The esthetic failure of most photographs

[saulzelan]

<i>

That may simply be because writing is a more universal form than art, but perhaps it's also a more concrete and generally understood medium. It seems that art more often suggests an idea that has to be extracted from it, whereas words tend to get to the core more easily.

</i>

<br><br>

 

Though I wonder how much of that is perception and what is reality? The written word SEEMS clear, because we all read and write, but the meaning of complex texts requires the explication of close reading. Writing as an art seems to me to be a meditative process that unfolds through time, both in the creation and the witnessing. Whereas art just gives it all to you all at once, photography perhaps more so than painting, which requires a more time bound process for itﾒs creation.

[John Peri]

"Aesthetics", yes, a primary concern in photography. I may arouse some anger from the more purist among us in saying

this :-) ... but there is a lot of exchange on PN that centres around the rules, and particularly the necessity to always keep horizons straight and not to cut off ears, hands and feet, and the rest of it., What rules, who wrote them? Let me bring forward that few if any of the truly successful commercial photographers today give two hoots about such considerations, nor do the top fashion and photographic magazines in which they publish their work, to cite VOGUE and PHOTO just for examples. In my view, for a photo to have "impact" and be aesthetically pleasing, it must be striking and draw attention, and not correspond to any textbook pre-conceived ideas of what should or should not be done.

[beeman458]

"In my view, for a photo to have "impact" and be aesthetically pleasing, it must be striking and draw attention, and not correspond to any textbook pre-conceived ideas of what should or should not be done."

 

Worth repeating the above.

 

My choice of words, agreeing with the above, a photographer needs to explore themselves and express this egocentric exploration via three words; unique, impact and compelling and I'm not talking "The Picture of Dorian Gray".

 

http://www.upword.com/wilde/

 

"There is a crash, and his servants enter to find the portrait, unharmed, showing Dorian Gray as a beautiful young man. On the floor lies the body of their masterﾗan old man, horribly wrinkled and disfigured, with a knife plunged into his heart."

 

I wish for the final photographic image to transend the photographic experience of recording the real which is constantly before the photographer.<div></div>

[beeman458]

A correction to my Oscar Wilde quote from "The Picture of Dorian Gray" as it seems whom ever wrote those words took license with Oscar's words.

 

Below is quoted from the complete manuscript.

 

http://www.upword.com/wilde/dorgray20.html

 

"When they entered, they found hanging upon the wall a splendid portrait of their master as they had last seen him, in all the wonder of his exquisite youth and beauty. Lying on the floor was a dead man, in evening dress, with a knife in his heart. He was withered, wrinkled, and loathsome of visage. It was not till they had examined the rings that they recognized who it was."

[ben conover]

I only read the question and not the answers, it's late. However since you mentioned Picasso's injuction:

 

To bloom forth, a work of art must ignore or rather forget all the rules.

 

I think Picasso was a bit like Van Gogh, and others. He had the ability to draw and see art without even trying, in other words his technique was good to start with. By breaking the rules even he had to learn, he could express himself in a different way. For most people learning the rules is the hard bit, never mind breaking them.

Although, I think at all levels people want to break the rules, that's normal, up to a point. Depends on your circle of confusion really.

 

Cheers.

[kbridgman]

Photography is lot like playing the piano. Many people learn how to play the notes and can mechanically go thru the process of playing a tune. They faithfully recreate the rythm and tone quality in the music...however...most never fully grasp the concept of putting emotion into their playing. You know it when you here it, and it is this distinction that separates the mechanical musician from the artistic one. Even though the artistic musician must be mechanically sound, he takes the talent one step further and feels the music with his heart. Many photographers take mechanically sound photographs, but miss something when it comes to applying emotion to what they are doing. Emotion in music is applied from heart thru the sense of hearing. Emotion in photography is applied from the soul thru the sense of seeing. Seeing the light figuratively and literally is what applying artistic emotion to photography is all about. It is an art that is never fully realized even with the best photographers, but is something that continually evolves. When an image becomes more than a mechanical reproduction of a scene and steps into the realm of artistic creativity is when the true science of taking pictures comes full circle. Many critics never understand this principle as well...they tend to look only at the mechanical aspects and neglect the artistic emotion the photographer places into the outcome.

