Wrong to see your own work as great?

I'm not saying that you worship every negative you turn out, but of the photos

you take that actually are great, you realize their greatness.

 

I take many photos, most of them (Vast majority.) I dislike because of some

small imperfection that annoys me to the extent that I can't look at them, and

loads are total crap. But a few, very few, turn out great (or at-least what I

see as great.), therefor I keep them.

Wrong not to.

Hmmm. I think that "greatness" should be a pretty rare thing, lest that term becomes - like all politically correctified qualities - merely the periodically sparkly part of "normal."

<br><br>

To paraphrase (of all things... WHAT am I thinking, here?) a Pixar movie's exchange between a mom and her son (who has super powers, but can't use them in sports at school):

<br><Br>

<i>Kid: But, Mom, if I can't use my powers, what good are they?

<br>Mom: You're still special, Junior.

<br>Kid: How, if no one can see it?

<br>Mom: Honey, </i>everyone<i> is special.

<br>Kid: Which is another way of saying that </i>nobody<i> is.</i>

<br><Br>

I guess my point is that greatness - as a quality in a photographer - is not something that we all have. I know that I don't have it, and I don't see it in most people at all, not even as a potential. Do non-great photographers sometimes cough up a photograph that is - to someone (perhaps even for themselves) - a great photo? Sure. But I wouldn't call a <i>photographer</i> great unless she has the ability to call upon that greatness at will, and put it to work in a consistent way. That's greatness. If I ever produce a great photograph, I think it will be similar to hitting the lottery. That doesn't bother me, I simply recognize it as a fact. And I'm not shy about saying that many, many other photographers - no matter how workmanly, technically astute, and passionate - aren't, and won't ever be great, either. Not unless we move "greatness" down the scale so that we can all use the word. But then what word do we use for the people that used to be great?

Matt: Even the greats were not able to do something great on call. Something competent, yes. Look at the life's work of Edward Weston and you (or at least I) only see 8-10 great, original pictures. Ansel Adams did not even do that well. His only really great picture was Moonrise. His student, Bob Kolbrenner, had more great pictures in one show, a few years ago in Soho, than Adams produced in his entire career. But Adams is great and Kolbrenner unknown. Greatness is therefore obviously in the mind of the perceiver, and if your own work is not at least approaching the path to greatness, why do it, unless as a job.

Why do it? For the same reason that someone unable to compose like Mozart none the less enjoys picking up an instrument and playing it. Photography doesn't have to show the signs of towering talent or an exceptionally insightful artist in order to still serve its purpose. I like to record and illustrate things in the world that I think deserve to be documented, or celebrated, or which are (for my audience) intrinsicly interesting. Not having a well of greatness to dip into doesn't mean that - used in the right context - <i>useful</i> images may not still be put to good work or contribute to one's world view.

<br><br>

I don't mean to suggest that a great artist or talented observer of the world will have that talent or skill manifest itself sublimely in every (or even most) effort. But those efforts are informed, I think, by a more inspired approach, purpose, and vision than that which fuels most people who pick up a camera.

Personally if you don't think your work is great you won't keep going out and shooting. Your own self confidence will tell you that you are good at what you do even if it is not every time.

 

If you don't say gee that is great who else will, you make yourself happy first!

Nothing is great until a consistent response of "WOW this is great!" is echoed by your colleague's or the media.

No.

 

"...if your own work is not at least approaching the path to greatness, why do it, unless as a job."

 

I enjoy seeing the photo appear to me in the something that catches my eye in the moment. I enjoy it when what I develop confirms the impression I had when I made the exposure. I also like the happy 'accidents' that sometimes happen.

About a month ago I took a photo of some geese that looked OK to me, seemed kinda interesting so I posted it. (Feb 9th Steamed goose...) It got the best response, comments, and ratings of all the shots I submitted here on photo.net for the past year.

 

Every person who I showed a copy of it to said "Wow, is that ever interesting" or some similar comment. Even relatives who are tired of my endless parade of pictures liked it. The staff at the local photo centre were all talking about it... and they see thousands of shots every week.

 

That finally convinced me to listen to what people have been telling me; try selling your pictures. The manager at the local museum's store had no hesiation accepting it for sale/consignment with a couple of my other photos.

 

Does that make it Great? In my mind not really.

 

Now, IF people actually start to cough up money to buy a copy (for $150), then I may change my mind :) {insert tongue in cheek}

<i>"and if your own work is not at least approaching the path to greatness, why do it, unless as a job."</i>

<p>

Perhaps because the journey is the destination for many people.

<p>

Is the most important thing the item that you produce, or the enjoyment that you feel when in the act of producing it? Some will prefer the act, some will prefer the item. But for those who prefer the act, the "greatness" of the end result is far less important.

