What makes a good photograph?

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Lannie, did you see any of Riefenstahl's photos before/without knowing the context in which they were made? From the second you know these photos were made to support the outrageous and insane ideas the nazis had, you will not be able to let go of that (or at least, I find it hard). But at that point, what are you judging? The photos, the times they were made in, Riefenstahl's willingness to cooperate, the nazi theories and madness, .... ?</p>

<p>I think Fred rightfully tried to <em>distinguish</em> between judging the aesthetic qualities of the photos, and the intent / consequence of the photos (as good or bad), and as such introduced a very clear example with Riefenstahl.<br /> Photos can be evaluated in isolation from the circumstances, motives and intent. Just look at the photo, and nothing else, blank out all the other considerations. As long as you do not know a background story, there is just the photo. Whoever made it, whatever story dwells behind it.<br /> Now, I'm not saying judging it as a complete blank is better, and sure it's not to defend Riefenstahl's work in any way, but the thread rightfully introduced intent and consequences as <em>part</em> of the "judgement process" we have, as one of many possible scales on which an image can be good (or bad). However, to put intent and consequence at the centre stage, and judge photos ONLY based on that (I am deliberately exagerating, it's not what I think you wrote) is a bit putting the cart before the horse, and next shooting the horse.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Michael, not so fast! I don't think Godwin's Law would apply when things related to the actual historical Hitler come up in a discussion that has moved toward intent, ethics, and responsibility in photography. Hitler is not being used here as an argumentative "Hail Mary pass." He's being used because he's intimately relevant to one of the photographer's mentioned and to the discussion as it has proceeded.</p>

<p>__________________________________________________</p>

<p>While I would agree that a photo's purpose <em>may</em> help determine what criteria we will use to tell if it's good, I still think it's quite wrong to assert that goodness boils down to the fulfillment of that purpose, since, as most of us have experienced, there are lousy portraits of people showing a non-essential, more singular expression and good portraits that fulfill that same purpose. If someone thinks a portrait ought to show the essence of someone and they find it doesn't and therefore judge it to be a bad portrait, that shows, IMO, <em>bad judgment</em> rather than <em>bad photo</em>. It's their inability to maintain some level of objectivity causing them to base their judgment merely on their own opinions and tastes. Now, lack of this kind of objectivity is one of the great things about art. We get to like and dislike photos to our heart's content and not be questioned about it. But judging something good or not should be more objective than assessing whether it suits our own needs and desires. Judging something good, therefore, is by no means an absolute. It is simply adopting a more objective attitude toward something. If we're going to judge as bad everything that doesn't meet our sometimes very narrow expectations, we're going to miss out on a lot of art. Taste is a key ingredient, to be sure. And a confidence in our taste and healthy development of it is often in the best interest of our own creativity and voice. At the same time, Picasso was also onto something when he said . . .</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Taste is the enemy of creativity.</p>

</blockquote>

[q.g._de_bakker]

Ah, but no worries, Landrum. Noone compared something to how the Nazis did things, so still safe from Godwin's theorem.<br>Of course everything can be considered under exclusion of some aspect or another. So i don't know why all photos could not be evaluated apart from all that. What aspect, what quality we would then be considering is an open question. This discussion picked a few as candidates for what quality it could be that makes a good photo. It is hard to imagine that you can ignore consequences (especially when promoting the idea that fulfilling a purpose is the key). But we have to be careful in attributing the consequences to one thing in particular, such as a photo.<br>It is hard, impossible even, to consider the consequences of Riefenstahl's photos without considering so much more. The photographs themselves served a purpose, but were merely instrumental in producing the consequences we're talking about in that context. The consequences aren't those of the photographs by a long way.