[jonathancharlesphoto]

</i>Several interesting points have been raised in the discussion:<p> - Do you have to

try to be artistic to be a good photographer?<p> - Do you have to know about the classic

"rules" of composition to be a good artist?<p> - Do you have to <u>break</u> the rules

to be a good artist?<p> - Is the most important requirement of a photograph to be

technically perfect, an important subject, a true recording, compositionally correct,

compositionally interesting, personally involved, emotionally engaging, socially relevent,

spiritually uplifting (or all of the above) ?<p>The rather obvious answer is that we all have

our own reasons to make photographs and to look at other people's work. For me "most

of the above" is about right and for JAS "compositionally interesting" and "emotionally

engaging" may be the dominant themes but we can't expect everyone else to share our

own values so we have to put up with seeing "important subject: a flower" and "personally

involved: my cute kids" posted in large numbers, representing the democratic range, as

well as many photos with more "artistic" intentions but varying levels of success.

[jdw]

"Is the most important requirement of a photograph to be technically perfect" Of course not. After 50 years in the profession as an Advertising Photographer, with 5 Blue Chip companies on my client list I was forced to become 'technically perfect' however, in 1983 I wrote a book, 'Experimental Photography'. It sold 20,000 copies in hardback and many thousands more in paperback. The whole point of the exercise was to break all the rules of correct exposures,chemical timings and the like. Despite hundreds of letters condemning the practise from from the 'purists', to this day, nobody talks about the photograph of the Mercedes studio shot that took two days to 'get right' all they want to know is how to achieve a line conversion now that the chemicals and film are difficult to obtain. Surely all those readers wanted to get away from the conventional, to try something different and creative despite 'the rules'. JW

[al_kaplan1]

I don't think that most photographs are done for esthetic reasons. The average person is more interested in recording where they went on vacation or taking pix of the kids growing up, the big fish they caught, and recording family events like weddings and get-togethers. Even commercial photographers sacrifice esthetics because most of what we shoot has to be within budget and only meet a certain standard.

[ellis_vener_photography]

<I></I></I>"I've noted on the various forums on the net an over whelming concern with

technique and technology and a lack of any concern with the esthetic or artistic aspect of

our craft. "</I><P<Quite likely this is for two reasons.<P>1.) It'seasier to talk and write

about technical issues as opposed to having a substantial conversation about aesthetics

and art.<P> 2.) Technical aspects of photography are something we can at least have the

illusion of mastering. It's easier to improve those qualities and it's harder to learn "how to

see like a photograph sees"and then furhter to learn how one asan individual sees the

world iwhen lookign at it ( and please excuse this obvious cliche) through the lens of

photography.<3.) Agreeing on a common language of aesthetics that covers different

genres and eras of art and photography. Short of some very broad ideas about colro and

light, contrast and tone, composition and framing, it's very hard to then apply the same

criteria of aesthetics to , for examples , the work of a classicists like Robert Mapplethorpe

and Ansel Adams and PaulStrand and Robert Adams, and Dorthea Lange and

JoyceTenneson and then to extend it further to photojopujournalists like Henri Cartier-

Bresson and James Nachtwe, Susan Meiselas and Jodi Cobb , and an even further stretch

to use that language to encompass the achievements of Cindy Sherman andPaul

Outerbridge, and Bill Brandt and Imogene Cunningham .<P>4.) Taste is a personal thing.

Shaped by experience and education and personality.

[jdw]

I agree with Al and Ellis however, we must be careful with regard to technical expertize.Susan Sontag once said:- "The way to true wisdom is not to see the World as the camera sees it".

Cartier Bresson had to get the technique correct because in his day the 35 mm camera was so difficult to use to get an acceptable result.

Few people can doubt his emotional and asthetic levels.

The problem today is the digital camera. Focus,f-stops,speeds and their combinations are not a problem - point and shoot and you have an image. This is why the photo.net site is flooded with nude photographs of the latest girlfriend and sentimental photographs of children. Sad really, because all the difficult bits that we encountered in the last Century no longer apply and you would think that modern image makers would concentrate upon the esthetics rather than the technical.

Maybe its me,'the grumpy old man', who has mis-understood the role of the camera in our digital age.

