In the end the appreciation of photography is completely subjective

[Julie H]

<p>To James Smith's questions, I'd answer, So what? So what? So what? So what? So what? And his answers to So what? would necessarily involve his subjective preferences/values.</p>

<p>The appreciation of a photograph as art -- of art as art -- requires an emotional response. Whether or not that therefore completely contaminates the perception (Is subjective like being pregnant? Can you not be a "little bit" subjective?) is debatable. (That debate would involve subjective opinions -- and turtles.)</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>would necessarily involve his subjective preferences/values.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So what? So what? So what? So waht? is exactly right! Here, the word subjective is useless. What's the difference between a subjective preference and a non-subjective preference?</p>

<p>I sense what James is talking about is being able to set his taste (preference) aside and assess how something is made, the aspects of technique and craft that are used to make it. He's able to take in a bigger symbolic picture, a bigger cultural picture, recognize the context of his viewing, etc. He sees beyond his own narrow little world. He's not a dusty old bag lost inside a vacuum cleaner. He's got a choice of various perspectives to adopt. In short, he's an educated adult, not a blindsided child.</p>

<p>A dependence on subjectivity does remind me a little of a turtle, with a shell as thick as can be, impenetrable, unwiling and unopen, isolated, and in denial about the nature of experience.</p>

<p>This quote has to be looked at from a variety of angles and is somewhat layered. But it's worth considering in relation to "subjectivity" and the stifling effect I see it having on thinkers, viewers, and creators.</p>

<p><strong><em>"(Good) taste is the enemy of creativity."</em></strong> --Pablo Picasso</p>

<p>There's a whole wide world out there that's NOT about you and that allows you to transcend even your own ("subjective"/redundant) preferences.</p>

[Julie H]

<p>Fred's response, above, was a perfectly wonderful example of a purely subjective response. Thank you Fred.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Julie, that, too, is meaningless, and I suggest you know it. Because according to you everything one does and says and feels and thinks is "subjective" so by your thinking, of course, anything I say is subjective. Who cares? You've neutered a word and a concept. You're looking to pin your own myopia on me. I'll have none of it. Thank you Julie.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>At some point, rhetorical tricks, repeated "so whats", strings of words/phrases/statements divided by endless slashes, and tortured and extended metaphors have to give way to substance or we begin to think there is no there there.</p>

[Julie H]

<p>Wow!! I'm getting a reading of <em>eleven</em> on the Subjectivity Meter for those last two posts of Fred's!! I thought the meter only went up to 10! It would be awesome if he'd go for a 12! I wait with bated breath!</p>

[james_smith55]

 

<blockquote>

<p>To James Smith's questions, I'd answer, So what? So what? So what? So what? So what? And his answers to So what? would necessarily involve his subjective preferences/values.<br>

The appreciation of a photograph as art -- of art as art -- requires an emotional response. Whether or not that therefore completely contaminates the perception (Is subjective like being pregnant? Can you not be a "little bit" subjective?) is debatable. (That debate would involve subjective opinions -- and turtles.)</p>

</blockquote>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=3885114">Julie Heyward</a>, looking at the objective technical aspects of a piece of art does not preclude "an emotional response." There is no reason the two cannot happen at the same time. The Space Shuttle is objectively the most complicated machine ever built. It evoked "an emotional response" from me ever time I saw it launched.</p>

<p>Something could have very high technically quality but fall short on the subjective side. And the reverse could be true. I look at the whole work of art. Sometimes the subjective quality of the piece of art makes up for major deficits in the objective technical aspects. Sometimes an image may have nice subjective qualities but what really makes me appreciate it more than similar images is extraordinary technical quality.</p>

<p>I have shown amateurs or people who have only used digital, images taken with different films. They don't notice the grain or grain structure right off the bat. But once I point out the difference to them between 50 ISO film and 400 ISO film in an 8x10 print they are blown away. It's funny to watch them obsess about grain there after. They want to control it. Most of the time they want to eliminate it. The rest of the time they want to use it for an artistic effect. Either way they appreciate that objective technical aspect of the art a lot more.</p>

 

[luis_g]

<p><strong>James Smith - "</strong>I look at the technical quality of the print. Are highlights blown? Are shadows blocked up? I look at the technical aspects of how it was taken. Did the photographer stop down and/or use movements to achieve increased depth of field in a landscape. Or were they just lazy and shot the picture with high speed film hand held with the aperture opened up?<br>

The objective technical aspects help me tell whether I am looking at fine art or someone's vacation snap shots. And yes I've been to an "art" exhibit by a very famous person which was utter crap. They were not a professional photograph. They were just a famous person who also took some photographs that were now being passed off as "art."</p>

