Wrong to see your own work as great?

[saskphotog]

Gees, guys. There's nothing wrong with seeing yourself, or your work, as great, unless you, or it, aren't. Then it's just delusional.

 

What's so hard about that?

 

I try hard to hide my delusional fantasies from most people. They can cause problems if everyone knows.

[Matt Laur]

They've got this crazy new thing called a dictionary.

<Br><br>

Main Entry: <b>great</b>

<br>Function: adjective

<br>Etymology: Middle English <i>grete</i>, from Old English great; akin to Old High German <i>groz</i> large

<br>Date: before 12th century

<br>1 a: notably large in size : huge b: of a kind characterized by relative largeness - used in plant and animal names c: elaborate, ample

<br>2 a: large in number or measure : numerous (<i>great multitudes</i>) b: predominant (<i>the great majority</i>)

<br><b>3: remarkable in magnitude, degree, or effectiveness</b>

<br>4: full of emotion (<i>great with anger</i>)

<br><b>5 a: eminent, distinguished (<i>a great poet</i>) b: chief or preeminent over others - often used in titles (<i>Lord Great Chamberlain</i>) c: aristocratic, grand</b>

<br>6: long continued (<i>a great while</i>)

<br>7: principal, main (<i>a reception in the great hall</i>)

<br>8: more remote in a family relationship by a single generation than a specified relative (<i>great-grandfather</i>)

<br><b>9: markedly superior in character or quality; especially : noble</b>

<br><br>

So, if one personally feels that their work actually <i>is</i> markedly superior to other work, or feels that they actually <i>are eminent and distinguished</i> as a photographer, and don't think that crowing about themselves that way might make them sound a wee bit vain, well then perhaps "great" is a good self-label. To me, it feels like one of those recent school board programs that make sure that everyone makes the football team and everyone (or no one!) is the valedictorian, lest young minds become polluted with the evil notion that... just maybe!... some people actually are better at some things than most other people. The peril of the scholastic self-esteem movement, apparently, is that it actually sticks. What a disservice to students that might otherwise have discovered the joy of genuinely <i>earning</i> accolades as the fruit of actually doing something outstanding. When everyone's outstanding, no one is. When simply asserting your own greatness gives you the same feeling as tangibly producing something that you can point to as actually superior, then something's very wrong.

<br><br>

If you can use the word great, then you have to be able to define or show that which is NOT great. Greatness doesn't exist without a majority of other things which are NOT great. We all hate to be lumped into the Not Great category, but denying that it exists isn't just silly, it implies the inability to understand that comparitive adjectives require you to <i>actually make a comparison</i>. Between two more more things. If you're great, can you point to that which is less great? And more to the point... have you really not encountered work that's better than yours? If you're uncomfortable comparing yourself to others, then you should also be uncomfortable using vocabulary that - absent a comparison and an articulated standard - is meaningless.

<br><br>

So, for those that feel that seeing their own work as Great is essential to continuing on, I ask only that you say this out loud: "My work is much better than most other work I have seen or am likely to ever see - it defines Greatness." You have to keep your face straight, of course.

[chris_waller]

That's par for the course. About once every five years I produce an absolutely perfect neg which just sings; everything is perfect - exposure, composition, development. After 25 years as a photographer it happens maybe a little more frequently. The best of my photographs (about 200 over 25 years), I'm happy to hang on a wall for public viewing, the rest stay in my files for old time's sake.

[pnital]

"Surely self confidence and belief in what you are doing is a must for any endeavour in life."

 

I think it is right, I simply enjoy and love phgotography, see it as a mediom to create what I want, I don't think of greatness, I do think of quality , doing it as best as I can.Learning all the time to improve my skills., I upload what I think is good.

 

Greatness,is rare, and even the great names have good works, some medium , and a few great.

and there is also as in any field in our life the market powers , that has their saying.