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>More precisely, Q.G., no interlocutor on this thread was being compared to Hitler.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Just look at the photo, and nothing else</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Wouter, one can do that, but why would one want to do that? I like to say, "Context is everything."<br /> At the very least, we have to make clear what we mean by a "good" photo. If we mean "divorced from context," then, yes, I agree with you and Fred.</p>

<p>In context, one cannot evaluate Riefenstahl's photography on purely esthetic grounds.</p>

<p>Better yet, one can only feel revulsion the more one knows about such propaganda, and even esthetically her work finally fails for me--but I didn't really mean to get us off on issues involving propaganda.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Q.G., I just want to say I think you've made an excellent case for how intent can play into our experience of a photo and work of art. And it often does and the ramifications are many. And these are all things that will, at some times, go into our experience of photos and art. It's just that, for me at least, none of this makes the case for purpose- or intent-fulfillment being the sole determining factor of whether a photo or painting or any other work of art is good.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

I hate the word "objectivity", Fred. There is no such thing. It is merely a suggestion that there is some absolute value that prescribes what we should think or feel, and forbids thinking and feeling something else about it. Absolutism (which indeed serves very well in fulfilling some people's purposes, so it can be called good, sometimes ;-))<br>Basing your judgement on what you hope, expect, want is quite alright. That's why you can enjoy a bad film, find it good, and vice versa. remember? It's that purpose again and how it (a film, a photo, a work of art, whatever) succeeds in meeting those expectations, fulfilling that purpose.<br>There is nothing forcing anyone to accept as their own the intent the maker of something had. If people find my chests of drawers perfect chairs, that is not a lack of objectivity, but simply revealing that despite my original intent, these chests of drawers are perfect chairs. We are allowed to make of things whatever we want. Why should judging whether something is good "more objective" than assessing whether it suits our own needs?<br>You know the thing: what <i>is</i> a chair? To a bird it is not much (if at all) different from a table or a fence, or a [etc.]. It is only our purpose that makes it a chair - something to sit on - distinct from a table - something to sit at. And there is a reason why chairs are chair shaped, tables table shaped. Those shapes fit our own purposes best. And as such define what makes a good chair or table. The same holds for photographs and art.<br>But now you are saying that we miss out a lot if we look at things like that? If a piece of art means nothing to you, if you have no purpose for it, it is a bad piece of art, or even not a piece of art at all. And of course, different people may have different views. Be selfish. There is no other Higher Instance we need to placate by deferring our judgement to something "objective". "Taste", the notion that you must indeed adhere to some Higher Good's Objective Rule Book, (a.k.a. absolutism) is indeed the enemy of creativity. It is the enemy of art. And of philosophy.<br>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>Why should judging whether something is good "more objective" than assessing whether it suits our own needs?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Because I'm not an isolationist and am not as self-obsessed as your theory wants to encourage.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Objectivity doesn't have to have anything to do with absolutes. It can simply be (and can be more than this) stepping back from one's own view to recognize that others have different views or that, even though I see it THIS way, there are OTHER ways of seeing it. I think we'd reach a greater degree of understanding (not expecting agreement) if we didn't conflate a more humble notion like objectivity with a much more extreme and far-reaching one like absolutism.</p>

<p>Something that's good may, in fact, meet more of the needs of others than my own. That doesn't mean there's an absolute characteristic of goodness, but it does help me get beyond myself, which is often just the place art will take me.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

