Telling trivia from truth.

[aplumpton]

<p>

<p>.... or, perhaps in better terms, telling the banal visual expression from a photograph possessing a bountiful or more meaningful expression? By truth I mean mainly the latter, not some unattainable quality (I couldn't resist putting the OP title in the form of an alliteration). What is banal or trivial may be different for each of us, but many are probably of similar mind that a cliché image has a great tendency to be banal or trivial. One problem with human expressions (in street shooting, portraits, other) is that they can easily be considered less meaningful because we are all too familiar with them, that they are not unique. The same may be aplied to a series of images of well-known landscapes. But does this make them trivial? Another aspect is that the subject, whether architecture, landscape, streetscape or portrait, or some theme applying one of these features, may be more or less inviting to different persons.</p>

<p>I have noted quite a different perception in this forum on the value of certain images to different persons. Often that difference is exploited or referenced indirectly in discussion of the images or a concept that the images seek to elaborate. The weight of the argument is often related to personal preferences in the perceptions of images. Are there some less subjective criteria that we use in discerning whether a photo is trivial or banal, as compared to one that is of a bountiful and/or original visual expression? </p>

 

</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>The thing about cliches is that they often are such because of their truth. Their familiarity may breed artistic contempt, but they're often about very non-trivial things (human relations, the march of time, mortality, birth, and such ... not always garden gates, ladybugs, and real estate agent business card head shots).</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Are there some less subjective criteria that we use in ...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The trick there is: who's "we?" That presumes a homogeneity in the We that's doing the observing and processing of the image under discussion. I've rarely seen my images (cliches that they are) taken up by two people in the same way.</p>

 

[jtk]

<p>1) As individuals we do respond correctly to images. If they seem trivial, they are. If they strike us as bountiful, they are. </p>

<p>2) Trivial images are often accompanied by convoluted "explanations." Bountiful images stand on their own, whether the bounty is smiley-faced, depressing, or threatening. </p>

<p> </p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Matt and John, thanks for kicking this off. I ought to have said "you" rather than "we", as in the reformulated phrase "Are there some less subjective criteria that you use in...".</p>

[cyanatic]

<p> In addition to the banal or trivial being different for each of us, it will also be different in terms of time periods, cultures, and photographic knowledge and experience. John's reference to memes in another thread brings to mind time and cultural related differences in terms of what constitutes banal in photography. A bare light bulb against a red ceiling would seem to be relatively banal to most people. In 1900 it may well have been perceived as such. In 2000 it is not. </p>

<p>But the meat of your topic seems to exist less in a historical exploration of the banal/trivial in photography than it does in this: "<em>Are there some less subjective criteria that we use in discerning whether a photo is trivial or banal, as compared to one that is of a bountiful and/or original visual expression?</em>"</p>

<p>The short answer is "not bloody well likely with this bunch." John's take seems to be that if we, as individuals, think an image is trivial, then it probably is. But I have read enough John Kelly posts to know that he is not embracing a relativistic "whatever you say is cool with me...now let's sing <em>kumbaya</em>" approach. And although I could argue that a bountiful or significant image <em>could</em> be accompanied by convoluted explanations, I concede that in most cases it probably won't be. </p>

<p>Could photographic examples (our own, or those of others) assist in this discussion? Dangerous ground if we chose to use some sterile PS "Beautiful image! 7/7!" example from PN. That which we do not consider to be banal (significant, bountiful) might be better. </p>

<p>(I will have to leave this to others, alas, as I am being hounded to get off the computer at the moment. I am interested to see how this discussion shapes up...)</p>

<p>I will close, for now, by saying that if so much as a single guitar playing Roma homunculus shows up in this thread I shall throw the transgressor under the hooves of a virtual herd of thoroughbreds.</p>

[cyanatic]

<p>Oh...I missed Arthur's post...what do <strong>I</strong> use? Time to ponder...</p>

[jtk]

<p><strong>Steve G</strong>, zap! TWO guitar-playing Roma (and a bass): <a href="

</p>

<p>I must point out that "banal" and "trivial" may seem similar conceptually, but "the banal" is a realm that some very famous photographers have pursued. I can't think who just now, but they dote on images of suburbia, nowheresville, inconsequential brief phenomena etc. Well, there's Lee Friedlander and Bill Owens. Camera Magazine, Swiss-published and American edited, kicked off the idea that there clearly could be photographic value in the banal, devoting entire issues to it. I'm kinda' tired of it: beaten to death now for at least 30 years by people who seem now to only see the banal. A little more melodrama wouldn't hurt...if it could be accomplished without Photo.net's routine grotesque photoshopping.</p>