[Spearhead]

<i>The problem today is the digital camera.</i><p>

 

It's unfortunate that people seem so ready to take the low road of accusations. In fact, the digital camera is just another in a series of technological innovations that has popularized the camera, broadening its appeal and increasing the prevalence of photographs in our daily lives. Other notable events include the introduction of film, the Kodak Brownie, 35mm, color film, and the minilab. All of these had repercussions in the the breadth of camera usage.<p>

 

<i>This is why the photo.net site is flooded with nude photographs of the latest girlfriend and sentimental photographs of children.</i><P>

 

That more people want to take photographs of their lives should not be considered a bad thing. Some people want photography to be exclusive, the right of only people who pass some aesthetic (there, I made it relevant) test rather than just being allowed to shoot what they want.<p>

 

<i>who has mis-understood the role of the camera in our digital age.</i><p>

 

Based on the comment, it's more like the last 150 years, not the "digital age."<p>

 

What's really changed is the ubiquity of the camera, which has happened with the ubiquity of technology, i.e., it's not limited to photography. Everyone can have a camera. People who until five years ago had neither phone nor camera now have both in an easily portable device. Now I realize that some people want to block out this idea, that they want to keep the camera in the hands of the privileged, but for the rest of us, it's a great thing.<p>

 

What I find energizing about the ubiquity of the camera is that many people now shoot for the sheer aesthetic value that Winogrand shot for, to see what something looks like photographed. And many people keep a visual diary.<p>

 

To get back to the original question(s), this one caught my eye:

 

<p><i>There comes a point when one will have mastered the technical skills required from the medium and should start focusing on the emotional response one will invoke in the viewer rather than simply a technically perfect image. </i><p>

 

I think it's quite the opposite. People who start from the emotional response later learn the technical skills. This is generally something of a one-way street. People don't gain vision from the technical side. If it isn't there at the beginning, it won't be there later. But someone who can see the emotional response can learn to control the camera better.

[Nowhereman]

It's seems so obvious that one has to have the vision to create art. It's not sharpness; it's

not the technical skill -- It's the ability to see. Everytime you're in doubt repeat to yourself,

"It's the picture, stupid" or "ITPS" if you will.

<p>

<center><img src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/160/348966716_123402c20d_o.jpg"

width=720></center>

<p>Does it really matter whether a picture is taken digitally or on film -- but if you must

know look

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/"><u>here</u>.</a>

<p></a>

Mitch/Bangkok

[Barry Thomas]

<p><i>John Falkenstine: But John: look how folks on photo.net think they're INSTANT artists because they have just purchased a digital camera that shits out images..overnight they are artists.</i>

<p>The problem with this kind of statement is that it seems to imply an "us" and "them". "Us" is the group (self selecting of course) who have a great way of seeing, we are technically able and our camera is an extension of our fingers, we <i>always</i> get the shot and we print like masters. The "them" group is all those low forms of life (usually people who just had the temerity to go out a buy a camera) who are not and never will be artists.

<p>Ask anyone on p.net which group they belong to. Well "Us" of course. But we can't all be artists of the finest water surely? Assuming the bell curve of distribution covers artistic ability in the camera owning population of the world (my money says it does), only half of the people out there are of above average ability.

<p>When was the last time you heard someone round here admit they themselves (unlike everyone else) might <i>not</i> be a true and sublime master of the photographic arts?

[jdw]

Nobody is arguing that the digital camera is not a good thing. If, like me, you have had to wait for a day for a colour lab to process 120 rolls of film after you had spent ?2,000 on models,film and hotel fees and still did not know you had a result at all let alone whether it would be up to standard, the digital revolution is a a godsend.The problem is everyone, and I mean everyone, from a six year old and upwards can get a very acceptable result with a digital camera. The problem arises because once they have a photograph of the nude girlfriend and the cute children, and the MAJORITY admires such work,the incentive to go a step further decreases.

In the 'old days' it was very difficult even with the box Brownie to get a decent photograph without a great deal of effort consequently only the keen,fanatical even, took it that one stage further.

My worry is that with so many 'acceptable' results being achieved by the many, that extra step will not be taken.

[don_e]

Stovall,

 

For me, the manichean dualism of 'technique and technology' vs 'aesthetics and art' makes no sense. I, too, went on photo-hiatus for 20 years, making a detour into painting and drawing. Back in the day, I recollect photographers being no different than they are now on this issue.

 

What is "a technically perfect image"? And how would it differ from "an artistically perfect image"? And who's to say?

 

Forums are not a great place for deep discussion. They are routine and banal. The same subjects (usually involving dualisms) repeated over and over. Occasionally, there's some useful advice. They are pretty good at communicating technical information, not very useful for discussions of aesthetics, especially the visual kinds of art.

 

--

 

Don E