Well, i agree in part, Fred. we should indeed acknowledge that other people might be seeing other things.<br>The problem lies where we begin to believe that there is one way that is the right way of seeing a thing. That there are opinions, and there is something outside the realm of opinion, something we can opine about but are wrong unless we agree with whatever that object objectively is. Wrong, not because we have to bow to someone else's opinion, because else that someone would do us some harm. But because that something itself would allow only one way of understanding it. That is what objectivity is. The truth (another of those awful concepts) lies in the object, not in our (subjective) opinion/understanding.<br>That is both not a conflation of the humble (?) notion objectivity with something terrible as absolutism and indeed alreay absolutism. The identity is an objective one. ;-)<br>And as you know, a long time ago one particular thinker invented a separate world of Higher Things that imparts this untouchable truth to things we mere mortals had opinions about. Such a Higher Order has to exist, else we are not able to say what too many want to say: "you are wrong and there is no discussion possible, there are no two ways about it." And it still requires an appeal to Something Silly outside our human realm.<br>We don't have to go into what that leads to, even today.<br>Terrible.<br><br>Anyway, that does of course not mean that there is not something "beyond myself" or something that helps us get past ourselves. That something is other people, their views, and how we adjust or decline to adjust to each other. What we find then is inter-subjectivity. A meeting of like and a confrontation of difference/dislike.<br>And that's absolutely something absolutely different from that absolute horror that is that absolutist notion of absolute objectivity.<br><br>So if you are saying that there is added value to be found in judging something knowing and considering what other perspectives and opinions our fellows have to offer, compared to just assessing whether it suits our own needs, we are not that far apart at all.<br>But even then we have to fit the thing we are judging into our personal scheme of things. And if it doesn't help me do anything, if it doesn't fit (any of my purposes) i can still respect that someone else thinks it a great masterpiece, but for me it is quite simply not. It doesn't work that way that i like something because someone else says it is likeable.

[q.g._de_bakker]

Landrum, it is true that "In context, one cannot evaluate Riefenstahl's photography on purely esthetic grounds", because the premise already states that you are evaluating the context. ;-)<br>You can indeed evaluate Riefenstahl's photography on purely esthetic grounds, if you so wish. It is not treacherous, or an immoral act, or subscribing to one particular ideology, to consider Riefenstahl's photography on purely esthetics grounds. It doesn't mean (and we mustn't assume that) we are denying the rest, the context, when we do.

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Lannie, the question why would one want to look at a photo without context is (I think) one of the red herrings in this thread. To some (not you, not me), getting all the context in is excess garbage, unneeded complication. They'll look at the photo, and if they like it, it's good. And that can be fine, though I think it makes one miss out on a lot of interesting (more challenging) work. Some photos do not call for a lot more either, too, though.</p>

<p>To those who do not decide between 'good' and 'bad' that easily, I think we all have our different aspect where we put more emphasis in our judgement than others. Context is important, but to me not everything. <br /> And it is not mutually exclusive to the aesthetics. When you say: "<em>In context, one cannot evaluate Riefenstahl's photography on purely esthetic grounds.</em>", I can fully understand the dilemma, but I do not agree. Photographically, aesthetically, one can evaluate those photos. Even worse, to me, the Olympia photos are interesting. Saying that doesn't mean I endorse nazis, genetic superiority theories or worse, nor that I think that Riefenstahl took the right choices in working for that government. It means I see the photographic and graphic skill in them, a visual language that is very similar to the Nazi and Soviet architechture of that time (bold, hard, cold but very graphic in nature, a cynical form of heroism), and yet also something incredibly photographic. And they have been used for all the wrong purposes.<br /> We can judge those things in parallel, and seperately from one another. Nobody said there can be only one single "good" or "bad". There are multiple unrelated-related considerations to whether the photo is good or bad.</p>

<p>If you would ask me to make one single judgement, the ethical problems behind those photos would in the end taint my judgement too. I would not buy a print of them, or put one on public display or something similar, because I never ever want to be associated with the ideas they represent. But the real, complete, answer to "good" or "bad" is far more complex, and it's not all bad, and certainly not all good.</p>

<p>It could very well be we disagree on this, and as said, I can fully understand your dilemma, and via a different way, I think I reach a similar conclusion. I think the OP is still with us, because I think it wasn't a Godwin moment, but in fact we got very close to the real meat of the original question; thanks for the exchange of thoughts on it because it helped me rethink a few points and that never made me any worse :-)</p>

<p>[ edit ] <br>

Got interrupted, and in the meanwhile Q.G. said much more to the point the same thing :-)</p>

[charleswood]

