What makes a photo GREAT?

[Norma Desmond]

Nicole, I know lots of people who believe in science and also have faith so I do understand that they are not mutually exclusive. And I also understand that we each have our own perspectives. Just as you have a hard time understanding my being able to look at the majesty of a mountain chain and NOT believe in God, I have trouble understanding anyone with intelligence believing in an unprovable being. To me, God and unicorns have about equal validity and play about as important a role in my own existence and morality. But, I surely hope that these differences needn't divide us just as I wish that the divisions among those who believe in God based on different religions wouldn't keep leading to wars (a reason, one might consider, that the God who oversees all of his followers killing each other in his name is, indeed, incomprehensible). Whatever, in any of us, allows us to appreciate beauty and propels us to want to convey that to others, is ok with me. I don't mind the Divine being given a role by those who desire that. The two assumptions I was providing an alternative to, which Rocky put forward, are that Beauty is incomprehensible and that intellectual and emotional responses are antithetical. Those are points that can be refuted both by people who believe in the divine and by people who don't.

[albert_richardson1]

I'll admit that I haven't read all the responses carefully. The discussion has gotten off track from the original question. Greatness is an attribute other people give a person in recognition for something they see as an achievement. Rosa Parks got a lot of recognition recently for her courageous act on a bus during the United States Civil Rights movement over 50 years ago. She said that at the time she didn't think refusing to go to the back seat as something great, it was simply something that she needed to do. A lot of things we now take for granted reflect greatness are like this very thing.

 

A better question would be do the photographers receiving widespread recognition for greatness think of themselves as great or special in some way? How do they keep public pressure for spectacular results from ruining their work?

 

Thare are a lot of stereotyped images in American popular culture of people who think they are great, but produce nothing. We've all seen depictions of the vain artist with an oversize ego. But by (my) definition great people have to do and produce something for others to see to earn their applause.

 

I have come to believe that many times people do not themselves understand their own strengths and weaknesses. Gamblers, athletes, and contestants of all kinds (employees?) know first hand how difficult it is to first recognize opportunities to better their position and then to take winning action to actually seize the benefit of their situation when they can. The point is that people don't manipulate others to get themselves called great, other people see something they think is worthwhile and then they use words like great.

 

Attributing greatness to a photograph is a way of saying that a person appreciates the work. Speaking for myself, it is a way of saying that I would like to see more similar work. Critics and ordinary people often reach a consensus about this sort of thing. Tastes and opinions change in time so you can't conclude that the merit or greatness of a work is settled forever.

 

So to get to the point, I don't think I can answer the original question to the expectation of the OP. There is no standard I can rely on to be a final and permanent measure of the merits of a photograph. My taste in art is a personal matter as the OP suggests, but through study and my own efforts to learn to appreciate what others make I hope to be able to recognize photographic value when I see it.

 

BTW: If anyone ever reads far enough down this thread to find my response, or stumbles on it by accident, thank you for taking the time to read and reflect on it.

 

Albert

[nicolerenee]

Fred, no, that needn't devide us at all. I wouldnt dream of discriminating against someone for their convictions (under any normal circumstance...if their conviction was to kill me, that might change ;)

I can see the evidence of God every day in radically changed lives. If you've ever a notion, I would recomend the book "Mere Christianity" by CS Lewis. He was an atheist at one time.

As far as religious wars are concerned, that is the curse of free will and mans tendancy to pervert anything and use it for his own desires. Most christians do not believe that the same god is worshipped by anyone who believes in a supreme being (the whole same god by all names idea) but these ideas are probably best kept in personal messages and out of the forum since the OP had nothing to do with faith or religion in a strict sense.

 

Moving on, I think what Rocky stated before makes the most sense to me as far as the OP was concerned on a personal level although I know it may not be an answer that satisfies everyone. I imagine this thread will just end up with a "this question is too subjective" answer and get dropped.

I was just hoping that there was some binding tie, whether in people or photos, that connected what we consider great. If it is simply "briliant use of light" or our own propensity as humans to admire beauty might be something we'll never agree on.

