What makes a good photograph?

[Brad_]

Still, I don't see why it is held that an artist (claimed or otherwise) makes a good photograph.

Can people who are not artists make good photographs? Fred, are you an artist?

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Brad, I agree with you. I don't think it's right to hold that an artist makes a good photo. Yes, people who are not artists make good photos. And people who are artists make bad photos. I was just making the point that one's claim to be an artist doesn't make them so.</p>

[charleswood]

<p>Brad the OP question, what makes a good photograph: I was just exploring the 'what' of that question. Exploring the maker, not the photograph though the OP clearly meant to explore qualities of photographs not qualities of photograph makers. </p>

<p>So I could have said 'a good photographer makes a good photograph.' I'm not trying to be very logical, we could say too that a good photograph can also be made by a bad photographer (one hole in one does not a good golfer make). One question begets another, so we could ask what makes a good photographer, or even, what makes a good artist?</p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>Well the photo stands as art and is "good" regardless of who shot it. Also, luck can play a great part as well, for amateurs and pros.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

Circular reasoning: a good photographer makes a good photograph. And how do we know he/she is a good photographer? Because he/she makes a good photograph. Says nothing.<br><br>I'm extremely doubtful about that "responsibility" aspect that got injected into the discussion (apart from that it also says nothing about what a good photograph makes). What responsibility? To what or whom? What gets offended, and how, or what else would happen if you fail miserably in that reponsible task?<br>There is no responsibility.

[charleswood]

<p>When the question is 'what behaviors make good art' I favor setting strict logic aside; and specifically 'art' at least narrows the inquiry down a lot, but for me leaves me with even less to say. Particularly when 'good' involves a value judgment, though I am of the belief that we have responsibilities to sort through when sending and receiving value judgments. I don't think artists' responsibilities are as unique and weighty as that quote from Jaar suggests, perhaps coming from his personally over identifying with his muse and generalizing his excess responsibility feelings to other artists? <a href="

Gilbert speaks to <em>that</em> degree of responsibility as an unnecessary burden encouraged of artists after the renaissance.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>But is any good photo art? Or can a photo be completely not art, but still good? To me, these two things aren't necessarily linked at all. There are art photos that I think are simply bad, and non-art photos which are really good. I think adding "art" into the discussion creates more complications than it solves, really.</p>

<p>There is responsibility in the communication envisioned with the photography, just as any of us carry responsibility for the words we speak (or write here). That's not unique to art, but to any sort of communication.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>I adopt a moral responsibility to the subjects of my portraits, so that if one were to ask me not to show his or her photo in public, I wouldn't. Others might go strictly by their legal obligations. I sometimes limit myself more than the law requires for the benefit of others. I take on the responsibility not to scare mothers on the street by photographing their children without permission. Leni Riefenstahl showed no sense of responsibility for what the murderers she was shooting for were doing and therefore shot propaganda for the Nazis. Interestingly, despite that, she made good photos. With unspeakably dishonorable intentions and to a murderous purpose. Now, with Riefenstahl, one could falter by trying to say that her purpose in Olympiad was to show the beauty of the human body, and she achieved that, therefore the photos are good. That would, IMO, be myopic. Because the ultimate purpose was to show the German race as physically (and, therefore, in other ways) superior. Purpose is complex and rarely is only a single-minded purpose involved in anything we create. They're good because they have certain photographic characteristics that make them compelling to look at and visually charged. But limiting her purpose to that would be, IMO, a superficial reading of her work. They're good propaganda because they fulfilled the Nazis purpose and desires. They're good photos because of how they look. </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Now, I don't see judgments of good art rising or falling on purpose but I certainly do think purpose is involved with art. And if purpose is involved, responsibility would seem to, by necessity, go along with that, unless the purposes are being set forth and fulfilled by automatons or robots.</p>

[MichaelChang]

<blockquote>

<p><em>"Now, I don't see judgments of good art rising or falling on purpose but I certainly do think purpose is involved with art. And if purpose is involved, responsibility would seem to, by necessity, go along with that, unless the purposes are being set forth and fulfilled by automatons or robots."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Fred, you spoke of moral and ethical duties to which you are bound; as an artist, are you also bound by artistic duties? If so, what are they, and what are the rules governing them? </p>

[dhbebb]

<p><em>" A photograph should be more interesting than the subject and transcend its obviousness"</em><br>