<p>Wouter - "I think adding "art" into the discussion creates more complications than it solves, really."</p>

<p>It does add complication which may be worth the extra trouble because it weeds out 'good' car photo from 'bad' car photo, weeds out those cases where intent is clear and the result is easy to evaluate by agreed upon standards. With 'art' it gets more complicated because intent is layered. On the other hand, art may not be all that complicated if we accept a binary evaluation: like v don't like, with no fuzzy logic. Add the fact of fuzziness in the subjective evaluations, where some simultaneously like and dislike a thing: Riefenstahl's work may be an example of one's values coming into collision and that dissonance Riefenstahl experienced herself and resolved by collusion and sexual attraction though publically she didn't speak fully to the repulsive mental state she had entered by her having chosen to live out the false notion that there are unambiguous objective standards after all.</p>

<p>So, editing, with Riefenstahl's work I find myself also put into a state of dissonance and it may be a mistake to set that dissonance aside, to speak to Riefenstahl's work without always communicating that overall the effect upon me is dissonant.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Charles,</p>

<blockquote>

<p>With 'art' it gets more complicated because intent is layered.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not all art has layered intent, not by a long shot. Non-art photos (documentary work, good journalism, for example) can be very multi-layered and far more complex. It has got nothing to do with simplifying evaluation of art to a binary choice. Why I think adding art adds complications is the stone-old discussion "what is art".I think we'd probably already disagree on its definition, as I obviously do not believe that art has a layered intent, in fact I think there is art where the intent doesn't exceed the "art pour l'art" mantra. Which (in my view) is as shallow an intent as can be.<br>

The question originally posed was broad enough already, adding in the complexity on defining art makes discussion probably just go way off-topic.</p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>Isn't what is "good" similar to what is "art"? It's defined by the viewers in both cases. Of course it's relative. The more people who think something is "good" or spends more time looking at it, the "better" it is. I'm using the definition of whether it's appreciated by the viewer, not some "objective" evaluation defined by certain criteria established by curators or professional critics who could define something as "good" although no one buys it or cares to look at it.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Alan, there are many definitions of art that have little to do with being defined by the viewer. My own approach to art is not to define it restrictedly but rather take a holistic approach whereby I embrace many of the various definitions that have been offered (and reject a few!) and just think about art in terms of all those things, some having to do with viewers, some having to do with experts and institutions, some having to do with the art object itself, some having to do with the artist. I find that leaves me a good amount of flexibility and many different ways of understanding what I'm experiencing. I would reject the idea that either "good" or "art" is solely defined by the viewer if it were the only idea offered, just as I would reject all the other definitions offered if each was the only one I had to choose from. I embrace each as one part of a much bigger picture.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>In any case, what another viewer thinks is art or good is a matter of classification to a great extent, and is of little interest in many cases. I'd much rather hear a viewer's genuine reaction to what he's seeing and feeling. His decision to call it good or art really doesn't carry too much weight with me. But what he says about the photo or the painting, how it strikes him, why it turns him on or off, what emotional reactions he has or sees is generally a more fulfilling type of discussion to me than whether he thinks it belongs in the category of art or trash or documentary that is art or documentary that isn't art. </p>

[charleswood]

<p>Wouter it may not have layered intent in its creation, but to the viewer? and when viewed from the vantage point of another culture, at least one layer added there, a deep layer of cultural interaction? Art is as complex as those viewing it and if it isn't layered, is it art to begin with? There is very little art in the world, arguably none of it 'usable' in the way Q.C. would have us make a bird perch out of a chest of drawers or, as I suggest, out of a Stella sculpture (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Memantra_pic.JPG">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Memantra_pic.JPG</a> ). Non-art photos communicate and can communicate well and there is sooo much of it in use. Art has intrinsic value regardless of whether its used in a utilitarian sense and for so little of it and its uselessness: that's a narrowing. Still, if we want the focus on the object and what makes it a good one, that's well enough.</p>

