Why (when) is a photo "good"

[Julie H]

<p>In this long article, scroll down to the heading, <em>Mitigation and Just Deserts</em>.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/neuroimaging-and-capital-punishment">http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/neuroimaging-and-capital-punishment</a></p>

 

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Julie, I wonder, though, if death sentence cases are more extreme and special cases, where the idea of rehabilitation is virtually impossible due to the overriding deterministic causes that might have been in place and reinforced, etc. In lesser extreme cases, looking at causes and addressing them with an eye toward rehabilitation would seem much more viable. In cases where a defendant will get out in 5-10 years anyway, a "there's no point in trying to change them" attitude seems both counterproductive and dangerous, since the safety of society may very well depend on some behavioral intervention during the period of incarceration. I would think the rate of recidivism, in at least some cases, could be reduced by doing more than simply blaming and punishing the perpetrator. After all, even determinists get out of bed in the morning. I don't think you have to buy into complete inertia in order to be a determinist. But I admittedly have not looked into this stuff much in recent times. In any case, I'd want to read more varied assessments of the legal matters this article introduces in order to judge the efficacy of the claims being made. But it's a great start. Again, thanks.</p>

[je ne regrette rien]

<p>I was away from internet for a couple of days. I noted some new posts here: "there is no good or bad, there is photography or non-photography" (<strong>Antonio</strong>).<br /> And then: "people claim to be photographers and they are simply taking pictures and are not photographers at all" (<strong>Fred</strong>).<br /> More than <strong>judgement </strong>being an important part of morality, art, and life, I would say that judgement stems from morality, art and life.<br /> But there we are again.</p>

<ul>

<li>on what do we build these <strong>judgements</strong>?</li>

</ul>

<p>subjectivity, objectivity, how do we form <strong>judgements</strong>? Are there <strong>collective judgements</strong> and how are they conceived?</p>

<p>Judgement is <em>inherent </em>to the human nature: Adam and Eve were chased from the garden of Eden exactly because the decided that they wanted to know the difference between good and bad. <strong>:-)</strong></p>

<p>Free will is to decide whether something is good or bad. If I decide that my photo is bad, I delete it. Out of free will.</p>

<p>Humans are free to decide. Of course there are situations which are imposed on us. But still we have the final decision to accept a situation and stay in it or to quit it. (<strong>Simon </strong>supports it).We might not be able to force somebody to love us, but we are free to accept or reject love.</p>

<p>Of course we do not have the free will to accept illness, injury or death, or birth, but that's not the point here. Human nature is as it is.</p>

<p>We have the free will to decide about most disposable acts of our life.</p>

<p><strong>Alan </strong>says "If we were all robots, or automatons, or computer simulations, and had no free will, how would we take "inspired" photos?".<br /> I think he mixes up free will with the ability, talent, capability of taking "inspired" photos. "Inspired" photos are not taken because of free will, they are taken because the photographer is able to take them. For whatever reason.<br /> And since we are not robots, the speculation is unfounded to me.</p>

<p>In the end all of you are talking about judgements. All the time.</p>

<p>But nobody can tell how judgements are formed. Nobody here can even tell how their own judgements are formed. Some agree - including myself - that there are photographs and non-photographs. As there is music and non-music.</p>

<p>How do we know?</p>

<p>Why?</p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>Luca: What you're defining as good pictures is technique (talent, capability,etc.) not inspiration. Inspiration comes from God as does free will. As I mentioned earlier, inspiration comes from the "heart" not our ego driven brain. Animals and robots do not get inspired. Only man can transcend his instincts and ego and decide in favor of God's commands. That is free will. To be inspired, one must decide to align himself with God to hear Him so you can become inspired. I believe what we're all trying to say about "good" photographs are that they transcend tehnique and ego and are "inspired".<br />So to bring this back to the topic, if by good we mean inspired, how do you propose we get inspired if not by free will deciding to listen to the Source rather than our ego?</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>I don't think about God. My inspiration comes from my relationships with other people, sometimes it comes from my penchant for logical thinking, it can come from walking along the beach in the evening (even though I rarely would want to photograph it), it can come from a warm breeze, a memory, a scent. My inspiration comes from my subjects, from a desire to reach out to viewers, even those I may never know.</p>

<p>Free will that would be given or granted to me wouldn't seem free.</p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<blockquote>