It'd be wrong for me to think mine is great. Yet there is that evasive glimmer of hope that over the course of the next fifty years, I may discover some of that greatness. Then I develop my next roll of film and get the book back out on how to make a good noose. Best, JR

Some defer to a consensus of spectators regarding the quality of their photography.

<i> if your own work is not at least approaching the path to greatness, why do it, unless as a job</i><P>

What a bizarre thing to say about photography. I have lots of photos that don't even approach greatness, but they're still very meaningful to me and others. Does being a <b>photographer</b> mean you should no longer appreciate the documentary and mnemonic functions of photographs?<P>

 

As for the original question, sure, it's fine to think your own photos are great. But please don't go on and on about it to other people--let them figure it out for themselves. ; )

I think you and I must have seriously divergent views on the definition of greatness.

<p>

I've never taken a great photo. In a decade I've never seen a great photo posted here (by the original photographer anyway). A lot of good, even very good ones. But great? Nope.

<p>

<i>Personally if you don't think your work is great you won't keep going out and shooting.</i>

<p>

Anyone on this forum who thinks their work is great probably needs to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder">see a board-licensed psychiatrist</a>.

This is an interesting topic. Greatness. Where does it come from? Who says something is great? The person who makes a thing does not always see its value to others. The person who values a thing will describe its usefulness using appreciative terms like "genius" or "greatness." We have all seen mediocre ego-maniacs and humble people who demonstrate awe-inspiring abilities.

 

The truth is that people who make things must have others tell them how good the result really is. The assessment of others changes with time. More than one artist we revere now was considered to be a hack in his own time.

 

There is a dual nature to creativity. It's possible to feel that your own work comes from somewhere else as you get away from the decisions you made and the problems you solved to finish the piece. I often like my own stuff. If anyone had the interest, I could tell them about the lessons I learned from the project and how completing it helped me grow.

 

You can feel that your stuff is great with the caution that you do not take yourself too seriously. It's possible to see great worth in your own product only to have someone else openly disagree with you.

Self-promotion helps get work, but you will do well to remember who is doing what. Now matter how good you think you are, it takes someone else to share the word that your work is well worth viewing. Public consensus is where the label "greatness" comes from.

 

As for the picture itself: it is what it is.

I'm seeing some very diverse responses. And it's made me come to some conclusion. Asking what makes a photo great is like asking what makes a landscape great, it's too vague to consider logically. What kind of landscape? Desert, forest, ocean, tundra? There are too many forms to choose what makes any landscape in general great.

 

Where one photograph is great, it can be total garbage in another photo's field of greatness. As far as documentation of world events, Lange's work is supreme, where as far as documenting every day life, she sucks.

 

To the work of Parr, Weston is trash. As to the work of Weston, Parr is trash. But each on their own are brilliant and beautiful in their own ways.

Actually I don't think photographs have opinions about other photographs. Nor do I think photographers with differing styles necessarily see each others work as "trash."

 

It's certainly news to me that Lange's photos of everyday life sucked. What in the world are you talking about?

I would think that those on this forum who do not see their work as great have perfectionist issues and then should seek a shrink.

 

Yes I agree that you keep that opinion to yourself, but there is nothing wrong with being happy with what you do.

 

As to the statement that it is great when others say so is rubbish, what others think is irrelevent if you beleive it to be great in YOUR OWN eyes.

I guess that because for me photography is an art form, it does not mean that it is that to everyone, something I tend to forget. The great passion of my life is just a method of illustration for others. For some practitioners, photography is just a pleasant way to spend a few hours, a simple means to communicate, a method of keeping records of family and friends. For some it is a technical challenge, for some just a hobby.

I think 'great' is a loaded word. What I see as great may very well be seen as crap by others. I am personally a big fan of Ralph Gibson...but there are a very many people out there who think he is a passable photographer and don't get his stuff at all.

 

In my mind to be 'great' something has to stand the test of time and be appreciated even by those who don't understand the genre. The Beatles were great...Oasis, well, they're pretty good but when people were calling them the next Beatles...let's see what they're saying in 30 years.

 

But I think I know what you mean. I take lots of photographs. in the 'old' day maybe 200 odd rolls a year...now, countless digital but a lot of them are deleted within moments. Been doing so for 25 years and after all that time I finally have had a book published...just had the book launch last week. In it are what I consider my very best images from a personal project I was working on for the last 7 years and there are only 35 images.

 

And though they are my best images, and they were good enough to be published and for a major gallery in a city of 1 million to host a book launch and month long exhibit...I would by no means consider them to be 'great'.