[tommyyearginjr]

<blockquote><i>"Surely self confidence and belief in what you are doing is a must for any endeavour in life."</i></blockquote><br>It's OK to be self critical, and desirable to get criticism from the outside, but I wouldn't make it a habit of beating myself up all the time. My photography is what it is. It's up to me to improve and seek guidance on how to be better.

[Allen Herbert]

They've got this crazy new thing called a dictionary.

 

They've got this crazy new thing called Colloquial English;). Sort of like every day use...Yes, it's wicked...but words are a living breathing, entity, not fixed in some sort of time warp.

 

So, "great" is really a loose term, just an expression...no need to turn it into the "holy grail" of words.

 

Perhaps believe and confidence would be a better turn of phrase.

[Matt Laur]

Allen: of course adjectives drift over time. But context matters. I'm happy to say to someone, "That was a great meal, thank you." But that's very different than saying, "I am a great photographer." The latter has an obvious connotation. Just like "I am a great musician," or "I am [implying, like Shakespeare] a great playwrite."

<Br><br>

The thread above is exploring - to a certain extent - whether it's appropriate to label your own work as "great." No matter how much that word might drift into watered-down usage, it remains a word that only works if you're comparing one thing to another, and it implies a position superior to other things. Regardless, that much is clearly stipulated by the OP, above. He's not questioning whether or not "great" means "superior to other stuff," he's questioning whether he should feel wrong about declaring his own work thus.

[justinblack]

It is more important to consider whether a given photograph or body of work has achieved

what you wanted it to, whether it truly speaks to you personally, whether it can be

considered really important or meaningful to you. Then, it is up to others to decide what

they see in your work.

 

Beyond that, I think that is it fairly safe to say that truly great photographers never refer to

themselves as such.

[cmulcahy]

I hate that I'm not good at taking pictures. I wish I was great. I wish I could better photograph what I see. I look at "great" pictures and I think "why the heck can't I do that?" Or "how the hell did he/she get that shot?" Sometimes I think "yea I could take that shot if I was there...they were just lucky enough to be there" Often a great picture has nothing to do with the photographer other then he/she happened to be pushing the shutter release button.

 

Occasionally I am truly satisfied with a picture I take. So I show it off, thinking to my self "I did good" and usually the response I get is "eh" Or I'll post one up here for critique and I'll get one or two responses and a bunch of average scores. I suppose for me it's good, but for some accomplished pro it's garbage. The important thing is it makes me happy to take a shot that I think is great. It does feel good to hear other photographers sing praise of one of your shots. Isn't that why most are here?

 

There's nothing wrong with thinking a picture you take is great, I think that feeling is what gets most of us to spend all that money on equipment and time doing this?

[bobtodrick]

For me, the fact that my elusive 'great' shot is still out there is what keeps me spending money.

 

Again, a lot of thinking along the lines of 'great' being an acceptable word in place of 'good' or 'so-so'...or the above thinking, that because it pleases me it is great, is what has got us in one of the cultural pickles we are in these days...that people yak on for hours without really communicating effectively.

 

To me the misuse here of the word 'great' is just a step on the road to 'Iraq has WMD's'...you know, a couple of old rifles and a pipe bomb.

[KenPapai]

<i>"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."</i>

<p>

I've never read anything more silly or pretentious in my life (except for most of what I type)! LOL.

<p>

I think one or two "great" pictures per year suffices one to Stay in the Game whether you are a pro, semipro, top amateur, or merely a rank hobbyist.

[hjoseph7]

Wow, this guy Bob Kolbrenner was great, why is it he's not more famous !

[mg]

This topic is very boring - imho. :-)

 

Talking about what makes a great picture seems a lot more interesting than labeling our own pictures as "great". Labels never did anything good for Humanity: they separated people (or things) in several categories. Whereas talking about what people or things sharing the same category would possibly have in common would help develop the mind, and would prepare us to welcome a lot more people (or ideas) in our own land. Pictures can be great in so many ways. Do we know all these ways ? Do we understand them all ? That's a lot more challenging thing to discuss, rather then admiring our own little self-appointed "masterpieces" - which are probably not worth much anyway, and which are surely someone else's trash at any rate...

