Why is it that the best photos are after the photographer's ONLY good photo?

[allenspencer]

It's something I've been noticing lately, that when you see a truly great

photograph, often the photographer's other work isn't just not-so-good, but

many times total crap.

[User_276104]

I'd guess it's the same reason a record album usually has 2 good songs and 8 bland ones. After 5+ albums of that, a Greatest Hits album is released.

[bobatkins]

Examples?

[aplumpton]

Sort of like the songwriter-singer that wrote "American Pie" ("..down on the levy..") or

the writer and composer of the musical "Hair". Great creations, but (as far as I know)

singular ones (although Galt McDermott had some college review successes

beforehand in Montreal).

 

It happens. But it is not common. Not to worry about.

[mrstubbs]

It's a bit like choosing a wife. Sometimes she just stands out like a rose...and the rest look like wilted lillies. Doesn't mean lillies are crap...just means you love the missus.

[lex_jenkins]

It's a cliche but nonetheless true: The difference between a good photographer and a great photographer is selectivity. Great photographers don't show you their mediocre work.

[jbs]

Well, at least they had one "truly great photograph" in your eyes at least. If you are talking only of someones work as seen on Pnet then you may not have seen all of their work.

[david brown]

Its a bit like negotiation, if you start at the top you cannot negotiate down so you have nowhere else to go.

[allenspencer]

A few well photographers. Ansel Adams (Moon Rise is amazing, but his other work is just above-average landscapes.) And Dorothea Lange (A few of her photos, Migrant Mother especially, are extremely powerful, most of her others being just decent documentary work.) And I've noticed it pervasively on this site, but I won't mention photographers.

[lex_jenkins]

"...Moon Rise is amazing, but his other work is just above-average landscapes..."

 

Photographers don't often get to choose what is considered their "best" work. That's usually done by editors, curators and gallery owners.

 

Passive consumers of media seldom know what is an artist's "best" work because they know only what they've seen, which is usually the result of repetition. They think it's the best because they've seen it, their friends and family have seen it, and they've been reassured by the community at large that it's the best.

 

These are the same people who love Sheryl Crow and have no idea who Maria McKee is. One is no better than the other. But Crow has benefited from massive publicity, while McKee has remained relatively obscure and beloved by a smallish cult following. Ditto the folks who like the song "Not An Addict" but barely recognize the band's name, K's Choice, and have no idea who Sarah Bettens is.

 

You should expand the scope of your appreciation of photography beyond the equivalent to pop music that you've heard hundreds of times on the radio.

[darius.tulbure]

<i>I'd guess it's the same reason a record album usually has 2 good songs and 8 bland ones. After 5+ albums of that, a Greatest Hits album is released.</i>

<p>

It's the case of mediocre musicians, and by extension, the case of any mediocre artist. Listen to the firs Queen albums. After a while you could say it's hit after hit, despite the fact that just a few of the songs appear on their "Greatest hits" album. And you know what? A friend of mine can't accept that Queen has any other good songs besides the ones that appear on their "Greatest hits".

<p>

Like Lex said, consumers "think it's the best because they've seen it, their friends and family have seen it, and they've been reassured by the community at large that it's the best."

[acarodp]

I actually end up liking MOST the songs which are not in the greatest hits (queen are an example, I also think the first albums are the best). This is not surprising. "Greatest hits" means "lot of people liked them" which generally means they are "easy" songs, made to please a casual and not so educated audience. Which often (not always) will make them boring, on the long run, to more dedicated listeners. It is the same for photographs, novels, movies and every other conceivable art form. I'm educated on some things and much less on others, and I can see on myself that I'm much more selective in some than in others.

So I think your question has two answers. The first one has been given: nobody is always at his own top level, and nobody is always good in selecting his own work. Also, I pu on photo.net some photos I consider strong on themselves, and others that are not SO strong, but useful, e.g. in a travel folder, tho round up the impression of the place visited.

The second reason might be that simply other photos appeal to you less because they are less easy, their value is more subtle, they require more time to be understood and judged. Everybody of us often has time only for the "greatest hits"...

Ciao L.