 

It would be wonderful if 20 years from now they were thought of in that way by others...but it is way too early to tell.

David:

<br><br>

<i>I would think that those on this forum who do not see their work as great have perfectionist issues and then should seek a shrink.</i>

<br><br>

Do you really see no distinction between the quality of work (technically, artistically, or in terms of the work's ability to suit its audience or purpose) between any one member of this forum and the next? People here aren't in any sort of real or meaningful competition with one another, but it's still reasonable to say that - by virtually <i>any</i> standard you choose to use, no matter how subjective or capricious - that most work is (by definition!) just average, and some smaller portion of it is routinely outstanding... otherwise it would not stand out. The Greatness-ometer is certainly a fickle thing, but it's the height of delusion for <i>everyone</i> to consider their work "great."

<br><br>

Is everyone who ever tries to write a bit of prose or poetry great? Where, in your spectrum of greatness, then, is Shakespeare? Not only are most playwrites not Shakespeare and not great, they are aggressively <i>bad</i>, or at best merely average. Exactly the same is true of photography (it also being a creative enterprise, but compounded by also being a highly technical craft). It's possible that you're confusing <i>aspirations</i> towards greatness with an actual state of being so. I propose that it's only when you stop worrying about it that you can actually concentrate on your voice and your skills.

<br><br>

Any evaluation of your work requires some sort of standard. That standard is set by your audience. If you are the only member of your audience, then you can of course label yourself as great, and consider your work to have achieved the pinnacle of the craft - for that one-person audience.

<br><br>

<i>As to the statement that it is great when others say so is rubbish, what others think is irrelevent if you beleive it to be great in YOUR OWN eyes.</i>

<br><br>

What others think doesn't matter if you don't care, certainly. But if your purpose is to amuse, inform, entertain, decorate for, challenge, or otherwise cater to the tastes of even one other human being with your photography, then don't you think that that other human being's reaction to your work should figure into your assessment of whether you were successful in communicating to them? Again, if you simply don't care whether or how well you have communicated, then certainly, you have the option of being Truly Great, all by yourself and for yourself. But what good is asserting your greatness when the audience you're talking to is underwhelmed by your work? That's delusion... but only if you care. I suggest that most photographers care, at least a little, or all they're doing is mumbling to themselves with a camera. If that makes you happy (and indeed, it does for many, and much of that introspective work can be very constructive), then there you have it. But what good is an adjective like "great" when there's only one point of comparison (yourself)? "Great" is a <i>comparitive</i> adjective. If you are the only producer and only audience in the spectrum of work you're looking at, there's nothing to compare your work <i>to</i>, and labeling it "great" is just a silly indulgence. Better simply to call it "yours."

<br><br>

Perhaps you mean, David, that photographers who DO want to communicate to an audience should do so with an air of confidence? That's a much more useful thing to say, and doesn't rob the language of a useful word.

<i>For some practitioners, photography is just a pleasant way to spend a few hours, a simple means to communicate, a method of keeping records of family and friends. For some it is a technical challenge, for some just a hobby. </i><P>

From my perspective, the emphasis is reversed. I would say that for some, photography is a means to communicate, for some it's just a technical challenge.

(I don't know how to activate the rich text to use italics, I hope this works.)

 

Mike Dixon said above, "As for the original question, sure, it's fine to think your own photos are great. But please don't go on and on about it to other people--let them figure it out for themselves."

 

Excellent point and I would like to add, Mike, one way that I find people go on and on about their stuff being great without actually saying so, is by telling you this and that piece of theirs is "fine art".

I used some extremely loose examples, and my knowledge of the names of great photographers is very limited at the moment, so bare with me.

 

What I'm saying is, the greatness of a photograph depends on its context and what the photographer is going for. Where one is great in one way, it could be crap in another. You can't take a universal photograph, just as you cannot find a universal landscape that contains the qualities of every environment on Earth.

Sorry Spencer, but to a degree I think you can (take the universal photograph). I'm going to take this image of Salgado's http://www.masters-of-photography.com/S/salgado/salgado_covers.html

 

It was from a documentary series he did on an Etheopian refugee camp...and as a documentary photo is works extremely well. I've also seen it hung in a gallery as a piece of 'fine art' (and I too agree that is an un-necessary term). It works as a portrait.

 

In short I think it is a great photo because no matter how you wish to view it (context)...documentary, art, portrait, technical mastery of the medium it is a better photo than most people will take in their entire lives.

 

It is why I feel the original question is, perhaps worded wrong. I take pretty good images, if I do say so myself...but I have no delusions that I take as good images as Salgado...maybe once in a lifetime I may come close...but not on the ongoing basis he does.