<p>The above is a perfect illustration of the difference between photography and art. That slavishsness to technical standards is classic, and a complete misunderstanding of what is passed off as art amongst photographers.</p>

<p>Here's just one example of an artist who uses a POS camera, knows nothing about f/stops, often has blocked blacks, blown highlights, shoots hand-held and breaks photographer's formulaic rules to great advantage, and is renowned as an artist:</p>

<p>http://www.horvatland.com/pages/entrevues/03-giacomelli-en_en.htm</p>

<p>http://www.iiclosangeles.esteri.it/IIC_LosAngeles/webform/..%5C..%5CIICManager%5CUpload%5CIMG%5C%5CLosAngeles%5CPretini_web2.jpg</p>

<p>http://www.samhaskinsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/giacomelli-01.jpg</p>

<p>http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_-lAUHP6JTAM/TVEok8AMSFI/AAAAAAAACQM/-Ha7DyImf3I/s1600/mariogiacomelli32320020.jpg</p>

<p>http://www.mariogiacomelli.it/photo/paesaggi/09.jpg</p>

<p>_____________________________________________________</p>

[luis_g]

<p><strong>James Smith - "</strong>Sometimes the subjective quality of the piece of art makes up for major deficits in the objective technical aspects."</p>

<p>I do not see those as deficits, but qualities the artist has chosen, sometimes subjectively, or accepted and incorporated into the gestalt of the work.</p>

<p> </p>

[aplumpton]

<p>The Sam Haskins is a real classic of photographic art. I guess what really contributed to the chiaroscuro effects was a post exposure lightening of the space at and around the boy and beneath the woman in the foreground. A beautiful image. The works of the other two artists are also remarkable. Thanks for showing them. I wonder how they, or photos like them, would be perceived if chosen as POW on Photo.net, although I suspect they wouldn't even be chosen in the first place.</p>

[luis_g]

<p><strong>Arthur -</strong> " I guess what really contributed to the chiaroscuro effects was a post exposure lightening of the space at and around the boy and beneath the woman in the foreground."</p>

<p>Yes, what many have labeled ham-fisted dodging. BTW, it's all Mario Giacomelli's work, even in Haskins' blog post. Giacomelli used film, did his post production the old-fashioned way. Glad you liked them, but I was simply citing them as one (and there are many) example of an artist leaving behind the usual photographic conventions.</p>

<p>[i want to make it clear that I do not disregard the technical aspects of an artwork. In my production of, viewing and writing on art, this is an important consideration -- in the context of the whole work.] <br>

<strong><br /></strong><br>

<strong><br /></strong></p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Yes, and whether a photo was dodged and burned, and what exposure was used, and whether there are blown highlights, and whether they are black and white or color, and whether they were made from film or digitally or some combination, what year they were made, who made them are all objective matters, matters of fact. Yes, there can sometimes be disagreement about matters of fact, but usually these things are verifiable. These are just some of the important non-subjective aspects of photos, including the cultural environments in which they were created, the (perhaps) historical and aesthetic influences that may show in the photo. Why a photo was dodged and burned or highlights were blown and how that "makes us feel" will be more of an individual matter, one that will also be heavily influenced by culture, symbolism, and other less uniquely personal matters. There is a reason why many people react similarly to a noir film or photo vs. a bright and colorful sunrise and those reasons are not as subjective as we might be snookered into believing. We are a part of something big and denying it may soothe our enormous egos and stroke our sense of individuality but it is, in fact, denial. That's not to say we don't have individual characteristics and reactions, but it is to say I don't choose to make a dichotomy or competition between the so-called subjective and objective.</p>

[je ne regrette rien]

<p>I can accept the fact that the existence of the "objective" is something like an act of faith.</p>

<p>But I have never seen a line of thinking here leading to any "objective" factor.</p>

<ul>

<li>good taste could be an objective approach to photography. But it has been rejected;</li>

<li>there are no rules: look at the thread in summer 2010. I was insulted at a certain point when I asked for rules;</li>

<li>each and every "statement" on a photograph can be rebuffed. And is rebuffed. Fine with me.</li>

</ul>

<p>And these are not only theoretical affirmations: they can be empirically observed in <strong>any</strong> photography critique forum.</p>

<p>What I find a real pity is that Fred seems to believe that subjectivity equals to isolation. His metaphor of the dusty vacuum cleaner bag he has repeated twice.</p>