Sadly, yet another pronouncement from an ivory tower dweller who has never done any real-world photography. Had he done so, he would know that the challenge in, for example, photojournalism and advertising,is to make pictures which are AS interesting and informative concerning an event or product as the real thing. With portraiture, the task is to capture and express the personality of a walking talking breathing person in a two-dimensional still image. The statement could at a pinch apply to strolling around with a camera on a Sunday afternoon. Try "A photograph should capture the essence of the subject" - the version above smacks of arrogance, condescension and ignorance.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

I agree Wouter. Social responsibility (i.e. questions concerning when and why anything we do is morally good) that is not particular to art or to what makes a good photograph good, indeed. And as such a bit of a red herring here.<br>Leni Riefenstahl appears to be a favourite example of how good photos are put to bad use. Are her photos bad because what they were intended to do is morally bad? What would be, in my opinion, superficial is to confuse the quality of her photography with the quality of her purpose.<br>That boring photo i mentioned earlier is still a very good one if it was indeed intended to make you feel bored, even though you do not like how watching it makes you feel and don't like people who make you feel bored on purpose. What would the difference be, would you say, between two photos made with the same (morally reprehensible) intent and purpose, one that achieves that goal and one that does not?

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>Leni Riefenstahl appears to be a favourite example of how good photos are put to bad use.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>"Good" in what sense?</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Lannie, look at them. What do YOU see and think?</p>

<p>_________________________________________</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Are her photos bad because what they were intended to do is morally bad?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Already answered in my post above. They're good photos, despite the bad purposes for which they were made. That's why judgments of good when it comes to photos can be separated from the purpose of the photos. And, she ought to have been and to this day is being held <em>responsible</em> for them.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>Try "A photograph should capture the essence of the subject" - the version above smacks of arrogance, condescension and ignorance.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>David, if that statement above does, which I don't think it does, then yours does too, which I also don't think it does. Both statements, like photos, are snapshots in time of something the speaker is thinking. They both seem genuinely felt and both are true in their own ways. The problem is when they are spoken to be universally or exclusively true, true for all photos. Each statement captures an important idea of what SOME photos can do. But neither is fully the whole story. Many portraits seem to capture the essence of the subject, though I've always questioned the validity of the notion of essence, since it's too fixed and too-fully-defining an idea for my tastes. Many portraits don't capture anything like an essence. They may capture more of a micro-expression that's relatable to a lot of viewers. A portrait sometimes is less about the person who's the subject and more a reflecting device for the viewer. Many portraits capture a significant fleeting glance, which won't give a clue about the person's so-called essence but rather the view of a telling human moment. A good portrait can even be very deceiving about the subject. It can be a flight of fantasy. It can be a projection of the photographer., but still a significant one.</p>

<p>It's the same problem I have with trying to reduce "good photo" to one criterion. What works in one instance doesn't work in another. Our aesthetic judgments are relative to context and to individual work. If art has taught me anything, it's that there is nothing that applies to ALL. The minute we think we've got it, some artist comes along to prove us wrong. There are all kinds of reasons to judge something good. Often we agree. Art and the world would be very uninteresting if those reasons were always the same.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Intent, seperating subject qualities from photographic qualities, ethical implications, the message vonveyed - it all can be good, bad, and independent of one another. And then there is the simple aesthetics still too. Something can be good and bad at the same time, depending on what you're looking for.</p>

<p>The Riefenstahl example is interesting, because it adds the full complexity: morally bad and bad use - according to us, now (and yes, I'm not going to claim otherwise). But in her own day, her own society, the government found otherwise, and found it probably ethically, aesthetically excellent work. The historical, cultural context in which the photo is created is easy to condemn with our current-day knowledge and insights. But understanding it, and putting it into context is a whole different matter, but often very necessary to get a proper idea.<br>

And that's also the essence on why I also think no photo captures the essence of anything - it's presumtuous to think that we have sufficient knowledge and understanding of a situation or person while we shoot them to catch "the" essence. At best, we capture what in our (limited!) point of view could be an essence, as we perceive it.</p>

<p>We tend to look at a photo, and call it either good, or bad. And then a little (or a lot) later on, we look a bit better, we study the results, we try to empathise and understand, and reach a far more balanced conclusion, where "good" or "bad" are essentially insufficient words. As stated in the OP, the question is too broad, but possibly I'd get away with calling a photo "good" if it catches my attention on first sight. Anything that happens afterwards, is bound to be a more muddy-grey verbose answer.</p>

[LineMartel]

<p>To me a good photo is one I am excited and feel compelled to take and then feel even more excited in how it resulted. It is an intimate relation between the artist and his art. Once you go beyond that and involve the judgement of an audience it becomes marketing...</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