[rocky_berlier]

<b>Nicole and Fred,</b><br>

<b>Fred</b>, I appreciate your respectful tone and thoughtful discourse. You've given me lots to contemplate.<br>

<b>Nicole</b>, I like your whole attitude about this. My responses just seem to be throwing fuel on the fire and the discussion is devolving into the nether-regions of "subjectivity."<br>

For now, I shall let my comments stand on their own without further qualification. I've said about as much as one can on the subject and going deeper into explanation or responding to challenge only seems to intensify the antipathy toward this perspective. Hopefully, there are some who will find this all thought provoking or useful. I have.<br>

~ Warmest regards, <b>Rocky</b>

[Norma Desmond]

Nicole/Rocky-- I think perhaps there is a binding tie, but not the one that was asked about. Perhaps there is no one thing that binds us in determining WHAT is great art (both in terms of what things we think of as great and what attributes works of art have that make us think of them as great), but if we agree that it is a subjective matter, then don't we actually agree on a lot? I'm asking this, not answering it, but does that mean that there is no objective quality that things have that make them beautiful or great and that it is something within each of us in relationship to the object that is at work? And if that's the case, then is the thing we share HOW something is great? I may very well respond to different things as great than you do. You may hate a photo that I love and vice versa, but maybe what we share is that we each know what the other is talking about when we say "that is GREAT." I may not agree that "that is great" but at least I know what that feeling of being in the presence of greatness is. That's at least a start. Even though I can talk about photography and philosophy for hours, sometimes I think the greatest photographs are those that have that certain something that is very hard to put into words. Kind of the you-know-it-when-you-see-it syndrome. My favorite photos and works of art in general, although I usually do find words to describe them to a point, are ones that just feel somehow right. You look at it and say, "of course, that's it." For me, it's often something that seems so obvious, if only I had thought of it, or painted it, or captured it on film. Like, "oh yeah, it was there all the time, just waiting to be exposed." I'm a big believer that humans communicate, whether through language or artistic symbols, and we communicate because of shared wiring and/or experiences. Greatness seems like one of those things.

[nicolerenee]

Fred, it sounds like you've hit quite close to the center, at least as close as can be expected. Perhaps the binding tie of greatness is that we know everyone else knows it, too. That something that can only be felt at its deepest level and eludes words, whether we agree on what constitutes it or not.

 

Thanks to everyone for your thoughtfull insights and discourse. This was a worthwhile post for me.

[beeman458]

"Kind of the you-know-it-when-you-see-it syndrome."

 

"Perhaps the binding tie of greatness is that we know everyone else knows it, too."

 

What's lacking in conversation is the lack of cross-cultural ties to greatness. In order to understand "greatness" one must explore cultural bias; taught thinking. Why? Would one have the same feelings of "greatness" if exploring Asian art, with strictly a Eurocentric background (education) when compared to Eurocentric art? Would one look at Inuit art claim "greatness" when confronted by Mexican Muralist art?

 

The point of my above, art is a divergent class of effort and when one throws around terms like "greatness" one must "first" understand the genesis of the standards by which the term "greatness" is applied and how much of this feeling of "greatness" is based upon taught (biased) thinking.

 

The fact, I'm sure, that we can all point out titles of "great" European art, yet how many among us would know "great" Chinese or Japanese art from the same time frame as that of Shakespeare, Beethoven or Michelangelo? This should cause one pause when asking a question of this nature. How many even know Michelangelo's last name; Michelangelo di Lodovico Buonarroti Simoni?

 

If the standards of "greatness" were as simple as "you-know-it-when-you-see-it," then the same would apply to an art form one isn't familiar with, irrespective of who's mind stream (culture) it wells up from.