<p>And I have to say that, since this post stems from my thoughts and reflections, I find it subtly insulting. As this one:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>A dependence on subjectivity does remind me a little of a turtle, with a shell as thick as can be, impenetrable, unwiling and unopen, isolated, and in denial about the nature of experience</em>.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I am proud of my subjectivity. My subjectivity embeds my <strong>experience</strong> and my <strong>culture</strong> and connects my <strong>feelings</strong>, my <strong>emotions</strong>, and also my <strong>rational</strong>. It embeds also my <strong>openness</strong>, my <strong>questioning myself</strong> when I study. My <strong>questioning</strong> when I discuss with <strong>other people</strong>, here and in other places, and my <strong>openness</strong> to other's opinions.</p>

<p>My subjectivity is opening up my thoughts and changing my mind if appropriate.</p>

<p>Subjectivity for me is not rigidity, nor isolation. My subjectivity grows, mainly through the confrontation with other people.</p>

<p>And then</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>These are just some of the important non-subjective aspects of photos, including the cultural environments in which they were created, the (perhaps) historical and aesthetic influences that may show in the photo.<br /></em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>But we have no evidence that the original mover of a cultural environment does not stem from an individual, subjective initiative.</p>

<p>Which can be shared, discussed, but still originating from the individual subject.</p>

<p>And I still believe that subjectivity can be shared.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Luca, please note that my responses were targeted at statements not made by you. I didn't invent the turtle analogy, I was merely picking up on its use in the thread. And I was responding to other thoughts I considered much more unrelenting than yours. Thanks.</p>

[je ne regrette rien]

P.S. I think however that I should not have used "completely" in my caption.

[luis_g]

<p>Most photographers (like Winogrand and Wessel) that put time between making the exposure and processing/printing the image claim it increases their objectivity in judging the image. I suppose it could be argued that it's just detachment from the original feelings at the moment of exposure, but subjective nevertheless. </p>

[m_stephens]

<p>I'm late to the party. There's precious little, if anything at all, which we can know objectively (I lean towards the none at all idea). If that's true, it only leaves two other possibilities for knowing the world, subjectively and subconsciously. Of the two remaining, I think the first is what leads us to discussions of blocked shadows, and other terms of technique we know about. The second is what leads us to want to look longer at a particular photograph.</p>

<p>The subconscious is the hidden machinery that animates our life. Pouring the emotional chemicals into the bloodstream, so to speak. Anything coming into the senses goes right to the base of that machinery. Sounds, smells, pictures and the rest, trigger complex activity of this machinery and it is usually not possible to know why for each specific stimulus (e.g. specific picture). People spend many years in therapy trying to get at this machinery and usually are not terribly successful. A cloudy picture at best.</p>

<p>Appreciation means to assign value and worth. Value and worth are subjective and relative. This is more valuable than that. But the fulcrum of that scale is contained in the subconscious machinery. When you gaze a photograph then, your subconscious machinery pours in the chemicals to establish emotion, then your brain derives some value equation and creates chatter by which you try to speak about the photograph. The chatter is subjective, the motivation is subconscious.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>Value and worth are subjective</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't think so. We learn what we attribute value to, and a lot of of it is cultural and some of it is genetic and physical. Instead, we prefer to attribute a lot to fairies, who do deserve credit for much but certainly not everything.</p>

<p>Look at the top-rated photos on PN. Then tell me it's a matter of subjective or subconscious coincidence that the majority of raters have such a similar (and narrow) view of what's valuable in a photograph. Like lemmings to the slaughter.</p>

<p>Now, plenty of us like to think of ourselves as non-lemmings and I take that into account here. But even the outliers have their influences and many of those influences can be assessed in the light of day, not relegated to the hidden ghost inside the machine.</p>

 

[m_stephens]

<p>Fred G.,<br>

"We learn what we attribute value to, and a lot of of it is cultural and some of it is genetic and physical."</p>

<p>Staying within the realm of art and photography (e.g. let's eliminate the value of food and water) what specific values are <em>genetic</em> or <em>physical</em>? I don't want to say much until I know what is meant by that. Can you flesh that out for me?</p>

 

[Norma Desmond]

<p>There are physically-based emotional responses to color that we share. As a matter of fact, much about our emotions is now being studied from a physical standpoint. As the mind-body distinction evaporates, the subjective-objective distinction does, too.</p>

<p>Western music is decisively different from Eastern music and we are in some sense "programmed" by the culture we grow up in for certain arrangements of sounds (notes) to sound good (value) to us.</p>

<p>Many of these things are not subjective at all. As I said way above, I'm not making the case for these things being objective. I am making the case for the traditional subjective/objective dichotomy, as being used in this thread, to be an anachronism.</p>

