What makes a great picture, better than a good picture?

beeman458 · July 17, 2005

"...then what is locked up in the attic, just like a world-class-quality athelete who never competed is out of the running."

Photography is not a political or athletic venue and even if seen by nobody, if it has the necessary unstated qualities, it still qualifies, sung or unsung because it, by it's very existance, is. A photograph does not need, once created, the light of day (recognition or approval of aesthetics) to be great as the greatness of an image transends human acknowledgement.

yeffe · July 17, 2005

If human acknowledgement is beside the point, what is it that makes it great? Or, is it a

matter of things coming together in such a way that transcends the photographer's own

understanding or ability to otherwise describe?

But I still stick to my assertion that the ideal of greatness is a result of social consensus

invested in a transitional object (or fetish, if you will).

I'm reminded of the tree in the forest riddle. As the abstract notion of greatness can only

be grasped by someone with a certain degree of education and maturity (infants need not

apply), so without a creature nearby with ears, the tree's fall is silent, producing only a

change in the electromagnetic spectrum. Sound is an experience my brain makes out of its

sensitivity to such changes plus its own coloration, overapplied like a color wash.

Everything I experience upon beholding an image, likewise, goes on between the ears.

fk319 · July 17, 2005

I would like to thank all of you for your time and imput. I have a much better idea of how I can achive better pictures.

beeman458 · July 18, 2005

"...what is it that makes it great?"

"Sound" waves are generated, with or without anybody's permission and it's the same thing with photography as no one needs to be present to detect the "sound" waves created in order for them to exist.

Primary definition of sound from dictionary.reference.com:

"Vibrations transmitted through an elastic solid or a liquid or gas, with frequencies in the approximate range of 20 to 20,000 hertz, capable of being detected by human organs of hearing."

Only dopy instructors in a university class room will argue this question when the definition of "sound" is very clear. Way down in the tertiary meaning, one finds the element of the detection process.

"The sensation stimulated in the organs of hearing by such vibrations in the air or other medium."

If the Universe ceased to exist, would all of the greatness that had transpired during it's existance, no longer being perceived, no longer have happened. The point, it does not have to be perceived in order for it to exist, even if the Universe ceases to exist.

A great photographic image trancendes egocentricity. If a great image is "discovered," hiding in a closet, was it not a great image before being declared a great image? In the case of photography, greatness does not require acknowledgement, to be.

jordan2240 · July 18, 2005

I'd say it's the same thing that makes a movie, book, painting, etc. "great" - the amount of emotion it elicits from the viewer. But I personally believe a "great" shot must also be technically sound (not necessarily "perfect"). I've taken more "great" out-of-focus shots than I care to recall, thus relegating them from greatness to garbage. Nonetheless, a given photo may be great to some viewers, but if it is "great" to enough of them, or the right ones, then it earns the badge of greatness for all eternity.

yeffe · July 18, 2005

"Vibrations transmitted through an elastic solid or a liquid or gas, with frequencies in the

approximate range of 20 to 20,000 hertz, capable of being detected by human organs of

hearing."

Way down in the tertiary meaning, one finds the element of the detection process.

"The sensation stimulated in the organs of hearing by such vibrations in the air or other

medium."

However, up in the primary meaning, we see that only vibrations "capable of being

detected by human organs of hearing," qualify as sound.

By your notion, there's an objective world of unargueably assigned value, not managed by

our individual or collective selves. What is our role, then? To either recognize and

acknowledge the obvious (upon encountering the misplaced picture, we simply 'get it') or

risk seeming ignorant or dull?

How, 'bout this for a scenario:

Two thousand years from now, an archaeological survey from another planet digs up

Steiglitz's Steerage (or substitute your own candidate). Without the missing content of the

picture, what we bring to it in terms of life context and empathy, it's a rather lovely but

pointless exercise in aesthetics. How are the aliens to know about survival and striving in

the way we do. Now, if this photo were to become a window into all that for these

hypothetical blank-slates, your argument would have some powerful evidence.<div></div>

beeman458 · July 19, 2005

"However, up in the primary meaning, we see that only vibrations "capable of being detected by human organs of hearing," qualify as sound."

"...with frequencies in the approximate range of 20 to 20,000 hertz, capable of being detected by human organs of hearing."