[tholte]

Spencer, for only being here one month, you have imparted a tremdous amount of photographic knowledge and wisdom. Where you come up with these gems makes me wonder where I went wrong. I have seen shows of both Adams and Lange and thought their images were absolutely stunning. Have you ever seen the work of great photographers in person at a museum or gallery? Come to think of it, after reading some of your previous posts and looking at your images, you strike me as kid sitting in his dorm room dreaming up dumb questions to see if the chumps at PN will waste their time responding to them. By the way, your sentence "A few well photographers." is incorrect. Neither Adams or Lange is "well", they are both dead. They were both "good" however, especially when it came to producing images that veiwers will appreciate and admire for a long time to come.

[don_e]

Spencer, you really really really need to drop all this great/greatest crap.

[._._z]

Agreed.

[michaeljlawson]

Maybe they are people like me in the learning process. They post their average stuff, get feedback, and hopefully post better shots next time. You see a great shot in the recent posts, it's one of their best shots to date, and expect all their other shots to be the same quality. Without knowing who they are, how long they've been shooting, or what their goals are, how can you judge them so generally?

[john_h.1]

"when you see a truly great photograph, often the photographer's other work isn't just not-so-good, but many times total crap."

 

When you see a post about other photographer's work being very lousy, often a review of poster's own portfolio may be not-so-good, indeed it can be most revealing.

[gordonjb]

All my photos are crap. That is why I keep shooting. I figure sooner or later one of them is bound to be great. If I ever get that great one, you will click on my portfolio and discover all the crap.

[petemillis]

I'm enjoying Spencer's questions as they start off interesting threads, so don't knock him!

 

Back to the subject....I wonder if sometimes the one that is popular is the one seen as good, and because it's perceived as being good then it becomes more popular. And the less popular ones are then perceived as obviously not so good as they are less popular. Like Darius said with "Queen" as an example. The Spice Girls had a song out called "I'll Tell You What I Want" (or something like that). It became very very popular and so obviously it must have been really good....NOT. And some of their other stuff must have been crap as it didn't become so popular. I think it's crap and is far less listenable to than some of their unpopular, more recent, and obviously even more crap songs.

[petemillis]

Gord....hi there!

[saskphotog]

I'm sorry, but I think the whole premise of the question is just wrong.

[joseph_wisniewski]

"Sort of like the songwriter-singer that wrote "American Pie" ("..down on the levy..") or the writer and composer of the musical "Hair". Great creations, but (as far as I know) singular ones"

 

What is it about photographers and music? (Aside from the annoying way they ask "where can I get royalty free music for my slide shows and web site?" but turn purple when someone asks to use their photographs on similar terms...)

 

Singer-songwriter Don McLean, of "American Pie" fame, had another Billboard hit "Vincent" on the very same album as "American Pie". You know "Starry, starry night. Paint your palate blue and gray..."

 

Another Billboard hit was "And I Love You So", which not only made the charts for McLean, but did it again when Elvis did a cover, and again for Perry Como as the title track for his album "And I Love You So". That one was covered by everyone from Sinatra to Garth Brooks.

 

"Castles In the Air" is another billboard hit, as is the later work "Chain Lightning" and "Since I Don't Have You". McLean?s cover of Roy Orbison?s "Crying" also charted. Orbison though McLean?s version was better than his own, and began singing it McLean?s way. Somewhere in the 80?s, he went country, and charted repeatedly on the country charts, but I tend to define "music" as "everything but country and rap", so we won?t go there...

 

The triple Grammy song "Killing Me Softly With His Song" is actually about Don McLean and his songs. Perry Como thought a cover version of that song was appropriate as the second song on his album "And I Love You So", following the McLean song.

 

Incidentally, "down on the Levy" is John Anderson. McLean's famous line was "Drove my Chevy to the levy, but the levy was dry".

 

You're right about Hair, though...

[mike dixon]

You forgot to mention my favorite Don McLean song: "Everybody Loves Me, Baby (What's the Matter with You?)"

[silverdae]

Joseph- Thanks for giving Don McLean his due... great songs, all of them.

[ellis_vener_photography]

What a trite question.