<p>You might be surprised to find out that more than a few very serious physicists think just that, and they do not list your objection, which doesn't mean it's not valid, but perhaps it's not as exclusive or absolutely required as you think it is.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I might but I'm not. Feel free to think that you might be a computersimulation or a brain in a vat or what not though, but I don't think you <em>really</em> do believe that scenario, do you ? If you did and you indeed possibly were, you couldn't think or refer to yourself as such, it would be self refuting. It's not an objection that I have, but an observation come through logic and philosophy in <em>this</em> world, not physics in another possible of worlds, regardless of what *serious physicists* might or might not <em>think</em> about it in this one.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>There are similarities between what we know of our universe and computer simulations.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I thought that the computer simulation was to possibly be our universe, and if possibly so, than surely there's no need to suggest any similarity between our universe and that of a computer simulation, is there. But it makes for an interesting movie, that's true.</p>

[luis_g]

<p><strong>Phylo - "</strong>Feel free to think that you might be a computersimulation or a brain in a vat or what not though, but I don't think you <em>really</em> do believe that scenario, do you ?"</p>

<p>Thank you for your condescending generosity, but it is not a question of faith to me. The possibility exists. I neither rule it in, or out. I certainly hope you are not referring to the Matrix (or Matrices 1-3) and making the erroneous and brickbat simplistic assumption that is where I got the idea. It's not. It's coming from reputable physicists, not movies or Wikipedia.</p>

<p> </p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<p>Yes, like I said, I got that already, am not "surprised" by it.</p>

[je ne regrette rien]

<p>Alan,</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Luca: What you're defining as good pictures is technique (talent, capability,etc.) not inspiration.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Although I believe in God, I don't think God makes you take good pictures.<br>

I did not define good pictures, I just said what you probably need to make a good picture. Most of us mention judgements here, but nobody ever said according to what judgements are made.<br>

I do not claim everything is rational, absolutely not. Call it instinct, call it sixth sense. Whatever it is, it is related to our sensitiveness and to the rest of "how-to" stuff.<br>

Good=inspired? Not necessarily.</p>

[sam_comtois]

<p>luca you brought up an interesting point about your comparison are all woman beautiful? we may find another person to be strikingly beautiful but have no attraction to that person.... and i am not referring to chemistry but just by our visual stimulation. does this not apply to photography as well? all the elements and tecnnical aspects to a photo could fall into perfect alignment, and we recognize this in the photo but still are not connected to the photo in anyway?so even if a photo looks good visually is that enough to consider it to be a good photo? </p>

<div></div>

[sam_comtois]

<p>luca you brought up an interesting point about your comparison are all woman beautiful? we may find another person to be strikingly beautiful but have no attraction to that person.... and i am not referring to chemistry but just by our visual stimulation. does this not apply to photography as well? all the elements and tecnnical aspects to a photo could fall into perfect alignment, and we recognize this in the photo but still are not connected to the photo in anyway?so even if a photo looks good visually is that enough to consider it to be a good photo? </p>

 

[je ne regrette rien]

<p>:-)<br>

"<em>so even if a photo looks good visually is that enough to consider it to be a good photo?</em>"<br>

samme, another very difficult question. I don't have an answer but would guess that "liking" and being "good" are intertwined.</p>

[sam_comtois]

<p>no ........ not always luca... sometimes a photo can be considered bad ... because of unflattering exposure or poor so called traditional rules of photography however we somehow may be attracted to it because of its flaws? like beautiful woman............ you really know how to get people conversing dont you?</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Hey, what about beautiful men?!</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Ever see the film version of "Death in Venice" of the early 20th century writer Mann with that very good English actor (name forgotten) who played the ailing professor and his encounter (distant) with a very beautiful boy on vacation with his family. That is appreciation of beauty on a non sexual but visual plane. Wonderful film, with the amazing Adagio of Mahler's fifth accompanying the long journey into Venice over hazy waters.</p>

<p>Such "slow films" are great, and perhaps their equivalent is a still photograph of an engrossing image. Come to think of it, an engrossing image (one you have to go back to, if not already riveted to its charms) has to be among what we would discern as a "good" photograph.</p>

[sam_comtois]

<p>fred... of course let us not forget the men.... epecially applies to the beautiful men...</p>

[AJHingel]

<p>We have all seen here on PN and elsewhere very good photos of not very beautiful women and visa versa. This being said if you aim at receiving an 7/7 you are advices shooting photos of what most viewers would consider both beautiful and attractive women. If that counts for men too I will let others appreciate.</p>