<p>Gertrude Stein, was stunned by the banal she found, visiting her former home (Oakland CA: "there's no there there" she said in total blinkered ignorance of its rich cultural stew...but she also said something to the effect that "the artist" (whatever that is) notices import things in places a mere lumpen human being misses, such as grass growing up in sidewalk cracks.</p>

[AJHingel]

<blockquote>

<p>As individuals we do respond correctly to images. If they seem trivial, they are. If they strike us as bountiful, they are.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The formulations of John above stabilobosses exactly where individualism becomes narrow minded and where Arthurs interesting questioning about "<strong>some less subjective criteria</strong>" becomes of interest.<br>

When John write "they<strong> are </strong>(trivial)" it is forgotten to add "<strong>for me</strong>(-him)", and when the word "seem" is introduced, it is forgotten that the conclusion has already been drawn: TRIVIAL ! <br>

Some efforts and maybe even some in-depth seeing, studying, reflection, coming back, reference to other images, doubt, strong coffee and cold showers - might make, for any of us, a seemly trivial image into the revelation of a life-time. Easy consumption and shootings-from-the-hips-conclusions are not recommendable even if one wants to drawn one owns conclusions about any image that one falls on. There is even the possibility that the conclusion could, God forbid it, be : <strong>I don't understand.</strong></p>

<p>To come back, therefor, to Arthur's question of some "less subjective criteria" I would not expect, but I might be wrong, that such criteria exist. What exists are maybe appreciations of triviality of images where a great number (majority?) of viewers agree - but then we are back to the beauty - contest mode of functioning most of us would reject as serious criteria to follow and respect. What also exist, of course, but which many seem to have little respect for, is the institutional art-community type of criteria that makes some photos being highly priced and others unsellable. Personally, I would opt for a consideration of both these criteria-builders as a starting point. </p>

[Julie H]

<p>I won't touch "truth" or "more/less meaningful" with a twenty foot pole and a full-body hazardous waste suit. But beyond that, I don't see any opposition between trivial/banal and "truth" or "meaningful." The trivial or banal is just as true as the non-trivial, and <em>meaning</em> ... didn't we just do that one?</p>

<p>What I'm thinking Arthur is after is pictures the subject of which the photographer really, really cared about versus pictures the subject of which he didn't give a fig about. Please let me know. It's hot inside this hazardous waste suit.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>The challenge of being an artist or photographer of significance may be that there are no objective criteria for being good. The point may be to get it off your chest, not to make a good photo with a bunch of criteria.</p>

<p>Here are some of my ways of judging (which will vary because each photo is approached individually):</p>

<p><strong>Voice</strong> -- Is a body of work developing with some kind of consistency (not necessarily of subject matter or style, but something)? Non-randomness.</p>

<p><strong>Commitment</strong> -- What Julie may be getting at. Do I sense you care . . . about your subject and your photograph (and, yes, they are sometimes one and the same)? And have you translated that caring visually? Do you seem hesitant about your choices or have you jumped in feet first?</p>

<p><strong>Questioning</strong> -- Perhaps the flip side of commitment. Still with care, but openly curious. Up front about your uncertainty.</p>

<p><strong>Internal coherence of elements</strong> -- Do the technique, the form, and the content work together, which may mean being in harmony or intentional opposition? Even if candid and spontaneous (which aren't a net plus for me in the absence of other significant factors), is there orchestration? Is the style chosen because it's cool or because someone else seems to have done it well or is it chosen because it works with the subject or scene?</p>

<p><strong>Refinement of technique</strong> -- May be blatant, subtle, or nuanced. Does it look like the technique was phoned in (like using a saturation slider bar willy nilly) or is there some level of craft evident in the work?</p>

<p><strong>Movement</strong> -- Am I at a significantly different place or in a significantly different frame of mind or emotional state after having viewed it?</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><em>"The weight of the argument is often related to personal preferences in the perceptions of images."</em></p>

