Popular=Good?

[michaellinder]

<p><em>"there are no</em> "objective, public, criteria" for what is «good». There is only a greater or lesser but always partial consensus of individual assessments."</p>

<p>Felix: I see your position as leading to potentially dangerous consequences. What happens, for example, if at least a "partial consensus" of people view the daily use of heroin as good?</p>

<p>Subjectivity is, no doubt, a part of our reality as persons. But, sooner or later, we will find that there is some objective standard according to which we make sense out of our subjective experience.</p>

 

[Spearhead]

<p>When this thread becomes populated with political posts that don't even mention photography or philosophy in the context of photography, it's a serious problem. Please take politics, especially when it really isn't about photography or issues related to photography, to the Off-Topic Forum. Failure to do so will result in removal from the forum.</P>

[aplumpton]

<p><!--StartFragment-->

<p >Popular photography or art is obviously good in the minds of those who made it popular. That may come from a fairly small cross section of the public and not be representative of the general public opinion.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >However, much of the public has no opinion on what is good art or not, and is mostly not even interested. They are not obliged to be. They may perceive of something as popular and think of reasons other than those related to the quality of the work. It may be "good" because it is simply new or not the previous popular fashion (new car styles...) or because some influential tastemaker has said so. If that is what you consider as good, then popular in that case can equal good.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >But good doesn't need popularity to define or to mesure it. If an experienced eye and mind perceives work that is not at all popular, the result can often be an appreciation by the viewer that the work is uncommonly good. Or bad. Popularity does't even enter into the equation. My experience is that most artists do not consider what is popular as a guideline to what is good. They search for ideas and subjects that are in themselves enlightening and unique, which usually occurs outside of the confines of what is popular to a certain group of the overall public.</p>

<!--EndFragment--></p>

[mizore]

<p>I'd rather keep popularity as orthogonal (not in relationships with either way) to issues of goodness. Various forms of snobbery and inverse snobbery are too common in the arts -- and getting caught in the crossfire can be seriously not fun. If someone is trying to make a living from an art, then the work has to be desirable to enough people with sufficient money to make the living possible.<br>

And if we're going trangressive, there's stuff out there that's still too transgressive for the English language Wikipedia.</p>

<p>Photography (including videos) is the visual medium of records, and anything attempting to be art still have to factor in that expectation even though that would no longer apply with the same force to visual art in other media. The camera is haunted by representations in a way that painting or sculpture hasn't been in the while. </p>

<p>A photograph is often popular if it represents something of wide interest, as long as esthetic values aren't completely lost in the taking. Popularity in this sense (wanting a represention of a significant event or person) doesn't happen in other art forms to the extent that it happens in photography. This is way of being popular in photography that's minimally connected to aesthetic values, what Art X was talking about, but we don't remember individual frames of the Zapruder film; we do remember the execution of a Vietcong spy. There does seem to be a requirement that these photos have some concessions to aesthetic values for them to be icons of the age. Very few of them, if any, come from amateur photographers. A good number of them come from art trained photographers turned journalist. Life Magazine was very popular in its day, and some of the photographers with work there were quite well-respected.</p>

<p>Snapshots can be very loved by people in a limited circle without gettng wider attention. We can appreciate the snapshot aesthetic, the freshness, without remembering any particular snapshot as an iconic photograph.</p>

[felixg]

<p>My genuine and heartfelt apologies for allowing myself to follow the "heroin path" off topic.<br>

My equally genuine and heartfelt thanks to Arthur and Rebecca for their high quality return to the point. And thanks, too, to Jeff for the necessary slap on the wrist.</p>

[bmm]

<p>The philosopher Jeremy Bentham would say a big loud YES to this question.</p>

<p>"<em>The greatest utility to the greatest number of people</em>" was his one and only acid test (noting that 'contentment' and 'pleasure' were defined as utilities for him)</p>

[mizore]

<p>The greatest utility to the greatest number of people is diversity. We don't need to like the same things.</p>

[theresa_nietfeld]