<p>As concerns "Death in Venice" if is first of all a novel of Thomas Mann but secondly an Opera of the British composer Benjamin Britten first performed in 1973. The film from 1971 is maybe what most people would refer to, but I would advice first of all to read the novel or go to the opera. The film of Visconti is sentimental where the opera and the novel are philosophical. It is a novel on life and death and not on gay relationships. It was by the way the companion of Benjamin Britten that sang the main role, the old man, in 1973.</p>

[antoniobassiphotography]

<p>Although I love slow films and inspired photography, sometimes I like to watch Rambo IV and some high-tech landscape photography...</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>OK. <em>Death in Venice</em> and "good."</p>

<p>Seen the movie and the opera. Read the novel a long time ago.</p>

<p>It is certainly not limited to homosexuality and it certainly transcends homosexuality and sexuality itself. But it is very much about sexuality, a homosexual attraction, Aschenbach's delusions over his physical attraction to Tadzio. If we don't want to call it "sexual" we at least have to call it foreplay. It can't be denied even though it is transcended. </p>

<p>No, I don't think it's about gay relationships, certainly not in the way we come across those now or think about them now. But it is about a homosexual attraction that is not just visual. To me, that interpretation plays it way too safe and from a distance. Tadzio, to me, is not some removed symbol of ideal beauty. One of the dilemmas about Tadzio is precisely that he is very much flesh and blood. His ideal-ness comes from his groundedness as an object of Aschenbach's desires. </p>

<p>Of course, it is about life and death, ultimately.</p>

<p>How this relates to good. Good often operates on more than one level. Whether it be a superficial and a deep level or several levels or layers. I can't think of many, if any, things that are good in only one way . . . if they're really good.</p>

[Sanford]

<p>Viewing someone else's work, when my first gut reaction is jealously, I know I am looking at a good photograph. Good tests of my own photos are: is it good enough to make a print of; is it good enough to post on my website; is it good enough to post on Photo.net.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Fred,</p>

<p>As you an Anders say, it was not only sexual or visual attraction but about life and beauty releasing to death. What made me think about the novel and film was your reference to a beautiful man (both seen and imagined in Aschenbach's mind in DinV). I missed the Britten production at the Garden in England, left and and have only seen his Billy Budd in Canada (Toronto, about 5 years ago), but would line up for a Britten opera any day.</p>

<p>Anders,</p>

<p>"It was by the way the companion of Benjamin Britten that sang the main role, the old man, in 1973."</p>

<p>Peter Pears. Great lyric tenor, if that is the right word (re his roles in Britten's War Requiem, Billy Budd, and other Britten operas and vocal works recorded by Decca (London)). </p>

[AJHingel]

<p>Arthur I saw the <a href="http://www.universalis.fr/encyclopedie/deborah-warner/">Deborah Warner</a> "mise en scène" of the opera in Brussels last year. I think that is the one you refer to. This is a good example where Opera has a visual presence very near good photography.<br /> <strong><em>"Death in Venice</em> de Benjamin Britten, livret de Myfanwy Piper d’après Thomas Mann. Orchestre symphonique et chœurs de La Monnaie, direction Paul Daniel, mise en scène Deborah Warner, décors Tom Pye, costumes Chloé Obolensky, lumières Jean Kalman, chorégraphie Kim Branstrup. Avec John Graham-Hall (Ian Bostridge chantera les deux dernières représentations), Andrew Shore , Leon Cooke, Williams Tower…"(ref: </strong><strong><a href="http://www.webthea.com/actualites/?Death-in-Venice-Mort-a-Venise-de,1775">here</a></strong><strong>)</strong><br /><br /></p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Anders, that must have been some performance in Belgium last year. According to the article you sited, the opera is very difficult to stage, given all its scene changes, but the English producer, who came from doing Dido and Aeneas in Paris, apparently mixed the singers, dansers and music very well. The photo shows what seems to have been a very visual performance.</p>

<p>Intersting that a lot of operas are being staged by photographers, rather cinematographers, like recent North American operas with film directors Atom Egoyan, Francois Girard and Robert Lepage</p>

[je ne regrette rien]

<p>Guys,<br>

how to we get from photo judgement to discussing an opera?</p>

[AJHingel]

<p>Quit simple Luca. I don't know if you go to operas, but if you do, you should know that you go away with not only singing in your ears, but also with visual inspiration. Just like some very good films, paintings, sculptures - or culinary art (food!). The world is visual Luca. </p>