The above is not intended on making the definition humancentric but to only make comment that the above is the generally accepted range of human hearing, it does not limit the definition of sound to only humans as the range of dogs could have been put in the above's place.

"Vibrations transmitted through an elastic solid or a liquid or gas,..."

The above primary segment is the definition of sound.

"What is our role, then?"

To get in touch with our spiritual self, grow old and die as everything else is egocentric/superfluous.

"How are the aliens to know about survival and striving in the way we do."

Aliens?

I could care what some dopey alien might think of our society or worldly social structure for that's their problem, not mine:)

"...or risk seeming ignorant or dull?"

Neither is a bad thing as we're all ignorant and in the presents of the right company, would be also considered dull:)

Leave it to say, the Chicken came first, the question of a standing glass of water implies an action of coming or going as a great image stands on it's own, with or without one's permission:)

jcook · July 19, 2005

Not that I'm an expert by any means...but to me it's a matter of the person...the subject...and the picture itself. The great picture captures some essence of time...an old fond memory....a major event...whatever the person viewing it perceives viewing that picture to be. Is there a reaction to it?...Does it make the person happy, sad, mad,...ect. In otherwords you have the abililty with that photograph to teleport, (so to speak), even one person to that space and time to where that picture was taken...to me is a great picture.

ben conover · July 19, 2005

Hi,

To me, a great photo is one that makes me cry, laugh, think too much, or otherwise floods my emotions. The opposite of a great picture would be a technically perfect shot of a test target.

The combination of perfect technique and the eternal moment we

refer to as emotion, will in my mind produce something better than a great photo. That is what drives me, because when I see it in people

or on paper, I am totally amazed. I love that buzz in life.

A photo of the Pope is not my cup a T. I prefer the work of Tim Page.

Cheers.

yeffe · July 19, 2005

"To get in touch with our spiritual self, grow old and die as everything else is egocentric/

superfluous."

Well, here we agree.

The need for a defining context, however, for any value judgement, from 'great' to 'stinks,'

remains. Now, you don't care what an alien might think. But that statement contradicts the

assertion that the greatness resides in the image. Because the hypothetical alien is

divorced from the human context, its opinion is disqualified. Put another way, radio can't

exist until a receiver with a tuning mechanism is made part of the system. A transmitter

alone would not be a useful invention at all.

But, if this is a chicken and egg discussion, in other words, irrelevant in the face of the

continuing plethora of chicken parts and cartons of eggs we consume, perhaps the

discussion best shifts to another angle.

After the great Henri Cartier Bresson died, I read an interview where he said that the

photos in and of themselves, held little interest for him. He went on to describe a moment

way after he stopped shooting, when, in an art museum, he spotted another one of his

decisive moments, He approached the subjects sitting on a bench and quietly motioned

for one to scoot over. He then raised his hands to his face in a 'snapshot' gesture and

'took the picture.' This, for him had always been enough, his own private celebration of

what he could see and understand. No 'chicken and egg' musings for him, only because he

felt it irrelevant.

beeman458 · July 19, 2005

"But, what seperates a good picture from a great picture?"

"The person making the pronouncement."

"The need for a defining context, however, for any value judgement, from 'great' to 'stinks,' remains. Now, you don't care what an alien might think. But that statement contradicts the assertion that the greatness resides in the image. Because the hypothetical alien is divorced from the human context, its opinion is disqualified. Put another way, radio can't exist until a receiver with a tuning mechanism is made part of the system. A transmitter alone would not be a useful invention at all."

I agree with your above via my earlier comment.

"No 'chicken and egg' musings for him, only because he felt it irrelevant."

Ahhhh!!! The wonderment of the noteables. The greatness of an image has nothing to do with Henri (On-Ree) but has to do with the person making the connection or pronouncement as to the image in question. Chicken, eggs or greatness, it doesn't matter.

There's gotta be something great about a velvet Elvis painting as hundreds of thousands have been sold. So it's in the perception of the who, making the pronouncement.

yeffe · July 20, 2005

Ahhhh!!! The wonderment of the noteables. The greatness of an image has nothing to do

with Henri (On-Ree) but has to do with the person making the connection or

pronouncement as to the image in question. Chicken, eggs or greatness, it doesn't matter.

It was ON-Ree himself who saw the potential in what he witnessed. He only put it on film

because he had to do something (as we all do) to be useful in order to earn a living. He

was the consumate process person. It is the judgement of the rest of us, either expertly

articulated or quietly accepted, that defines HCB as great.

