What makes a photo GREAT?

[nicolerenee]

"No standards"

 

Does that mean that you shouldnt hold yourself to a standard of work and can pass anything of as a well done image? It seems by the critiques on this site that in order to be acceptable a photo must have certain qualities. Well lit, well composed, well exposed etc...or have broken those rules in favor of some "artistic" quality that cant achieved otherwise.

 

It just seems to me that there must be some qualities uniting images that most would recognize as great that moves beyond having met technical standards.

[see_r]

Whether using photography or not, I think if you can represent a 'vision' from a dream in material, you will have acheived something great. This approach would touch on some of the topics brought up here, eg. mysticism. I have at times wished I could represent my dreams on film, canvas, or stained glass but the translation seems impossible to me. And in addition to dreams, there are other images that are 'seen' in a dark room before going to sleep.

[vince_smith2]

Since several people enjoyed the previous Tolstoy quote, here's another:

 

"...a boy, having experienced, let us say, fear on encountering a wolf, relates that encounter; and, in order to evoke in others the feeling he has experienced, describes himself, his condition before the encounter, the surroundings, the woods, his own lightheartedness, and then the wolf's appearance, its movements, the distance between himself and the wolf, etc. All this, if only the boy, when telling the story, again experiences the feelings he had lived through and infects the hearers and compels them to feel what the narrator had experienced is art."

 

I've always liked simple examples that help explain complex concepts. I almost get a twinge of nervousness reading those few details of the story Tolstoy chose to mention: the boy's lightheartedness walking in the woods, the wolf's sudden appearance, its movements, and its closeness to the boy. I can easily imagine a great writer filling in the details.

 

Tolstoy talks about how other forms of art share those same characteristics. He also includes guidelines for great art. He mentions 'individuality', 'clarity', and 'sincerity' as being key aspects in evaluating art.

 

It's easy to see from the wolf story example, if the story was significantly different from all other stories of fearful encounters you'd heard before, if you could picture the scene as if you were there, and if you weren't distracted by elements of the story that seemed out of place or contrived, that would make for a good story that would hold your focus and affect your emotions.

 

I'm not a Tolstoy expert or an art expert. I just enjoy reading his thoughts on art.

[olofwessels]

hmzz maybe you will call me cynical but in this media controlled era art is more defined by clever marketing and networking then anything else.

Beauty ofcourse is in the eye of the beholder but that eye is so media controlled that the media will decide what and what not is supposed to be art.

It should all be about the integrity and purity of a picture but recent hyped "art" photographers prove that that's not the case anymore.

[thomas_sullivan]

a truely GREAT photograph, or any piece of art, including music.......I know immediately. It sends this tingling up and down my spine. Like the piece of art has connected with every nerve in my body.

[stembaughphotography]

I think you have asked a very objective question that can only be responded to in a subjective way. There is no accounting for a taste, an image that you and I think is great, others may not think so much of it. If someone does not like horses, and sees the best done photo of a horse,creatively and technically perfect, they are not going to like it or be touched by it.On the other hand if they like flowers and see a photo of a flower that is mediocre, not very creative or technically poor, they are going to like poorer done picture because they like flowers. I use the two examples because both convey a sense of beauty but in very different ways.

[k5083]

The greatness of any work of art is socially constructed among various communities including but not limited to the artist's peers, critics, and the general public. The work itself usually has intrinsic merit, but generally many other works of equal merit do not make it to the pantheon. The selection process for greatness is, however, far from completely random. Accessibility, emotive power, and certain styles and subject matters give some pictures the edge. In painting, some people have statistically analyzed the characteristics that make paintings popular and, more or less as a joke, have painted composite paintings loaded up with these characteristics. The resulting banal "ideal" paintings would likely do well in the market. A cynical photographer might easily do the same thing -- in other words there is, quite literally, accounting for tastes.

[john falkenstine]

Marketing.

[rocky_berlier]

"What makes a photo GREAT?"

Whether it is a brilliant singer who gives you goose-bumps or a poet who makes you cry, the GREATness of the art is found in that which comes the closest to imitating Divine Creation. When we are in the presence of this GREATness, there is no mistaking it. It inspires us and humbles us at the same time. Just as we might be at the sight of a sunset or the awesomeness of the Grand Canyon, some part of us just simply "knows" that we are in the presence of the Divine.

