Jump to content

Why are some subjects so widely favored by viewers?


Recommended Posts

Some subjects seem to be universally regarded. Sunsets. Flowers. Palm trees. Puppies and kittens. Babies. Happy, confident-

looking young women. Frozen moments of athletic or artistic performance.

 

 

Why does the human mind prefer these subjects over, say, someone fueling their car, tying a shoe, or serving themselves at the salad

bar? I'd it desire? Conditioned romanticism? Why is sunset more attractive to many people than 10 AM? Does it support some

survival instinct? Predators coming to the waiting hole at dusk? And why would the kight of that hour seem more atrractive than at

other times?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 53
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

<p>Off the top of my head.... some because they're purty, others because they are life affirming, some, like sunsets, both. Young women are fertile and purty. Palm trees (unless you live where they dot the landscape) imply sunnier climes, retirement, etc. Puppies, babies and kittens, new life and innocence. And we recognize and respect moments of grace.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am deeply immersed in the photographs taken by photogs of the Farm Security Administration (FSA) in the 1930s, and I can say that some of the best are of people fueling their cars, tying their shoelaces, and at the Sunday school picnic buffet. (No salad bars in those days.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Don't forget nekkid wimmen. Some of the mostly highly favored images are of nekkid wimmen.</p>

<p>As for sunsets (and dawns), there's a reason they call it the "golden hour". The lighting is more appealing, less flat than at 10 am, and subjects appear more interesting to the human eye. Drama and dynamics enters into it as well. A foggy street by lamplight, a wide receiver frozen at the moment of a one handed grab, the defender clinging to his knees...these are more dramatic, and therefore more appealing, than someone tying their shoelaces or piling on the garbanzo beans. It's the same reason a movie with formulaic crisis/conflict points and resolutions has more mass appeal than a Swedish art film (unless the Swedish art film has nekkid wimmen, of course). </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Why some subjects are widely favored can in my understand best be answered not by the objective quality of the subjects, but by reference to socializations.<br>

We are brought up and indoctrinated to like certain things and to reject others and to be neutral to the majority of subjects. Favored subjects are symbols of comfort, security, happiness, a good and positive life. We can reject them as superficial, but it does not make them go away. We can also define ourselves as something else, more select, more genuine, or whatever, and still such favored subjects are defining parts of a culture and as such they change between culture.<br>

By rejecting them and defining ourselves as different, better, more knowledge, more select - we actually confirm the "more favored subject" as the rule. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Dreaming of better things than the daily life chores; what Anders said.<br>

Somehow, for photos I took of "normal" situations, I've got people asking me why I took that photo, since they don't see anything worth capturing in it. While for them, a "beautiful sunset" is OK each and every time.. and they are more normal where I live than normal life seems to be...</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Maybe there is a responsibility (for some) NOT to reinforce the norm.</p>

<p>Politically speaking, those who fought for civil rights rejected the norm, rejected what was bringing comfort to the majority. That didn't help reinforce that norm. It helped change it.</p>

<p>Painters, architects, photographers have helped change the way people see and think throughout history. Some are overtly political/social. Some are tacitly so. Photographers/artists can both reflect and help define (and redefine) a culture.</p>

<p>That can be done by attending to "accepted" visual subjects in a different way. The still life doesn't have to take on new subject matters. It can keep looking at fruit and pitchers differently and remain effective and challenging. Or, it can be done by choosing different subjects.</p>

<p>The photograph, the painting, the drawing is both about the subject and not about the subject. The subject is the what but it is also the how, which can change the what drastically.</p>

<p>Now, we can joke about nekkid wimmin -- and in the hands of many, it is a joke -- but the nude figure (woman and man) will likely remain a subject for quite some time. These subjects have historical precedence and are worthy of continued exploration, and the photographer engaging such subjects may just bring something genuine or authentic to them. <em>Getting personal with a subject</em> that's been around forever may be as valuable as finding a new subject. And, if we see "subject" in a slightly different way, getting personal with what seems to be the same subject may actually be creating a new subject each time.</p>

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p> The OP was not an "us vs them", or asking about how to change those perceptions, though both of those things are important to the discussion, only about why the cliches are so popular -- and I think there's more to explore there. However, that list of subjects is, as Anders and I indicated, a substrate. For the astute photographer, they represent avenues to the lower photographic brain, and could be used incisively.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Luis, yes.</p>

<p>In part, I was responding to Anders, who said: <em>"By rejecting them and defining ourselves as different, better, more knowledge, more select - we actually confirm the 'more favored subject' as the rule."</em> I don't think that's necessarily the case. As with civil rights, by rejecting the norm we may not (just) be confirming it, we may be changing it as we confirm to to others that it IS the norm, one worth changing.</p>

<p>Regarding some subjects, as I said, it is also artistic, photographic, and historic precedence in addition to how those subjects make us feel.</p>

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Some find Sarah Palin appealing. Some don't.</p>

<p>Some are moved by photos of flowing water, seagulls, "witty" candids and many reliably make them...others unreliably find overlooked opportunities in the work of others, and even for themselves.</p>

<p>"Subjects" that are "universally regarded" are fodder for TV-watchers, less so for readers (there's infinitely more written variety). TV, like "widely favored subjects" is consciously and narrowly designed to train and feed and train and feed...repetitive, self-reinforcing variations on the same themes with just enough surprise thrown in to keep attention (simple operant conditioning). That's why TV watchers watch, and why they watch what they are documented quantitatively to watch ("universally regarded subjects").</p>

<p>Reading is work, inherently demanding, not so automatic (not so fundamentally pavlovian). Maybe "subjects" that are less "universally regarded" can be more...dare I say it...uplifting? Less robotic? But who cares about that?</p>

