allenspencer Posted March 30, 2008 Share Posted March 30, 2008 3/7? 5/7? 7/7? http://caraphillips.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/weston_pepper_number30.jpg http://www.picture-box.com/Resources/Edward-Weston.jpg http://www.photo.net/bboard-uploads/00KJMo-35455884.jpg http://www.macobo.com/essays/eimages/Excusado.jpg http://web.ncf.ca/ek867/weston.eroded.jpg http://edcone.typepad.com/wordup/images/2007/06/02/wspoonwestoncharis_2.jpg http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en-commons/thumb/b/b2/300px-Lange-MigrantMother02.jpg http://www.afterimagegallery.com/adamslargemoonrise.jpg Think very deeply on this, and answer honestly. It's a good way to determine which you value more; the photograph, or the photographer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marshall Posted March 30, 2008 Share Posted March 30, 2008 This kind of exercise gets raised on photo forums from time to time, often tied to a lament about the quality of photography criticism or understanding on whatever forum the point is raised. Personally, I can't answer it. I just can't. These are almost all such famous photographs that to think of them separately is an exercise in futility in some ways. In addition, times are so different now, in sheer volume of photographs presented if nothing else, that it is hard to imagine some great photos achieving the level of - for lack of a better word - impact that these photos are thought to have. Ultimately, while I don't want to respect an honest effort to consider "great", or "important" photographs in new contexts, to me I can't think of a rating of any of these images determining whether I view the photo or the shooter higher. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Laur Posted March 30, 2008 Share Posted March 30, 2008 Really. This is sort of like reading me a passage from Shakespeare, or the Gettysburg Address and asking me how such material might fare in a writing or debate competition. It's impossible to un-hear those works and un-know their context and importance. Likewise with such images. So, rather than answer your rhetorical question, I think it's better to post links to such images occasionally as a reminder that the value of some images doesn't become clear in a five-second glance in the ratings queue. These are good reminders to take a deep breath and linger for a moment as you rate and critique. If that never happened, then <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo.tcl?photo_id=1100067"><b>some masterpieces would go unappreciated</b></a>. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_darnton1 Posted March 30, 2008 Share Posted March 30, 2008 If you posted them, I'd rate most of them as 1 on originality, since they're mostly duplicates of famous old photos by dead guys. Context is everything, and photos like this can't be considered out of their context. Beethoven was a revolutionary in his time, as was Weston, but now either one would *necessarily* be particularly special. Beethoven, now, would be considered a guy trying to be Beethoven. That doesn't demote either, though, because in context in their place and time they were amazing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emre Posted March 30, 2008 Share Posted March 30, 2008 In addition to what Michael said, I question the implicit notion that the state of the art is not advanced over time. Why should a particular work of art "still" be great? Was it great to begin with? In whose opinion? Frankly I do not see the point of this exercise. Let's say I gave all those pictures a rating. What then? (I certainly don't care how other people might rate them.) Should knowing that they were taken by famous people influence my opinion? I do not consider the photographer's stature when evaluating a work of art, but I am interested in knowing the photographer's background and motivation; that is useful information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tholte Posted March 30, 2008 Share Posted March 30, 2008 Spencer is on Spring break and had some time on his hands (three posts in a matter of a few hours) thus the outburst of creativity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manut Posted March 31, 2008 Share Posted March 31, 2008 The quanitity of photographs and the exposure to photographs has increased so much more now than earlier times. We have many good photographers and photos, but very few famous ones. Obviously, even a simple work from a fomous one becomes famous, while some good ones from lesser famous struggle to find the recognition. This is the fact of the matter, and we need to understand it. There is a saying "It takes one to know one". So all the people who consider themselves photographers, should recognize the work of another according to their knowldge of the subject, which may be different in each case. But whenever there is beauty in a photograph it is visible, the amount does not matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allenspencer Posted March 31, 2008 Author Share Posted March 31, 2008 Tim nailed it. Emre, Michael, all my point is, is that if photos that are considered great (None of the "Well who says they're great?!?" crap.), were taken by amateur photographers, would the photos still be seen as great? