Reflections from a (nearly) photo viewer burnout: In the beginning I was thinking that there were criteria to determine whether a photo was "good" or "not good" [My definition of good: a photo managing to pass a visual message to viewers (please note the plural), creating a sensorial or emotional impact.] I was thinking that there were some grounds in aesthetics - a part of philosophy - applying the "golden ratio", taking care of proportions, carefully considering cuts, placing horizons and vertical alignments. Then I realised that rules could very well be broken: marvellous portraits by Almond Chu with the subject cut in half in the dead centre of the frame, beautiful photographs by Eggleston with cut off feet, telling tilted horizons by Winogrand. After that I read, in this and other photographic sites, absolutely enthusiastic comments on photos which I thought conveyed a very weak visual message. Moreover I am told that that in some cases photos are not junk, but rather 'the product of a beginning/blooming/budding artist who has yet to collect enough experience to output visions that others will regard as "art"'. [Matt Ware , Aug 07, 2010; 07:53 p.m.] I saw photos which I think are junk in visual terms, say this, and angry authors reply that they did it on purpose. I still see very big limitations in visual craft, but what's the point insisting? Now my confidence is shaken. I realise that any single photo can be considered "good" or "bad" depending on the viewers "point of view". I have no terms of reference anymore. I have the feeling that I am in the realm of relativism: anything can be "good". What I consider "junk" is actually "good". I need ground again under my "viewers feet" again: why is a photo good, which elements make it good.