There's gotta be something great about a velvet Elvis painting as hundreds of thousands

have been sold. So it's in the perception of the who, making the pronouncement.

The proud owner of the Elvis on velvet might have a glowing opinion of his possession,

but more educated and tasteful sensibilities (elites, in other words) would not accept that

judgement. And since it is the elites who have access to media and book publishing, etc.,

their opinions carry a certain weight. Pressed for hard evidence of the basis for their

disdain, the elitists may cite the sheer number of Elvis paintings and their lack of

individual vision.

How' bout Elvis himself? Great? If there had been no African diaspora, what chance would a

Memphis rockabilly have had at interpreting Black roadhouse blues into music just

exciting and controversial enough to make him a star but not rough enough to ban him

entirely? And, if he had come of age merely a few years before or after he did, he'd have

missed the boat. The culture would have moved on without him.

Is there such a thing as circumstantial greatness? INW: the era making the individual more

than the individual shaping the era?<div></div>

beeman458 · July 20, 2005

"Pressed for hard evidence of the basis for their disdain, the elitists may cite the sheer number of Elvis paintings and their lack of individual vision."

LOL! Thanks for the chuckle. LOL!

After your above, we'll leave you with the last word as it seems we're pretty much on the same page with our comments.

blakley · July 20, 2005

Christopher Alexander (the architect) attempts an answer to this question in his book "A foreshadowing of twenty-first century art". He discusses it in the context of his collection of Persian carpets.

Here's an excerpt from his argument:

"The great carpets - the ones which are most valuable, most profound - are, quite simply, the carpets which acheive the greatest degree of ... wholeness within themselves.

It is, of course, essential for this thesis that the quality of wholeness not merely be a matter of preference or taste for different observers, but instead a definite, tangible, and objective quality, which really does exist to a greater or lesser degree in any given carpet.

... It takes experience to see [wholeness in carpets]. People who are looking at carpets for the first time, will not, generally be able to see it very accurately. even people who have been looking at carpets for several years, will often not yet see it clearly. It is, nonetheless, an objective quality, which exists in the carpets to a definite degree.

To study wholeness, we must have an empirical way of distinguishing it from preference...

In order to see through the overlay of preferences which inevitably exists in each of us, we must construct a question which is so concrete, that it shocks the system, and forces a direct, more true, and more accurate response, because it makes no room for overlays of preference. In the last few years, I have experimented with many questions of this kind, and have found one, which serves this purpose rather well. The question asks: 'If you had to choose one of these two carpets, as a picture of your own self, then which one of the two carpets would you choose.'"

This seems kinda silly until you try it.... at which point you might be surprised.

beeman458 · July 21, 2005

"... It takes experience to see [wholeness in carpets]. People who are looking at carpets for the first time, will not, generally be able to see it very accurately. even people who have been looking at carpets for several years, will often not yet see it clearly. It is, nonetheless, an objective quality, which exists in the carpets to a definite degree. "

You've described, in clear terms, a subjective, you must be taught to see things my way, process and then claimed "an innocent objective quality,"

It's all a subjective evaluative, both culturally and personally, process, exemplified by fake art. If one doesn't know it's a fake and they "think" they're buying an original, they're happy. They're not buying the uniqueness of the object, they're buying the concept or rarity of the object because someone else before them has said that it was special.

Ahhhhh, the deluded wonders of the elitist egocentric materialistic progressive humanist world. :) LOL :)

('The question asks: 'If you had to choose one of these two carpets, as a picture of your own self, then which one of the two carpets would you choose.')

And then you get a Bozo like me who says "Shoot me then cause neither represents me so I ain't choosin." "Got any others?" Nope. Nope, Nope. Heck. None of these represent me. Got any with a Bengal Tiger on them? :)

blakley · July 21, 2005

So you haven't tried it, right?

I can't figure out what position you're taking here, by the way. It seems to be something like "there is no standard of merit in any creative endeavor, therefore there is no actual merit in the products of such an endeavor, therefore attempts to sell those products is a fraud and can only succeed based on creation of an impresssion of rarity." But I can't imagine that this is your actual position, because if it were I don't understand why you'd visit this forum, or any of the rest of Photo.net, at all. What am I missing?