<p>Sometimes yes. But sometimes the photo is lousy, and it's got nothing to do with viewer perception. You mistakenly thought I didn't like your photo of the chairs in the pool. You assumed I need a human element in photos I like. It didn't seem to me an illustration of breaking rules, though it does seem to step outside your own photographic tendencies.</p>

<p><strong>Originality</strong> -- I mentioned Hockney. That wasn't a veiled put down or claim of lack of originality. Being influenced by another or coming up with something similar may result in a great photo. Having to break rules can itself become a confining rule. If one is passionate about so-called rules or about what has worked historically or one is genuinely influenced by another, something significant can result. When I fight against what is genuine for me because I think something I'm doing isn't original enough, I'm at risk of being hung up on the way I think it must be.</p>

<p> </p>

[aplumpton]

<p>A merited slap on the hand received from Julie for having used such indefinable words as truth and meaningful, and also from John for his reflection on the use of banal (for trivial), which has the trap of referring to a specific and perhaps not very glorious art movement.</p>

<p>Anders tackles the question of some common less subjective criteria for distinguishing trivial and significant, by taking what are the views of a reasonable sized collectivity as regards trivial work, and that of an art community's stamp on greatness or bountiful expression in an image. Julie's suggestion of whether commitment or care have been displayed in regard to a subject is one good way of discerning whether an image may be potentially of one or the other camps, but it is one that is determined by the photographer alone and not by the viewer or viewing community, and is thus partly lacking as a guide to photographic excellence (if indeed a "guide" could exist for the separation of trivial and significant).</p>

<p>Fred, as ever, provides a very thoughtful review of personal approaches and image attributes that go farther in defining the differences between the creation of trivial and significant images. But are we still too closely tied to the question of the banality or significance of the approach, as opposed to those of the product (the image)? Apart from the occasional flashes of inspiration, luck and accident, are not all significant images created from approaches that consider the elements proposed by Fred? What of the images that follow Fred's cycle of creativity but which end up as trivial? (assuming that Anders' large group of sensitive viewers has decided that in such case)?</p>

<p>I tend to agree with Anders and Fred and others about the probable non-existence of objective criteria for distinguishing between trivia and significant. Yes, an image can be decomposed into its elements that the photographer has assembled, and the presence and interaction of those elements can hint at its significance, or not. I think that the word (and the definition of) "movement" as used by Fred is one good path to the discerning of the nature of the image, but it requires, for intelligible communication, that the viewer state why the image has moved him (not just "I like it but I cannot explain why").</p>

<p>Is it really easier to distinguish the presence of a trivial image than to distinguish whether an image is significant? Why do some regard an image as trivial while others are quite moved by it? </p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Here's one to chew on. Since it's mine, I only ask that you not chomp down too hard.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p><div></div>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>The side of the house shown smacks me in the face, catching the bright sun relentlessly. (I don't like that but Lannie may have wanted that and may have felt something as aggressive as that was warranted. It doesn't, however, feel like intentional aggression. It just feels like strong sun on a bland surface.)</p>

<p>The house occupies a severely large portion of the frame, eschewing context. (Again, a blatancy, but to what effect? A question is neither posed nor answered. Is there curiosity, something to be learned here? Should I care about this photo? What, visually, makes it or could make it significant?)</p>

<p>There is no refined color sense. The approach and result are, again, blatant. (All photos shouldn't require subtlety, though it often helps. Some are effectively blatant. Colors can be effectively simple or they can be so simple as to be throwaways. The color here is a big part of the photo because it occupies so much space and is so unvarying. It loses my interest in a heartbeat. Were it consciously or pointedly offset by other color usages, either just as simple or much more complex, it might garner more interest. But, again, not having anything to play off leaves it high and dry.)</p>

<p>Though Arthur thinks care is only something relating to the photographer's approach, I think a photographer's care is significant if it can be visually translated to the photo. <em>I see care in photos often (though not often enough).</em> If Lannie cares about this house, which he well may, it doesn't come through. If he doesn't care about the house, I might be moved if he pointedly showed me that he doesn't care . . . and, perhaps, why.</p>

<p>This photo might have a different impact as part of a series. It could fit into a greater whole. The blatancy might start having more visual significance. As is, I might expect to see it -- and not think it was effective -- in a real estate sales magazine as something taken by the agent selling it.</p>