[Norma Desmond]

Thomas, it is perhaps only you that thinks that the "you-know-it-when-you-see-it" approach is simple. Why could it not include all of what you've insightfully suggested? When I use the term "subjective," one of the reasons I use it (as the opposite of "objective") is precisely because I am aware of the cultural perspectives and biases which inform most of our judgments as humans. That I might not see a work of Asian art as great may just prove the point we've been making about there being no objective criteria that are determinative here. And the "tie that binds" may still remain that, within each culture, what people view as great may have a "you-know-it-when-you-see-it" feeling. Feelings, which is where I was trying to steer the discussion, are probably more universal than tastes and judgments. So that even though what I consider great and what someone of another culture considers great (just as I posited that what I consider great and what Nicole or Rocky consider great may vary) may be different, that feeling of seeing or experiencing greatness may be what binds us.

[nicolerenee]

Thomas, I may not know the names of historical asian artists, or even the last names and full histories of some of my favorite euro-artists or even american artists but I do know what I like and what affects me.

 

My tastes dont seem to be constricted to any particular style, genre, time period or culture. I get the same feeling when I see something that catches my eye and then my imagination. I feel bemused, drawn in, almost as if there is some part of me in that work of art. Although standing in and admiring a cathedral differes from looking at a Monet, I still feel awed.

I agree with Fred, I dont believe feelings are constricted to culture even when tastes and judements may be.

[beeman458]

"...but I do know what I like and what affects me."

 

Wasn't your question in regard to "What makes a photo GREAT?" not about what it is you like, personally? Two totally different genres. My comments are in regard to the question of "great" as opposed to what a person likes, personally.

[beeman458]

"So that even though what I consider great and what someone of another culture considers great (just as I posited that what I consider great and what Nicole or Rocky consider great may vary) may be different, that feeling of seeing or experiencing greatness may be what binds us."

 

The point I was trying to make is that "greatness" is not so universal as some wish to believe as once one steps out of their cultural norms for their environment and goes into someone else's art world, "greatness" becomes muddled real fast.

 

It sounds like we're agreeing; just doing so on different pages of the same pad. :)

[Norma Desmond]

Does seem that way, Thomas. Thanks.

[nicolerenee]

Point taken, Thomas, thank you.

 

The point I meant to make (and not very well apparently) is that the feelings I get from being in the presence of something great(usually something I like) and the feelings of someone in Asia who is looking at something he or she considers great are likely very similar. That may be the tie that connects greatness and not necessarily a set of subjective standards.

[beeman458]

Another thought in regard to "greatness;" it seems that greatness is tied into the think of the contemporary moment.

 

To me, the first Postmodern photographic image, came out of earlier times when photography moved away from Stieglitz's iron fist with Steichen's "Milk Bottle; Spring," c1915.

 

http://www.masters-of-photography.com/S/steichen/steichen_milk_bottles_full.html

 

The greatness of the image was not in the feelings that it invokes but in the brass necessary for a notable to break away from the typical taught think of the time; bias.

 

The greatness of Model was that she turned the camera onto the population as opposed to inanimate objects such as buildings and nature.

 

http://www.masters-of-photography.com/M/model/model_running_legs.html

 

http://www.masters-of-photography.com/M/model/model_sammys_full.html

 

The greatness of Diane Arbus was that she not only turned the camera on that what made us feel squeamish but I feel that she was looking back at the camera, through the eyes of those she showcased; "Freaks-R-Us."

[ellis_vener_photography]

"Is there any standard by which you can measure a photo to determine it's "greatness"? "

 

Your personal emotional, intellectual and aesthetic connection with the image. And in some way it should astound you. It willshow you something, somewhere, someone, or some event in a way that challenges your complacency.