I'm still not sure: do we now agree that reponsibility is something that is important, but not part of what makes a good photograph a good photograph?<br><br>I see a quite large and significant difference between saying that a photograph must transcend its subject and that it should capture it. Between needing to go above and beyond the subject into some imaginary realm (of Bigger Things perhaps?) and presenting the subject as it is.<br>You can indeed question what the essence of something is. I think the answer will be along the lines of: what we think it is. That is quite different from, rather less problematic than, looking for something beyond.<br><br>But i'm glad to see we again return to "fulfilling its purpose". I agree that many portraits manage to show the subject in a way that doesn't even make it instantly recognizable who the sitter is, even to his intimi. If we suppose the intent of a portrait is to show the person as we know him or her, a photograph that doesn't does not fulfill its purpose (duh... i know). It can be quite interesting still, and if that is the real purpose - to provide a fresh look, show the sitter as we might not expect him to be seen, for instance to point out that most people are more interesting than what we who think we know them assume - it is a good photograph again.<br>The essence and the intent... The intent is important. Showing the essence is just one possible intent. ([Think, for instance, back to those traffic cams. They do not intent to capture the essence of a car running a red light or driving too fast. They want to record cars running red lights or speeding in an identifiable way. If they do that, they are good photographs, and the inventor ans useres of those systems can feel quite happy about these succesful photographs.)<br><br>I agree, Fred, that one person's "good" is not necessarily everybody's "good". But it is quite a leap from there to "there is nothing that applies to ALL" and i'm not sure you landed safely. How about, for instance, what you say about responsibility and art?

[AlanKlein]

<p>I think we're over-thinking this and getting too far into the weeds. If you spend more than three seconds looking at a picture, it's good. More than five, it's very good. Ten or more, it's probably your own.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

Would that be accumulative, so that a picture you look at for three seconds two or more times could be better than a single look full five second very good picture?

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>"Produced by Order of the Fuehrer"</p>

<p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0kwnLzFMls">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0kwnLzFMls</a></p>

<p>I don't know, guys. I am not so sure that intent can be divorced from merit.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Inspired by reading <em>Mein Kampf</em>:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Riefenstahl heard candidate Adolf Hitler speak at a rally in 1932 and was mesmerized by his talent as a public speaker. Describing the experience in her memoir, Riefenstahl wrote: "I had an almost apocalyptic vision that I was never able to forget. It seemed as if the Earth's surface were spreading out in front of me, like a hemisphere that suddenly splits apart in the middle, spewing out an enormous jet of water, so powerful that it touched the sky and shook the earth".<sup id="cite_ref-A_Memoir_1993_20-0" ><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leni_Riefenstahl#cite_note-A_Memoir_1993-20">[20]</a></sup> According to the <em>Daily Express</em> of 24 April 1934, Leni Riefenstahl had read <em><a title="Mein Kampf" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mein_Kampf">Mein Kampf</a></em> during the making of her film <em>The Blue Light</em>. This newspaper article quotes her as having commented, "The book made a tremendous impression on me. I became a confirmed National Socialist after reading the first page. I felt a man who could write such a book would undoubtedly lead Germany. I felt very happy that such a man had come". She wrote to Hitler requesting a meeting. After meeting Hitler she was offered the opportunity to direct <a title="Sieg des Glaubens" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sieg_des_Glaubens">Sieg des Glaubens</a> (<em>Victory of Faith</em>), an hour-long propaganda film about the fifth Nazi Party rally at Nuremberg in 1933. Riefenstahl agreed to direct the movie after returning from filming a movie in Greenland, and it was funded entirely by the <a title="Nazi Party" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Party">Nazi Party</a> as the credits to the film show quite clearly. (Wikipedia)</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[MichaelChang]

<p>Finally! <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law">Godwin's Law</a>! <br>

Thanks, Lannie. :-)</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Ethics and esthetics: VALUE THEORY.<br>

<br>

--Lannie<br /></p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Michael, sometimes a limiting case can be used in order to make a point, or to be used as a single counter-example to show the invalidity of a generalization of the type "<em><strong>All</strong> </em>photos can be evaluated apart from the circumstances, motives, or intent of those who took them, and<strong> <em>apart from the consequences which they helped to bring about</em></strong>."</p>

<p>Perhaps "most." Perhaps not "all."</p>

<p>In any case, I did not raise Leni Riefenstahl's name in the course of the thread. It had already been introduced above--and with it the unstated allusion to Adolph Hitler.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>