[jtk]

"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."

 

For others, photography is pursued passionately: not merely "pleasant," utilitarian, or for family/friends. For some it's more like poetry (to use Bill Brandt's word): inherently difficult, failing more often than it succeeds.

 

?I write one page of masterpiece to ninety one pages of shit,? Hemingway confided to F. Scott Fitzgerald in 1934. ?I try to put the shit in the wastebasket.?

 

What's your photo wastebasket ratio?

[bobtodrick]

Pretty high.

 

 

In the film days I was happy to have 1 'keeper' per roll. And many of these never saw the light of day (or a gallery wall...I exhibit in a number of local galleries)...they just weren't wastebasket material.

 

I'm pretty ruthless in my editing. And what my friends really find hard to believe is that when I find that one frame, I cut it out (with the neg on either side as 'fingerholds')...and throw the other 33 negs in the wastebasket.

 

It's the same with digital. This past week I recorded about 300 images in three separate shoots...about 30 have made the initial rough cut and I'll likely end up with 10 images I'll keep or print.

 

And not one of them 'great' LOL

[i see simplicity]

I don't think it is wrong to see your own work as great. Personally I do take a large amounts of pictures as i go along but I can only accept one or two that I classify them as exactly as i wanted them to be. I mean what is wrong my claiming that a specific shot is just perfect just as you have imagined it, after all that is what photography is all about a n expression and if the photo really expresses what you have inside then it has reached its objective.

[bobtodrick]

Just 'cause it's reached it's objective does not make it great.

 

Sheeesh...how often does this have to be repeated. Just about every 'advertising' photo reaches it's objective. So I guess all that crap out there is great.

[i see simplicity]

I don't think that we are speaking about ad pictures we are speaking about art about something that vibrates that gives energy so if a photo can give you the shivers if it can bring tears to your eyes, if it can make you forget time and talk to yourself then i guess you agree with me bob that it is a great photo.

[bobtodrick]

I guess I feel that only time can determine if a photo (or anything) is 'great'.

I can think of a number of photographs that make be think of a particular time, or make me look inward...doesn't mean they're great...just that they've touched a chord in me (though they may very well be great).

But I know what you mean Rueben.

For me the point is that we trivialize 'great' when we call anything that is half-arsed good...'great' (I never did think Frosted Flakes were that much better than Corn Flakes)...also, as was stated by someone else, the truly great seldom use that term...it seems to me that part of 'greatness' usually includes being humble.

But what do I know...I don't think I've produced anything great yet, so maybe I'm just not in the know...

[Allen Herbert]

...it seems to me that part of 'greatness' usually includes being humble

 

Ha, that Mr Mohammed Ali has a lot to answer for. Perhaps in his greatness he was humble to.

[Allen Herbert]

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Oo23

 

Orville Robertson, Mar 16, 2008; 12:11 p.m.

[Allen Herbert]

You have to believe that your work is as good as anyone, including Cartier-Bresson, Winogrand, Frank, Weiss, Kertesz, Levitt (in my mind the best of this bunch) so you can shoot knowing that your contributions are valuable and add depth to the understanding and appreciation of the streets.

 

Street or whatever.....

[Allen Herbert]

The above was the words of Orville Robertson on the street forum

 

Just a few thought..

[Allen Herbert]

Hey, if you want to call it great.....well, go for it. Walk tall.....

[i see simplicity]

I am really surprised by how many negativeness exists. The more I find great photos the more i find the urge to capture more greater ones. I mean what is great in a Picasso or a Dali painting. Is it not the way a message is transposed through a picture, is it not the meaning and the way this is done through colors or shadows or postures. is it not the whole composition of the picture that translates from words to paint. Isn't photography the same?