[nicolerenee]

Wow, great answer, Rocky.

 

"the GREATness of the art is found in that which comes the closest to imitating Divine Creation."

 

Perfect. I may have to steal that one.

[beeman458]

Then how do you explain the "greatness" of Postmodern photographic art, which is the antithesis of religion? :)

[beeman458]

I should temper the above with "...for the most part..." as I work in the Postmodern photographic realm but adhere to religious values in the process. But then again, nobody will tout my Postmodern photographic efforts as "great" either as I intentionally eschew putting thumb in eye of religious values.

[iliafarniev]

If the thing is dimensioned properly big, then there will probably be no way not to call it great.

[rocky_berlier]

"<b>Thomas Gardner:</b> <i>Then how do you explain the 'greatness' of Postmodern photographic art, which is the antithesis of religion?"</i><br>

One need not have religious faith to be a GREAT artist. Likewise, one need not believe in God to recognize the incomprehensible and unfathomable Beauty in all things. It matters not what label we use for it. We will still get awed, inspired and chills when we are in its presence.

[rocky_berlier]

<b>Nicole York:</b> <i>"Wow, great answer, Rocky... Perfect. I may have to steal that one."</i><br>Thank you. You may use it where appropriate (and attributed). :)

[Norma Desmond]

Somehow we're slipping and sliding from GREATness in art to Beauty, a conflation of two distinct terms. And my own being awestruck by a brilliantly-colored sunset has nothing to do with its supposed incomprehensibility or unfathomability. What some see as God's handiwork, others see as a combination of a ball of hot gases in the sky seen through a relatively long travel path for the resultant light waves. I am perfectly capable of being awestruck by things that have a scientific and meaningful explanation.

[beeman458]

"One need not have religious faith to be a GREAT artist."

 

But one needs religious faith to recognize "Divine Creation."

 

You might want to look into the tenants of contemporary Postmodern photographic art before instructing me on what's what.

 

"We will still get awed, inspired and chills when we are in its presence."

 

Do we (statement, not question). Your above shows your bias, and nothing but bias for there's no such thing as "greatness" as "greatness" is nothing more than a human construct.

 

You might want to take some time to see what's being touted as "great" in these here contemporary times as there's little if any tingling and no Divine acknowledgment going on within the progressive environment.

[snapshot1]

As if you need to ask? As a college professor I could spew out what you are expecting to hear. Brilliant usage of light is my answer.

[rocky_berlier]

<b>Fred Goldsmith:</b><i>"Somehow we're slipping and sliding from GREATness in art to Beauty, a conflation of two distinct terms. And my own being awestruck by a brilliantly-colored sunset has nothing to do with its supposed incomprehensibility or unfathomability. What some see as God's handiwork, others see as a combination of a ball of hot gases in the sky seen through a relatively long travel path for the resultant light waves. I am perfectly capable of being awestruck by things that have a scientific and meaningful explanation."</i>

<br><br>

Both GREATness and Beauty are subjective and therefore less disparate than is seen from this stated view.

<br>It would be a dispassionate person, indeed, who looks at the Sun and sees "a ball of hot gases" without appreciating the awesome beauty of it. <br>This <b><i>scientific (and intellectualized)</i></b> view is quite the antithesis of <b><i>visceral and emotional</i></b> responses to beauty which ARE, indeed, quite discrete from each other. One is intellectual and the other an emotional response. <br>Now, the question to ask is (when looking at GREAT art), <i>"which is being applied FIRST?"</i> The child who looks at beauty and does not have the intellectual capacity to understand the scientific explanation will doubtlessly respond to it emotionally.<br>

When one uses the term "GREAT" (or GREATness) there is the implication of a <b><i>subjective</i></b> and very <b><i>emotional</i></b> response to art. My definition addresses this specifically.

[rocky_berlier]

<b>Thomas Gardner:</b>

<i>"But one needs religious faith to recognize 'Divine Creation.'"</i>

<br>Certainly agnostics could/would debate this.