<p>For me, it presents a golden opportunity. Lannie might tell us why he took it and what, if anything, he likes about it or was trying to convey or show. That would give me a handle on further, more refined, critique. Or he might be satisfied with it as is, in which case I'd stand by my own critique and probably stop there. For me, the sign of a troubled photograph is that I'm not sure a reason could be given, either by photographer or viewer, why it was taken.</p>

[jtk]

<p>Lannie, you shared it specifically because you wanted us to see it. That's it's significance to you. I like the color. </p>

<p>It's banal or a trivial or bountiful, depending entirely on who you are and the context in which it's displayed. Here, it's displayed solo....it could be more significant if a related grouping was displayed, as in a Photo.net portfolio. IMO individual images are almost invariably worth a lot less out of a photographer's context, ie without related portfolio or exhibit examples.</p>

<p>As "art" it seems more interesting than your barn/abandoned-building images, but it could be a great advertisement for someone's paint company shown this way (solo), rather than in some kind of context. Is it a paint company advertisement? I think you could take this concept and run with it, make a coherent and worthwhile project out of that kind of home-owner aesthetic. </p>

[jtk]

<p><strong>Fred's list</strong> deserves attention. He's answering a question with more questions, which is the only way truth can be approximated (unless one believes Sarah Palin).</p>

<p>To his list I would add something like <strong>"realized intentions"</strong> : does the image seem to share something the photographer intended? Sharing is the point of photography. Or...isn't it? :-)</p>

<p><strong>"refinement of technique"</strong> may not be as relevant today as it was a few decades ago. Popular and "artistic" tastes now very presume high production values (images that look like television) before they begin to consider substance (IMO of course). Digital technology accomplishes very high production values automatically. I don't think viewers unfamiliar with post-processing or wet darkroom can have much appreciation for refined technique, just as art critics and historians ordinarily fail to indicate awareness of refined technique's fundamentals, such as invested labor, anxiety, ecstacy, and time in paintings.</p>

<p><strong>How</strong> can a viewer who's never explored post-processing or worked personally in a wet darkroom appreciate "refined technique?" I think someone who's played piano seriously can appreciate "refinement of pianistic technique" far better than I can (thinking back on a squabble Fred and I had in an earlier thead about Glenn Gould).</p>

[luis_g]

<p>[still circling the oft-picked carcass of what makes an above-average photograph, I see.]</p>

<p>Banal means commonplace, but photography is so bloated with bountiful ca-ca that the banal is uncommon. It can have meaning, or not. Bountiful is for harvest festivals, but I know what <strong>Arthur</strong> is after.</p>

<p>"What's the frequency, Kenneth?" </p>

<p><strong>John - "</strong>As individuals we do respond correctly to images."</p>

<p>Then why do we disagree with each other, if all of us are correct?</p>

<p><strong>JK - "</strong>2) Trivial images are often accompanied by convoluted "explanations."</p>

<p>That logic renders almost every single image ever shown in this forum trivial.</p>

<p><strong>Steve wisely dragged in Eggleston - "</strong>A bare light bulb against a red ceiling would seem to be relatively banal to most people. In 1900 it may well have been perceived as such. In 2000 it is not."</p>

<p>Actually, it still looks banal, but creatively so. In 1976, it was perceived as banal and trivial. <strong>John </strong>thankfully pointed out "...that "banal" and "trivial" may seem similar conceptually, but "the banal" is a realm that some very famous photographers have pursued." Which is what <strong>Steve </strong>was alluding to.</p>

<p><strong>Anders </strong>also brought in timespace/cultural coordinates context. Then he made some austere recommendations:<br>

"Some efforts and maybe even some in-depth seeing, studying, reflection, coming back, reference to other images, doubt, strong coffee and cold showers - might make, for any of us, a seemly trivial image into the revelation of a life-time."</p>

<p>Can we make that really good coffee and a <em>hot </em>bath? Many great photographers have pumped out world-class work while leading, er.... less ascetic lives.</p>

<p><strong>Julie </strong>- "I won't touch "truth" or "more/less meaningful" with a twenty foot pole and a full-body hazardous waste suit."</p>

<p>Pole? Hazmat suit? I'll bring the meaningful truth.</p>

<p><strong>Julie - "</strong>But beyond that, I don't see any opposition between trivial/banal and "truth" or "meaningful." The trivial or banal is just as true as the non-trivial, and <em>meaning</em> ... didn't we just do that one?"</p>