<p>What I like is seldom what the majority likes. I have some artistic sensibility but probably not as much as I should. I find that almost all photographs of heavily made up models are pornographic and sexist to me. I also detest sports. I have little sense of what to shoot to make money and don't like much of what is done for commercial reasons. I guess it is my lack since I am poor. I do enjoy large and medium format pictures of still lifes (not product pictures) and abstracts. To me the great photographers are Steiglitz, Weston, Minor White, Paul Strand and Dianne Arbus. I love the technique of Ansel Adams but his photographs rarely challenge me except in a technical sense. All but Ansel Adams were not commercial successes, yet they are the photographers whose work has and will last. Hopefully when I die the photographs from my productive years will be appreciated by someone and not just thrown in the trash. I shoot digital now and I think the ease of making a photograph degrades their quality but at least I do photograph which I didn't for years when I just had the cameras from my youth to use. I no longer had a darkroom and disability made it very difficult to shoot with a 4x5 view camera and having almost no money meant I couldn't use a lab. I hope for the day when I get out with a tripod mounted camera and do some more work. I don't even use a popular or accepted camera, having an alpha 850. It is nice though not having bells and whistles I don't need and harkens back to the days when the viewfinder was all important.</p>

[asafrye]

<p>Objective=Subjective? Apple=Orange?</p>

 

[aplumpton]

<p>"What I like is seldom what the majority likes." Theresa, I think that is probably as good an approach as one can have to making really good, if not popular, photographs. It's also the perspective of some artists I know who are not particularly rich or commercial, but who are surviving well enough and producing good work. An Alpha 850 is quite a formidable picture crafting device and perhaps if you couple it to an inexpensive software like Elements 6 or 7 you can have a way of tweaking, modifying tonality and re-sizing your images in a manner a bit similar to your previous darkroom work.</p>

[nicolerenee]

<p>Popular+good? If it is still popular 100 years from now, then yep. It probably is.</p>

[mizore]

<p>If you're selling paintings for $40,000, you only need four buyers a year to make a moderate middle class income (minus gallery commissions). If you're selling novels at $6 a book (of which you see about a sixth of the cover price), you've got to be really popular to make a living off them. The first kind of artist doesn't have to worry about being widely popular to make a living (have time to do art). The second one has to either be very popular or not have as much time for art (has to work a day job).</p>

[mikeoday]

<p >In the absence of a universally accepted and truly objective set of metrics, there can be no common definition of ‘good’ nor any sorting of images on the basis of this undefinable absolute. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Popular is not good, but…</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Popular means that a significant number of people appreciate an image and by implication, at least in some way, feel that it is ‘good’. In the absence of an agreed definition, perhaps the most common definition will have to do and if therefore a majority think that an image is ‘good’ then perhaps we should accept that.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >That is not to say that we could not pursue some other goal beyond a nebulous concept of ‘good’. Groups are of course free to choose for themselves a set of standards that are uniquely understood and adhered to by their particular fraternity and judge images accordingly. It is perhaps a little unfair though to attempt to apply those standards to the works of the majority and if they do not measure up then say their images are not ‘good’. After all, at most, they simply fall short of the standards of a minority.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >So, if an image is popularly held to be good, rather than dismissing this as simple popularisim, perhaps it would be better to look again and try to understand what it is that the trained eye can no longer see or the jaded heart no longer feel. </p>

[david_senesac]

<p>Instead of answering your question, I'll put in terse perspective people and imagery and the reality then becomes obvious.</p>

<p>Lets go back a decade to the time before the Internet had bandwidth to display imagery and before quality digital cameras.</p>

<p>What percentage of the masses viewed photographic prints at actual galleries or museums? Probably tiny.</p>

<p>What percentage of the masses viewed photographic prints in public places (buisinesses, restaurants, park visitor centers, public buildings, etc) where they actually tried to look at a print for more than a few seconds? Probably small.</p>

<p>What percentage of the masses viewed photographic prints at art fairs? Probably moderately small.</p>

<p>What percentage of the masses viewed pictures in quality coffee table type art books. Fairly good numbers at least occasionally.</p>

<p>What percentage of the masses viewed pictures in magazines. A large percentage.</p>