[Norma Desmond]

Stimulated by Thomas's most recent response, I've always felt that there are two types of reactions I have to works of art (whether photography, film, music, painting, etc.). One is somewhat visceral, how does it strike me in my gut. Being a classical music lover, I've often wondered if I love hearing a Beethoven piano sonata now as much as I did before I learned so much about Beethoven and now that I have been able to (sort of) play one myself. With knowledge, sometimes, comes a more intellectual and historical approach that may seem to lessen the visceral reactions. On the other hand, knowing some of the history, what Beethoven was doing and playing with, what rules he was breaking and what musical devices he was inventing, adds a world of dimension to my appreciation of him and his music. I'm not sure these two aspects can be separated. I just think it's important to remember that there is probably some sort of continuum going from innocence (and we are probably never completely innocent of cultural biases and "knowledge")--where we really do react to "greatness" on as primal and visceral a level as possible given our human condition--all the way to Thomas's formulation of being extremely steeped in the "think of the contemporary moment." I think each of us may be at a different place on that continuum and I often feel like I slide up and down on it when I experience greatness myself. It depends on the context. When I'm thinking about greatness, I'm probably toward the latter end. When I'm actually experiencing it (and can rid my mind of my historical knowledge to whatever extent that's possible), I may be closer to the former end of the continuum. However one looks at it, though, I think there is some of each at play, and each is affected and informed by the other. I think what Ellis has just said captures a lot of this quite succinctly by highlighting the "personal emotional, intellectual, and aesthetic connections" that are all at play.

[nicolerenee]

Thats very true Fred, I ding that I agree with you now that I think about how my appreciation of things has changed the more I've learned about them. In fact, it reminds me of something I've read in a Lewis novel relating to love. That our first experince of it is purely visceral, emotional and unfettered. Later, once we've come to know the beloved and the first emotions have faded, something more quiet and deep and fulfilling takes its place.

 

"...the dying away of the first thrill will be compensated for by a quieter and more lasting kind of interest."

C.S. Lewis

[chicodovale]

"Who works with the hands is a laborer. Who works with the hands and with the head he is a craftsman and who works with the hands, with the head and with the heart is an artist."(Anonymous). In my oppinion to produce a Great Photo, to be great, you must to work with your soul.

[felicisimo_silabay]

I agree with you Francisco. Great works of art are the result of the passions given into it.

[src]

Of course religion enters into it. The great masterpieces were Catholic art. There are other masterpieces, but also in support of other religions, depicting assorted gods. Religion may well enter in, or a denial or anti-religion. Either way, particularly for a masterpiece rather than a study, or commercial product, etc.

 

But that doesn't make art great. And I would disagree that mere passion does as well. One can be passionate and not produce great art. What one deems is - great- depends on that religion, or mere philosophy, or other set of value judgments. I say Ansel Adams produced great photographs. Others with to denigrate the work of Adams. I begin from one point of view. They from another. And the same with the work they would say is - great - whether or not they really believe it.

 

I wrote an essay on this as - what is art? - at scenic-route.com. But ultimately great art would include that which doesn't 'get old'. You've seen it, but don't consider it consumed. You'll see it again, and find something. And won't think it boring, or consumed. Months later, years later, again you find something. You consider it great again. And again, decades, if you're so bleseed - great again.

[nicolerenee]

It makes sense that something you consider great should have lasting power.

[Norma Desmond]

Yet some things are great just because they capture something very unique to the particular

times or mileau and won't necessarily last. Many would consider Rowan and Martin's Laugh-

In to be a great tv show of the 70s, yet I've seen reruns recently and--to me--it didn't hold

up anymore. I still think it was a great show. Lots of the Haight Ashbury bands were great but

I wouldn't want to listen to them today. I think some of the greatest phenomena are

temporary and fleeting.

[john_so2]

A great story or narrative behind a photo can make it great. I doesn't matter if it conforms to the conventions of "technically good photographs", but for as long as it makes your viewers stop and think, then I beleive that that photo is truly a great one.

[timzeipekis]

WOW! I think my head just exploded. Its hard to imagine all of this crammed into one "great" photograph. It seems to me anytime a photograph achieves "greatness" is when it becomes commercially successful. If a tree falls in the woods and nobody is around, does it make a sound? A magnificent and awe inspiring photograph may never be seen by anyone other than its creator. Does that make it any less "great"?

[beeman458]

"If a tree falls in the woods and nobody is around, does it make a sound?"

 

Yes as there will always be the wee little wood's creatures to pickup the vibrations. No vibration in the woods, goes unnoticed. :)