<p>Yeah, it comes up about once a month, but it's indicative of what many here want: Geez, how do I make great photographs?</p>

 

<p><strong>Julie then <em>shows</em> us how to generate a meaningful image: </strong> "Please let me know It's hot inside this hazardous waste suit."</p>

<p><strong>Fred </strong>came up with a good list, as far as lists go, but the meaty part preceded it: "The point may be to get it off your chest, not to make a good photo with a bunch of criteria."</p>

<p>My answer (and it won't satisfy anyone, I know) is: Connoisseurship.</p>

<p>Off to a late breakfast.</p>

<p> </p>

 

<p> </p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Ah, the spontaneousness of the approach "to get something off one's chest." Sounds good (meatey) and no doubt works in some cases (Burtynsky's mild rant against human wastemaking, for example), but is that the principle motivation in most cases? Creative photography is the result of many types of motivations, just as the viewing of photographs brings a variety of feelings or emotions. Subtelty is a quality in art that is easily overlooked, probably as much in images thought to be trivial as in images considered significant. Some layers are lost or not seen. But this is a consequence of many things, and not just art and photography.</p>

<p>Luis suggest a meatier word "Connoisseurship". It should be remembered that those claiming to be cognoscente or "critical judges" have historically missed the boat on many artists and movements. Connoiseurs seem to have little trouble in determining what is valuable within their chosen milieu with which they are most familiar, but are sometimes without oars in other waters. I agree that educated critiques are to be listened to, and learned from, but "Connoiseurship" can have its limits and can also become simply "Comeworship" (a paradigm that is not absent in the reverance saometimes too easily attributed to some former photographers).</p>

<p>Luis, it may sound trivial, but I welcome late breakfasts like the charms of silences or repeated themes in music. Unhurried. Enjoy.</p>

<p> </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Arthur, why do you think getting something off one's chest is spontaneous? A lot of my very contrived, planned, and non-spontaneous photos are driven by getting something off my chest. By getting something off my chest, I meant "a significant expressing." Thanks to Luis for picking it up.</p>

<p>As for subtlety, I agree it can be important. I think John's point may be apt here. Because subtlety is hard to handle (knowing just how subtle is effective and when subtlety is too subtle to show or be effective), some try to nuance their photos with overblown descriptions or interpretations. It can lead critics to hyperbole and fluffy overstatements. They are (sometimes!) trying to imbue a photograph with subtlety that the photo itself didn't effectively convey.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Fred, sometimes getting something off one's chest seems to me to be a spontaneous reaction. I know that you may consider it to be integral to some photo projects, which is a powerful aproach. I react to what I see on some trips to certain places, or even in seeing new situations in my region, and sometimes that reaction is triggered by my thoughts that the image opportunity allows me expression. I do agree that that type of motivation can yield significant images. it was just that I cannot conceive of it being a very universal motivation for creation, as Luis seemed to imply by his reference to it as a "meatier" influence. Perhaps I misinterpreted the supposed universality of his comment. In any case, it is a question of the approach of the photographer, and not the effect of the image itself, and whether it is perceived as significant or banal. </p>

[jtk]

<p><strong>Luis G </strong>:<br>

"<em>John -</em><strong> <em>"</em></strong><em>As individuals we do respond correctly to images."</em><br>

<em><strong>Luis G </strong>- Then why do we disagree with each other, if all of us are correct?"</em><br>

<em>Answer: Because we are <strong>individuals.</strong> QED.</em><br>

<em>"John </em>- <em>"</em><em>2) Trivial images are often accompanied by convoluted "explanations."</em><br>

<strong><em>Luis G</em></strong> - <em>That logic renders almost every single image ever shown in this forum trivial."</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

OK. Noted.</p>

<p><strong>This is "logical": To evaluate anyone's visual credentials, click on the name, compare to what they write. </strong></p>

[albert_richardson1]

<p>It's a matter of one's visual vocabulary, isn't it? How often does on have to see an image to become familiar enough with it to immediately want to go on to something else when he sees it again? That is, no image is truly familiar the first time one sees it, but many images are similar to others to the point that their content seems to be "intuitively obvious." Too much similarity breeds boredom and earns the label of being banal.</p>

<p>But when did familiarity and truth morph into the same thing? I can think of no sort of scale that puts banality on one end and truth on the other. They have nothing in common at all.</p>