<p>What percentage of the masses viewed snapshots in photo albums of themselves, relatives, and friends. Everybody but aesthetic interest in such images is of course usually of minor importance. (Mug shot of Betty and Bob standing in front of Old Faithful.)</p>

<p>So in the past the way the public evaluated pictures was primarily based on their looking at little pictures in magazines and published books, or their own personal acquaintances. </p>

<p>Now lets move forware to the present decade of high bandwidth Internet, quality digital cameras, inkjet printers, and computers in everyones hands. </p>

<p>Most of the above still holds. But what is significant is very large numbers of people are for the first time evaluating imagery on the web via their monitors. And interacting on forums with others like themselves as well as those more experienced in art aesthetics and some of that is rubbing off. Especially for the truly unprecidented numbers of new photographers that are interested in improving their understanding of what quality images ought to look like. And with inkjets more people than ever before are printing out their own work and thus have a vested interest in creating something they like.</p>

<p>Despite these new trends, the masses generally have rather modest abilities to separate merely good pictures from those the art experienced would value as outstanding. One way that comes out is in all the flawed imagery that is posted on various image forum sites. Sure most posted images are received positively but that has far more to do with stroking by the mutual admiration societies that infrequently have the actually gall to be critical. Those sites that cater to more serious new young digital photographers are usually of a significantly better quality, however generally the aesthetic sense of ordinary people is modest. <br>

David Senesac<br>

[aplumpton]

<p>David, I believe you are right in not answering the question directly. In any case, good is a drifting criterium and one that depends upon the person or group of people applying it. What is popular also depends on the group. Your analysis of the audience for different media and photography is informative. I wonder if the computer and Internet are simply taking the place of the magazine for many. After all, the ability to select what you look at on the Net is no different really than how you flip over pages of photos in a magazine. The presence of many more photographers at all levels (photographers with simple ipods or p&s digitals, to those using a Canham or Wisner) may or may not signal an improvement in photographic ability of the many, or the quality in general, so it may be a while before the critical senses of photographers and their audience is improved. There will always be popular stuff, of course, and the usual variation of perceived "good".</p>

[david_senesac]

<p>Arthur >>>"...I wonder if the computer and Internet are simply taking the place of the magazine for many..."</p>

<p>Indeed most Internet users start out at that magazine flipping level. A far higher percentage of people have little compact digital cameras today than people ever did with film cameras, use them more often, and use them for a greater range of purposes. Cheap, convenient, and mated with computers, much more flexible and powerful. Web forums encourage participation and members look for ways to join threads and discussions. And doing so since higher bandwidth has made image posting more practical, is now allowing vastly more people than ever to publically display their photos. It is only natural for posters to want to present pleasing acceptable images so such is a behaviorial force bearing on each individual's improvement over time. Still there will be many that will ever remain contently at the lowest aesthetic levels because it doesn't matter to them and they have little ambition to make any effort that might improve beyond point and shoot mug shot snapshots. One threshold is recognized when a person first begins to post process images with any of the new graphic editing tools. So it is like a significant group of the masses has recently risen to a modestly higher level of appreciation of art aesthetics. Regardless we can expect them to continue for years to have trouble differentiating what the art savvy would separate as merely good from outstanding. </p>

<p>The main noticeable improvements are among the many that have become excited by the new gear and media and make some effort to improve. They quickly find within communities of Internet boards that the scope of what is now possible is considerable and not particularly difficult to attain. They see, read, participate, and understand what those more experienced may be saying. They post an image they don't see flaws in and other surprise them with critiques they had not thought about so they learn. An examples of something in imagery that takes experience, often years to develop well, is a good sense of geometry in images, the lines that guide an audience's eye to see to a frame's subject and balance the overall frame. Or how greatly some images can be improved by relatively small cropping changes like removing bright distracting elements at a frame edge</p>

[bmm]

<p>Rebecca</p>

<p>I personally somewhat agree with you (with caveats).</p>

<p>But Bentham wouldn't have.</p>

[laurent_jaussi]

<p>popular = popular<br>

good = good<br>

popular can be good<br>

good can be popular</p>

[william l. palminteri]