<p>So I agree Alan that 'good' and what is art are the same question since they put us into the realm of value systems, relative (do you really mean that Alan?), and list making from an objective check list I guess isn't my thing. I would rather wonder about art as having intrinsic value, if that allows us to contemplate ourselves as also having intrinsic worth. This guy (the capuchin monkey at about 12 min, 50 sec ) thinks he's worth a grape and a newer study suggests his co subject thinks the lesser paid monkey also merits an equal reward, the higher value reward of a grape: <a href="

. Yes the monkey thinks that for something he's worth a grape, but underlying that is his sense of his intrinsic worth (why he and not me, not me, not me as he shakes the cage cursing creation). Most photographs are for something and merit their ultimate discard. Why talk about next era trash then? And it isn't in me to talk philosophically about "the good" and all that.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

A few quick notes (i have to run):<br>The question is, Charles, what that intrinsic value is. Can you say a bit more about it than just saying it is intrinsic?<br><br>Another question you raise is why you say that <i>non</i>-art photos communicate?<br><br>We have been "in the realm of value systems" ("systems"?) from the first post onwards. We are in that realm as soon as we ask if, say, a pencil is a good pencil.<br>You appear to subscribe to the Hermetic Higher Order theory, that requires something that transcends our normal world (art vs non-art) as a reference, as the Criterium for True Value. Even when you say <i>"it isn't in me to talk philosophically about "the good" and all that"</i> you are doing just that. Philosophy that is worth the name tries to avoid that, talks about our mundane world in terms of our mundane world, without alluding to Something Higher, just because it is our mundane world. 'Intrinsic value' (vague, but you appear to me Higher Value), 'art'... they are nothing special. We do not have to wonder whether we have intrinsic value, nor do we need to mirror ourselves in something we ourselves first attribute Greatness to, to see whether we are Great ourselves. (A rather pointless but all too common thing: calling something we do 'great' and then inferring that we must be 'great' ourselves too because we, after all, were able to do something that is 'great'.) 'Art' is just a thing from that world, just a thing we do. Just like making shoes and talking about the weather and last night's goings on at the neighbours.

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Charles,<br>

I think we have to agree to disagree; your premise is more or less: "<em>Art is as complex as those viewing it and if it isn't layered, is it art to begin with?</em>"; and I simply do not agree with that. Art is also music, architecture (which tends to be used), literature. Some music is simple, quite straightforward, and still art (Mozart, Haydn come to mind - a lot of there works have no complex layers at all). Minimalist works can be art, and they tend to do away with their layering. I can stand complex, layered works, and uncomplex unlayered works, so they're not as complex as me (as viewer), apparently. Regardless, I find it a bit strange to put the viewer this much in charge of the complexity of the work, as if the creator has got nothing to do with that?</p>

<p>For me, a critical difference between talking "good"/"bad" and "art" is that the first one is about a personal value system, the second one is not. I acknowledge that Van Gogh paintings are art, but for the life of me, his Vase with Flowers can't move me in any meaningful way. I don't find it good. But it is art, no doubt, and obviously that wasn't my call.</p>

[charleswood]

<p>Q.G. - "Can you say a bit more about it than just saying it is intrinsic?"</p>

<p>No, can't, in that regard I'm no better equipped to with justice reply than is the inequitably paid capuchin monkey. Yet among those dear monkeys, just acts do exist whether or not we or they can properly name them. Values exist as part of a mental surround that we're finding also in not a few mammals. Values are tightly integrated with human endeavors such as the making of shoes; and among makers and consumers alike, utilitarian objects are as subject to reification as are a few of the ultimately natural processes you seem to suggest I deify. But better I say to make a god of a capuchin monkey than to make a god out of a shoe. Either way, we're going to make one and that fact matters in any psychology worth its salt.</p>

[charleswood]

