tends to show that we humans share some level of similar visual sensory and mental characteristics in response to subejct, form, geometry, lines, colors, tones, and shades that we might crudely outline some aspects of what tends to be aesthetic and what doesn't."

 

And yet, the above, doesn't cross cultural ties.

 

Mayan art didn't mime Euro art and Euro art doesn't mime Asian art unless there's cross biasing; education as most art mimes the past as opposed to setting a course of it's own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...