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=2137203"><em>Laurent Jaussi</em></a><em> </em><a href="/member-status-icons"><em><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub4.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" /></em></a><em>, Jan 19, 2010; 03:34 p.m.</em><br>

<em>popular = popular<br />good = good<br />popular can be good<br />good can be popular</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Popular can be bad<br>

Good can be unpopular.</p>

<p>I just wanted to complete the cycle.</p>

<p>Bill P.</p>

[laurent_jaussi]

<p>you make the half empty bottle version...let's stay optimistic Sacrebleu !</p>

[william l. palminteri]

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=2137203"><em>Laurent Jaussi</em></a><em> </em><a href="/member-status-icons"><em><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub4.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" /></em></a><em>, Jan 19, 2010; 03:53 p.m.</em><br>

<em>you make the half empty bottle version...let's stay optimistic Sacrebleu !</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Nothing of the sort !<br>

I just wanted to cover all bases.<br>

Frankly, I'll take a FULL glass any time !</p>

<p>Bill P.</p>

[jonahh]

<p>Originally 'GOOD' means "having the right or desirable quality" and as such, doesn't necessarily need someone saying 'this is good'. It IS good in it's own right just by serving a purpose...<br /><br /> What's popular is also good because it has a 'desirable quality' for many people. That holds true for images as for anything. Vice versa, 'good' doesn't need to be 'popular', then it's just 'right' for a limited amount of people, or for me alone.<br /><br /> I think the actual problem is that good is a super-charged notion for the creative ego i.e. in terms of self-assurance, recognition, stamina, influence... and yes, popularity. Being deemed good is something we depend on and therefore create categories, limits and a whole verbal maze because we feel that being 'good' qualifies for success. On this note, at least subconsciously, 'good' is synonymous with 'popular' for many people.<br /><br /> After all, there are many - technically - bad images that are famous, maybe just because they transcend their being an image by fulfilling a whole other purpose...<br /><br /> Then again, there are images I definitely don't like, still I think they are good, because they have the power to affect many people, for example. At the end of the day it's about content, the message and that it means something to 1 of some 6.5 billion people. Then it should be considered a good image, no matter what. It doesn't need to be popular, influential or technically perfect.<br /><br /> And yes, Jeremy's question is 'good', because it reminds me that I call too many things good just because I like them.</p>

[felixg]

<p>Jonahh Oestreich:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>“... there are images I definitely don't like, still I think they are good...”</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes. There are many works of art whose quality (I am avoiding the word "good" as it has overtones of moral superiority) I have to admire, though they are not for me and I may even dislike them intensely.<br>

It applies to other things, too, of course − not just art acts or objects. There are newspapers, for example, which take apolitical view diametrically opposite to my own but are nevertheless "good" newpapers. Politicians, for that matter, ditto. Jonahh's message is a good and thoughtful one, valuable regardless of whether I do or do not agree with him.</p>

[nathangardner]

<p>Popular doesn't mean something is good, but a lot of times things don't become popular because they're not good. What I mean is most things are popular for a reason, and that's becuase they're good, but there are always exceptions; look at today's pop music.</p>

[felixg]

<p>Nathan:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>...because they're good, but there are always exceptions; look at today's pop music.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Like photography or any other field, pop music is not homogenous.<br>

True, I find most pop music today shallow and vacuous ... but then, I look back at the pop music of my own teens and realise that most of <em>that</em> was (in my own perception) shallow and vacuous too. There was real quality to be found amongst the rest, then; there is real quality to be found amongst the rest now,too. And other people have different views from mine of what the quality items were.<br>

The same is true of any arts genre you care to name ... but since this is a photography forum, I'll stick to that as an example. When I look around me now, I see a sea of what I regard as superficial; when I look back to my youth I remember stirring examples of deeply perceptive and richly revelatory image making. But if I look closer, I see than in the sea of superficial are also innumerable cases of excellence ... and if I look back more honestly, I see that memory has discarded the larger array of meaningless and empty work which surrounded my remembered glitter of quality. (And, once again, if I discuss this with respected friends of the same age, I find differences of opinion on exactly <em>which </em> examples are/were rich and <em>which</em> were empty.)</p>