<p>In any case, we don't all photograph "subjects." Some use the tools for other purposes. My father was a brilliant manager of the nation's largest radar systems (Dew Line, Sage System), but he stirred paint with a screwdriver.</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>Most people like comfort.<br /><br />The rest of us like Diamanda Galas and Cindy Sherman.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There's nothing inherently non-comfortable in a Diamanda Galas or a Cindy Sherman. Non-comfort and comfort can only be experienced in relation to each other and both play a story.<br /> Ditching our stories and seeing things in a non-dual way is the most "uncomfortable" and challenging subject to favor.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Unwillingly (I think) the thread gets a tone against those "pretty picture" of flowers, sunsets, beaches and what else.<br /> Since I've made a huge amount of sunset photos, of course I must protest....! Seriously, even when I would not have made those photos, it would rub me a bit the wrong way. To denote it to TV watching people with a seeming air of inferiority, to name a few high rated photographers as "the rest of us".... No.</p>

<p>There is nothing wrong with those photos. They're not a one-type-versus-the-other. From the uber-cliché sunset it's a slow gradient into the less appealing, and non-appealing, subjects. A lot of shades in between, so an us-versus-them attitude would be simplifying matters a bit.<br /> To me, they're also not a sign of taste, or lack thereof. Nor does it say anything about intellectual levels, interest in arts, ability to read a serious novel and what more.</p>

<p>Most people use photography to record the happy moments. The value of photography (as an activity, as a resulting product) is for them often based on that notion. Holiday, marriage, birthday parties. Somehow, many do not seem to consider that a photo in the news paper is just as much a photo, and seem to regard it an addition to a written story; art photography is not ringing a bell, since the skills that photography can demand go unnoticed too. Education, interest, pre-fab perceptions on photography.</p>

<p>I know my ranting now sounds like I am misjudging many of you, and I am sorry for that. That's not the intent at all, and I am aware I'm preaching to the choir mostly. It's just that dismissing the "standard beauty" photos easily has a scent of elitarism. Even if you are not looking for the viewers of these types of photography as the public for your own photos, understanding what drives them to like those photos is still a valuable lesson. So, for the discussion sake, I post this rant all the same.<br /> A beautiful sunset can be beautiful. Maybe the trick is to enjoy them, and let the camera be. And maybe not, and just capture it. I know many people enjoyed seeing some photos I made like this. And knowing they like it, made me feel good as well. I still would not call them my better photos, but bringing a moment of joy, well, nothing wrong with that.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Dan South's original post began with a conclusion (!): that everybody prioritized one kind of photo (evidently the pretty kind). As Wouter says, "nothings wrong with that" ...except that it imposes a majority rule on all photographic values.</p>

<p>He also believes photos are "of" subjects...rather than having their own existence. Evidently there's no such thing as abstraction. On a similar thread someone else made the same statement of faith, mentioning casually that he didn't like Picasso. The old "I don't understand art but I know what I like" mantra.</p>

<p> I don't think there's any need to argue in favor of the ugly or the beautiful. We can see what most of us are into by clicking on names, no need to justify. But there is a need to argue in favor of multiple viewpoints. I don't like Sarah Palin because I listen to her words, but I have no doubt she likes pretty snaps.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Phylo, I don't think the power of Diamanda Galas has to do with duality (Sherman's another story). I think she's intentionally yanking raw emotional chains in exactly the sort of ways for which our nervous systems were designed. Blood and guts, not mere concept. </p>

<p>Our bodies are the instruments she's playing with her own body (her singing). When she growls or shrieks, she is dangerous, a killer, or someone in agony. Can't speak for taoism because it's too conceptual for me. But I can speak for zen... it addresses the material world rather than "spiritual." The notion of "enlightenment" means coming to grips with the material world, not diminishing it.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Just taking photos of pretty things,sunset and nudes, can be pretty boring after a while..no matter how many variations we put on it.</p>

<p>Nice to branch out and try something different rather than trying to re write the same old stories which we have all been told time and time again.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>There's nothing inherently non-comfortable in a Diamanda Galas or a Cindy Sherman.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Galas has been pretty clear about her interest in creating dis-comfort. It's not that difficult to get. Seeing her live or reading some interviews makes it very clear.</p>

<p>Sherman also talks about discomfort in interviews. Both do this intentionally. Not everyone will get it, but both of them have talked about that also.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's be clear. This is not a pretty versus non-pretty debate. I mentioned moments of frozen athletic action. That

could be bloodied rugby players in cold rain and mud. I mentioned sunsets. That could be a sunset with the

silhouette of a belching factory before it. But more people would react to that image than to the factory at 9 AM. And

mid-morning light is beautiful IMHO. Clear, fresh, bright. Why is that orange glow of sunset so fascinating to human

beings? Does it remind us of the coals of the fire that wards off dangerous creatures through the primeval night?

 

Puppies aren't pretty. Neither are babies. They're funny-looking and occasionally hideous.

 

I didn't mention naked women because that adds a sexual attraction dimension to the image. That's outside the scope

of this topic and I don't want it to divert attention.

 

Photos have subjects. Not in all cases, but most of the time. The subject doesn't define the photo but it's significant

to the image's composition.

 

Books most certainly have universally regarded subjects. Private detectives. Crusading attorneys. Young women dreaming of love and happiness. But that's probably not relevant to a discussion of photographic subjects.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Dan, you seem to have at least two bases covered...much like Phylo's comfortable discomfort :-)<br>

As to the involvement of "subject" in image, it's often just incidental...something else is more important, such as movement, the sense of light, the way tones relate....</p>

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...