<br><br>

<b>TG:</b> <i>"You might want to look into the tenants of contemporary Postmodern photographic art before instructing me on what's what."</i><br><br>The perception of being "instructed" is an erroneous projection into what I have said. It is also a contentious characterization of the words themselves as well as the intentions behind them.<br>These were simple statements of fact. It is <i><b>more</b></i> than self-evident that <i><b>one does not need religious faith to be a GREAT artist</b></i>.<br>If these words have informed you, then it was serendipitous and one might have cause to celebrate the usefulness of it. <br>On the other hand, it IS quite <i>"instructional"</i> to request that someone <i>"inform"</i> themselves. Certainly, it would be useful to see the distinctions between "instructional" and "informative."

 

<br>From my perspective, this is a discussion of "opinions" and I have only expressed my own. Take it for what you will.<br><br>

<b>TG:</b> <i>"Do we (statement, not question). Your above shows your bias, and nothing but bias for there's no such thing as "greatness" as "greatness" is nothing more than a <b>human construct</b>."</i><br><br>As are "beauty" and "art," however, isn't this is a discussion of "opinions" of such? And, of course, it certainly is no revelation that <i><u>all</u></i> opinion is founded in personal "bias."

<br><br>

<b>TG:</b> <i>"You might want to take some time to see what's being touted as "great" in these here contemporary times as there's little if any <i><b>tingling</b></i> and no Divine acknowledgment going on within the progressive environment."</i><br><br>I have my well considered doubts of this assertion. Without a <i>"tingling"</i> one would be hard-pressed to create <b><i>anything</i></b> let alone appreciate the creation itself. As I have already commented, one need not <b><i>believe</i></b> in the Divine to appreciate it. If the word "Divine" is a sticking point, then certainly, one can substitute it for any descriptive term that expresses GREATness of a work of art. I simply used it as a way of conveying something beyond the senses. I am not religious nor a zealot of faith.<br>However, this "instructional" commententary also (antagonistically) presummes an ignorance on my part with regard to <i>"contemporary times"</i> and the <i>"progressive environment."</i> It would be more productive to debate the statements without attacking the writer. <-- Now, that (admittedly) WAS "instructional."

[beeman458]

"What makes a photo GREAT?"

 

"Whether it is a brilliant singer who gives you goose-bumps or a poet who makes you cry, the GREATness of the art is found in that which comes the closest to imitating Divine Creation. When we are in the presence of this GREATness, there is no mistaking it. It inspires us and humbles us at the same time. Just as we might be at the sight of a sunset or the awesomeness of the Grand Canyon, some part of us just simply "knows" that we are in the presence of the Divine."

 

"I am not religious nor a zealot of faith."

 

Hmmmmm!

 

"Divine"

 

"of or pertaining to a god, esp. the Supreme Being."

 

I am religious and stay away from zealots on both sides of the isle.

 

Hmmmmm!

 

"It would be more productive to debate the statements without attacking the writer."

 

Yes, we shan't use language for it's intended purpose (convey an idea) as that would be inconvenient.

 

Me thinks I'm being fished.

 

Wishing you well.

[Norma Desmond]

Rocky, I think we are not in disagreement about one's personal emotional reaction to a work of art. I hope that anyone may react in any way they like. I, like you and the child you mention, react emotionally first. It is in the background and, as you say, in my intellectual approach, that scientific explanations come to mind and operate. There are a couple of places where we do disagree. Just because art and beauty are both in the "subjective realm" doesn't mean they are not disparate concepts. Art, for me, encompasses a lot more than just what is beautiful. In other words, much art is what I would consider to be beautiful and much art is not. Secondly, emotion and science, in my view and in much of the reading I've done on the brain and emotions, are not antithetical. There are plenty of scientific explanations for our emotions and feelings, which don't make them any less powerful, awesome, or emotional. Because I don't think a sunset or mountain is in any way divine does not mean I don't gasp when I see them. Magic is not the only thing that brings me to tears or puts a smile on my face. I respond deeply to many things that are, in my mind, quite down to earth and explainable. The child will, as you say, absolutely respond emotionally to a sunset, as will I. That, of course, says nothing about the explanation for that sunset. If you want to explain it as participating in the divine, that's fine with me. My problem with your approach above is that, even once you allow that artists need not believe in the divine, you continue to refer to beauty as something incomprehensible and unfathomable. A child may be impressed by electricity while not understanding how electricity works. That does not make electricity incomprehensible. That a child doesn't understand what causes a sunset to be red doesn't make sunsets incomprehensible either. And that a sunset is, in fact, quite comprehensible, doesn't negate the fact that it is beautiful to look at and awe inspiring even for those, like me, who don't believe in God and believe deeply that science can and will explain most things.