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandysocks Posted March 31, 2008 Share Posted March 31, 2008 This of course, is a legitimate point. But it has been raised before on this and other forums. More than often enough. The issue raised is obvious enough for most folks. So what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDMvW Posted March 31, 2008 Share Posted March 31, 2008 However, the point Michael makes about originality is an important one. Forgers are sometimes motivated by a sense that their work is "as good as" somebody's. However, this issue of originality comes into that. The term "pastiche" comes to mind. However, "originality" is also often OVERvalued in critiques. Is there room for another 'pepper'? Maybe if it's organic? ;) Ah heck, this is beginning to sound like a Philosophy of Photography post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobatkins Posted March 31, 2008 Share Posted March 31, 2008 You have to put famous images in their historical context. While today they may look ordinary, in their day they may have been revolutionary and highly original. Since many have now been copied a zillion times, the concept of originality is lost if you don't know history. It's like a Model-T Ford. In its day it was brilliant and innovative. If somebody made them today expecting to sell them by the million they'd be bankrupt in a few weeks. Aesthetic tastes also change. Just look at schools like the New Topographers. What's "art" in 1965 wouldn't have been "art" in 1935 and it may not be "art" now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seismiccwave Posted March 31, 2008 Share Posted March 31, 2008 OK I will give them all a 3/3. I can hear Shane Willis screaming! Seriously, other members already pointed out that those images are famous because of context. They were created at a time when photography was not exactly as popular as now. We must enjoy our lives and our surroundings just the way they are and not trying to artificially compare them to something they are not. Is Tiger Woods a better golfer than Bobby Jones? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tholte Posted March 31, 2008 Share Posted March 31, 2008 To stay on this fascinating subject, "Is Tiger Woods a better golfer than Bobby Jones?" Yes he is! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Taylor Posted March 31, 2008 Share Posted March 31, 2008 <a href="http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/2006/06/great-photographers-on-internet.html" rel="nofollow"><b>Like this.</b></a> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_darnton1 Posted March 31, 2008 Share Posted March 31, 2008 The scariest thing in Ian's link is the guy who reads a photo site like that one and doesn't know most of those photos already. About 100% of landscape photos I see in the photo.net galleries remind me of this cartoon: http://www.mrboffo.com/images/daily/1987/120487.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raybrizzi Posted March 31, 2008 Share Posted March 31, 2008 Matt Laur, THANK YOU for posting that link. It was one of the funniest things I've ever seen on Photo.net. Of course I had to add something, not noticing that the thread was 6 years old. As far as those photos go, they're just cliches. SUnsets, nudes, peppers, toilets, poor people living in squalor. Please. Let's have some originality here. Those topics have been explored to death on this site. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
._._z Posted March 31, 2008 Share Posted March 31, 2008 "how would you rate them?" This was done once (at least) on Flickr, when someone posted a famous Cartier-Bresson photo and asked for critiques: "You have to put famous images in their historical context. " Many people consider more highly photos with nostalgia value, whether or not they recognize that they are doing so. In the end, so what? All images have sociological, historical, anthropological and memorabiliac value. Whether they should be considered in evaluation of a photograph is up to the viewer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lex_jenkins Posted March 31, 2008 Share Posted March 31, 2008 Even popular creations are subject to the whims of time and taste. There's no guarantee that today's recognized "masters" of photography will still be considered masters hundreds of years from now. Many writers and artists whose works were once wildly popular are now obscure. The best hope for today's masters to enjoy any name recognition tomorrow lies in discussions like this, where their names are continually repeated. The more often their names are invoked, the higher their standings in statistics based information gathering systems that do not discriminate artistically. Unfortunately, that means that Thomas Kinkade may one day rank statistically alongside Weston. OTOH, it also means that in such a limited context, Kinkade will also take his rightful place alongside Hummel figurines and Sarah Coventry jewelry. Sometimes life is good. And just. And fair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcpoljak2003 Posted March 31, 2008 Share Posted March 31, 2008 If life were fair, and just, and good Thomas Kinkade would have already been boiled alive in linseed oil. And his unholy following too. For dramatic effect, it helps if you say that last part in a witch's voice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lex_jenkins Posted March 31, 2008 Share Posted March 31, 2008 "...witch's voice." That's why I lumped him together with Sarah Conventry, the Tupperware of jewelry for Wicca-wannabes. I doubt Kinkade would know what linseed oil is. He strikes me as more of a Galkyd Lite kinda Painter of Lite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DickArnold Posted April 1, 2008 Share Posted April 1, 2008 It's a troll. I recognize the pictures and I just looked at your gallery Spencer. Somebody should rate those pictures. The Ansel Adams' New Mexico picture is regularly displayed today in galleries and museums where you have to go beyond ratings to be displayed. I would not rate these as photographs but as art which "is in the eye of the beholder" as the hackneyed expression goes. Which is why I don't rate other peoples work. What the hell do I know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now