<p>The original question needs more work and some specific examples to provide a meaningful frame of reference that might weave the two ideas of truth and familiarity into the same fabric. Perhaps something like, "The familiar images convey a kind truthfulness because they persist. Unfamiliar images are also truthful, but you see them as often." </p>

<p>Truthyness might work as well. Perhaps familiar images, particularly ones used in advertising are more truthy than actually truthful. That is, some images appear to be telling some truth without quite making it all the way. The point here is that there is more than one flavor for truth. Truth about what? By whose telling? Is an optical illusion true?</p>

<p>Consider visual jokes and sight gags. Many of these images are not true in themselves, but suggest a comparison with something else not in the picture to provide a context needed to get the joke. They can be banal and yet still funny. Truth for a picture can be very difficult to detect and evaluate because the viewer might have to provide it for himself. </p>

<p>None of this by the way approaches a discussion of how humans reach a consensus of opinion about whether or not an image is commonplace and what it actually says.</p>

[albert_richardson1]

<p>Correction: The original paragraph written as follows</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>The original question needs more work and some specific examples to provide a meaningful frame of reference that might weave the two ideas of truth and familiarity into the same fabric. Perhaps something like, "The familiar images convey a kind truthfulness because they persist. Unfamiliar images are also truthful, but you see them as often."</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Should read:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>The original question needs more work and some specific examples to provide a meaningful frame of reference that might weave the two ideas of truth and familiarity into the same fabric. Perhaps something like, "The familiar images convey a kind truthfulness because they persist. Unfamiliar images are also truthful, but you don't see them as often."</p>

</blockquote>

[aplumpton]

<p>Albert,</p>

<p>While your points about truth and about familiarity are appealing, I don't see how they relate to the question of discerning a significant image friom a trivial or banal one. I used "truth" in the title but then disclaimed in the opening sentences that word in the alliterated phrase of the title, substituting for it trivial versus "bountiful expression" or a trivial versus a "signifiucant" image. I think we should use significant or meaningful (oops, Julie has put on her hazardous waste suit again) or bountiful expression, and not truth, as being the opposite to trivial or banal. I guess that I also don't see what familiarity or the lack of it has to do with defining significant in this case, but I may have missed your point.</p>

<p>Copying of, or similar, images can be part of what might be considered as banal, as you say, as in your example of repeated images. On the other hand, a unique image may still be trivial, as uniqueness is argumentably not a sufficient value for an image to be significant, from the artistic point of view at least.</p>

[AJHingel]

<p>I agree with Albert, but I have understood that the question related to "truth" had been somewhat withdrawn. So we have the question of trivial images and the question whether only subjective appreciation of triviality exist or whether there are some more objective criteria out there. I'm not convinced that anything related to the intentions or the efforts made by the photographer has anything to do with the triviality or not of the result. Many of the most famous photographies were in fact made by chance as snapshots and the main "effort" made by the photographer or others were in the selection and choice of photos to be exhibited as potentially especially interesting. </p>

<p>One way of approaching the subject would therefor be to refer to images that few would consider trivial because they are part of our common history of major photographical work such as this of <a href="http://www.actuphoto.com/files/33695ronis01.jpg">Willy Ronis </a> and surely<a href="http://www.magazinedesarts.com/wordpress/wp-content/photos/hommage/image4.jpg"> this</a> or <a href="http://www.jeudepaume.org/imagesZoom/Ronis_AmoureuxBastille.jpg">th</a>at; or this of <a href="http://voyageforever.com/Blog/wp-content/gallery/monde/123elliott-erwitt.jpg">Elliot Erwitt </a> or surely <a href="http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/NIM/PL090.jpg">this</a> or <a href="http://media.paperblog.fr/i/280/2806556/retrospective-elliot-erwitt-paris-L-2.jpeg">th</a>at; or why not this of the Taiwanese contemporary photographer <a href="http://www.re-title.com/public/artists/5814/1/Gao-Yuan-1.jpg">Gau Yuan Yuan</a> which has been sold for fortunes and exhibited across the world. Why are these photographies anything but trivial ? What makes them differ from most of what we upload on Photonet, unless there are one or two exceptional that personally I have not discovered. I'm sure I could live of it if I were able pick them among the millions more or less trivial ones. </p>