[rocky_berlier]

<b>RB:</b><i>"I am not religious nor a zealot of faith."</i>

<br>

<b>TG:</b> <i>"Hmmmmm!"</i>

<br>As I have reiterated, one need not be such to appreciate art.<br><br>

<b>TG:</b> <i>"Divine...of or pertaining to <b><u>a</u></b> god, esp. the Supreme Being."</i> [my emphasis]<br>Yes, "a" god (small "g") and not necessarily "The God" (big "G"). If one reads further, it can also be use as a descriptive term of something (meta) "beyond" the physical senses (as I have used it).<br>

<br><b>TG:</b> <i>"I am religious and stay away from <b>zealots on both sides of the isle.</b>"</i><br>

This, perhaps, confuses politics with religion (unless politics BE your religion). It is dubious that "zealots" sit on both sides of <b><i>any</i></b> "isle." In any case, with regard to this discussion and your admission of such religious faith, it does strike one as being contradictory with regard to your outspoken opposition to my statements of divinity. How does one rectify this contradiction? <br>Logically, if one believes in a religion, does this not imply <i>faith</i> in a Supreme Being? If there IS faith in a Supreme Being, then why would this Being NOT be regarded as the source of GREATness and Beauty? It is implicit in such faith. Perhaps, this is too theosophical for this discussion.<br> Nevertheless, how is it that <i><u>any</u></i> mention of "divinity" is now an expression of zealotry?<br>

<br><b>TG:</b> <i>"Hmmmmm!"</i><br>The ambiguity of all this humming is too vague to draw any conclusions as to their meaning... but then, perhaps, this is what you intended.<br><br>

 

<b>RB:</b> <i>"It would be more productive to debate the statements without attacking the writer."</i>

<br><b>TG:</b> <i>"Yes, we shan't use language for it's intended purpose (convey an idea) as that would be inconvenient."</i><br>One would hope that this "conveyance of ideas" could be done so without ridicule and contention as well. Especially, given that these are far too easily employed by those who have simply run out of ideas.<br>Beyond the simple act of being "respectful" of others, my above comment is a standard debate protocol.<br>

<br><b>TG:</b> <i>"Me thinks I'm being fished."</i><br>One has to wonder (once again) as to your meaning. However, I would remind you that it was you who challenged <b>my</b> statements and not the other way around. So, who is "fishing" whom?<br><br><b>TG:</b> <i>"Wishing you well."</i><br>And you.

[nicolerenee]

I suppose I should have known that this question would end up on the theosophical side of things when I asked it.

Personally, I dont know how anyone could look at the majesty around us with all it's complexity and NOT believe in God. Science and faith (I am not one for "religion" but "relationship" instead) arent mutually exclusive although some would like to think they are.

 

For me, the appreciation of beauty is only heightened knowing that the God I have a relationship with created it all.

 

Perhaps defining GREAT would help us in answering this question.

Are we using a dictionary definition or common speach?

When I wrote the above, I meant the word in the context of general concensus (after all, you cant please everyone).

[beeman458]

"In any case, with regard to this discussion and your admission of such religious faith, it does strike one as being contradictory with regard to your outspoken opposition to my statements of divinity. How does one rectify this contradiction?"

 

In the simple; One does not need to agree in order to understand and understanding is not the act of agreeing. "Greatness" is a human construct and has nothing, especially in regard to Postmodern photographic think, to do with "Divine."

 

Please reread my comments and you'll see there's no opposition as I'm only commenting on the flaw or conflict in your own comments as they apply to contemporary photographic Postmodern art and the Progressive Humanist roots (atheistic) and the "Divine has nothing to do with "declared" "greatness." Greatness is only a reaction to taught bias.

 

"So, who is "fishing" whom?"

 

One only needs to see how ever expandingly wide you cast your net in your above comments (last post) to understand of what I write.