<p>I don't know Wouter, in music, is a good march considered good art or just something good to exercise to? Did we mention dance? Sound as an art form, architecture as the making of an image out of what would otherwise be a utilitarian box. But I do think of the best architecture as evocative use of space. Tired now.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>I don't know Wouter, in music, is a good march considered good art or just something good to exercise to?</p>

</blockquote>

<p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f27SlOFJ55M">HERE'S</a> my answer.</p>

<p>(Yes, Q.G., just like my neighbors hanging out and talking about the weather! LOL.)</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

The notion thus persist, i see Fred, that there are mundane things we mere mortals do, and something else which is of a different, higher order. ... and which is also something we mere mortals do, but even so of a different, higher order.<br>What is it that makes the difference? An instrinsic value. Something that we can't describe, that escapes us. How do we know about that higher order? Is it something we cannot know anything about except that it is both terrible, or aweful, and fascinating, spell binding? Something irreducible (that category of its own you alluded to Fred)?<br>But does it really transcend our humanity? The mistake you make in that last comment, Fred, is assuming that everything we do must be equally banal, so that if we surprise ourselves by doing something we think is a bit less banal, it must be something fundamentally different. It is not.<br>Some people wash clothes, and some of those are better at it than others. Not something we get excited about. Some people write music, and some of those do it better than others. (But according to whom exactly? According to some Higher Standard? Or according to you and me? I don't see how Wagner could serve your purpose, Fred, because i don't think he makes good music. We can go hang out and talk about it, as soon as we get bored talking about the weather). And then, in the case of music, our excitement is such that we assume it, the act we witnessed, transcends mere humanity.<br>Why? How? Just saying it does, using empty words such as 'transcend' and 'intrinsic value' is also just like your neighbours hanging out and talking, Fred. Those words suggest some fascinating mystery that is surely bigger than any of us or anything we do. But all we have so far is the label, and nothing to stick it on.<br>So, what would you say is it that makes art something special, something outside the realm of human activity?

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Who in the world said art is something outside the realm of human activity? Why do you keep setting up hyperbolic straw men to knock down? You can project all you want into my glib statement, based on your own musing, about neighbors hanging out, but please understand that these are your projections and have nothing to do with what I'm thinking or saying.</p>

<p>The only notion I have, if you care to listen instead of project, is that there are some actions that are mundane and some that are more interesting or, importantly to me, more passionate. Each has its place and each is human but, yes, there are fundamental differences, not in absolute terms but in personal terms.</p>

<p>I recently sat at my father's bedside while he died and that experience compares to none, except my mother's death for which I was also present, in terms of its awe-inspiring power. That's not to say I don't get something out of washing dishes. As a matter of fact, I was just talking to a friend of mine about how meditative and, yes, transcendent, I find washing the dishes can be. It slows me down and enriches me. I still don't hesitate to see it as a mundane task. And in that respect, it's fundamentally different (as are my neighbors chatting about the weather) from being with my father as he lay dying. Sorry if that in some way offends you. And, before you get your panties in a bunch over my use of the word "transcendent," no, I don't mean other-worldly or Godlike or any of the other misinterpretations you're about to reach for in order to put me down. It means, for me, beyond my usual realm of experience. And, yes, I do think there are realms beyond my own and my usual realm of experience. You only have to go to a nearby dictionary to see what transcendent means, and you'll see that the more mystical or religious definitions you chose to understand me with are, in most cases, tertiary definitions at best.</p>

<p>The bottom line is that my neighbors talking about the weather doesn't have the value to me of my best photo experiences, experiences around dying, loves I've shared, helping folks that need my help. Do I believe in a hierarchy of acts? You bet I do. I have no clue why you'd want to fabricate that into some notion of a transcendence of humanity.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Charles, ..."<em>is a good march considered good art or just something good to exercise to?</em>" ...why can it not be both? Why would one exclude the other?<br>

Fred, excellent choice of march... couldn't have thought of a better one myself (and didn't).</p>