<p>Suggested reading: Wittgenstein, Rorty, Dennett</p>

<p>I can get behind a use of objective, such as Luis has provided in his last post, where it is a kind of artistic distance, which can be very helpful to a photographer's vision and voice. Being able to step back is an important skill, often not employed.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>M, obviously I don't expect you to read what I mentioned above, but would be curious to hear your response to the phenomenon of similar value (as in the case of PN ratings)? If appreciation is a matter of value and appreciation is either subjective or a matter for the subconscious, what explains the similarity of value placed on certain photos and certain types of photos? It would seem to me that it's got to be something beyond the subjective or the individual subconscious.</p>

[Julie H]

<p>How on earth do you conclude that Wittgenstein, Rorty, and Dennett (!!) would support you claims?</p>

[m_stephens]

<p>Fred G.,<br>

"There are physically-based emotional responses to color that we share. As a matter of fact, much about our emotions is now being studied from a physical standpoint. As the mind-body distinction evaporates, the subjective-objective distinction does, too."</p>

<p>If you mean that emotions are driven by chemical process, I agree entirely. That makes it a physical phenomenon. Which means the process is physical and real, but our e-value-ation of that is none the less subjective. The words we eventually attach to the emotion arising are subjective assessment based on all the usual cultural and psychological fabrics that make up the self.</p>

<p>An example: I look at a photograph of a Paris street. A flood of emotions arise triggered by chemicals. These emotions are mapped against the fabric of my specific life experiences and sum of all inputs and outputs, dreams and thinking. I then attempt to describe in words how I exactly value this photograph against all others. it is in fact ineffable, but I will attempt to put it in words anyway. I may jabber on for half an hour about the photo and I will be using a subjective process because neither me or the listeners can access any objective measure - any yardstick or instrument - in which we would all share the same conclusion. That's why it is subjective.</p>

<p>By contrast, I pick up a stick and declare it is 12 inches long. We can all use rulers and measuring things to confirm or deny that reality. That would be objective valuation.</p>

<p>And finally, I don't know what lies beyond objective, subjective, or subconscious evaluation. Not saying there isn't something, but I don't know a word for it.</p>

<p>Changing gears: I don't know much about the "top rated photos on PN" issue. I'll see if I can go understand it. I assume you mean there is some sort of consistency about it? I'm ignorant at this point, but I will see what it means. </p>

 

[m_stephens]

<p>Top Rated Photos<br>

Ok, that didn't take long. I can see in a few pages the gist of it. By and large these are a selection of beautiful and pretty looking pictures as you would see in National Geographic magazine or on calendars. There is a distinct lack of the personal, the emotional, the human, the tragic, the ironic, or any significant social commentary (please note, I am being general).</p>

<p>I don't know how "top" is arrived at, but if it is by voting of any kind, the results make perfect sense. Take a look at the results of elections, or the results of purchasing. Take any Interstate highway exit, and see what people have voted to be the best food, to use another example. Extreme social commentary, to use one category, is generated by maybe 0.1% of the population - or maybe even far less. Not much voting power there! If you just walked the streets and asked people to vote on what should fill up the local museum, you'd see a museum chock-a-block with Thomas Kincaide and Bob Ross paintings. Look at the NYT Best Seller list. </p>

<p>The other quality of these pictures is technical expertise. Really flawless craft, that sort of thing. Makes sense, because the audience is well studied in these crafts.</p>

 

[Norma Desmond]

<p>M, part of art and photography is communication . . . sometimes through a visual "language." Though there will be exceptions and nuances and though this won't be the case absolutely universally, reds are warm and blues are cold. Why? Is that subjective? If Brahms wants to compose a lullaby, which he did, doesn't he have to expect that most people will be quieted by certain types of chords, rhythms, and combinations of notes?</p>

<p>Yes, we will each have our associations with quiet music. Maybe our mothers sang us to sleep liltingly and that will come to mind as an association when we hear Brahms's lullaby. And, except for my brother, no one else will have a similar association to my particular mother. And still, Brahms counts on a non-subjective consistency of emotional response in composing a lullaby at the same time he understands all the individual reactions that will ensue beyond that consistency. He will expect that, though some surely will not, most people will be soothed and placated by what he is writing rather than wanting to get up and dance frenetically or become violent in reaction to this particular music.</p>

<p>People don't generally shoot sunsets to be controversial and they don't present photos of people with blood spilling out of their skulls in order to relax their viewers. We may have different individual responses to those sorts of photos but there is also an important "objective" response.</p>

<p>Art is every bit as much communal and shared as it is individual.</p>