What makes a good photograph ?

[samstevens]

8 hours ago, za33photo said:

But the "Critics" and self styled "Experts" 😇 have enormous influence (it has always been like this) , and tend to carry the day.

😁😁.

In some ways true, in some ways not. Throughout art history there are many cases of artists who have both defied and led the critics and experts. That’s pretty much what’s moved photography forward.

Stieglitz fought the critics, experts, curators, and influencers tooth and nail to get photography accepted as art. He did that by making photos that resembled paintings in significant ways. Then, once that was accepted, he defied them by insisting that photos could be unique and different from paintings and they wound up accepting that.

It took Mapplethorpe time and effort to gain acceptance (and plenty still won’t accept the validity of his work). Sure, now he may provide an acceptable standard against which newer artists are judged, but he had plenty to overcome and had the courage and talent to overrule many of the experts of his time. Now, Mapplethorpe himself may be part of the mainstream and acceptable to most critics, so the next generation of scofflaws will get their turn at redefining the norms and even rebelling against Mapplethorpe.

Of course, curators, critics, and experts also sometimes have make-or-break power. Szarkowski comes to mind.

Every photographer has the choice of letting someone else or letting what most people like or think they like carry the day or carrying it themselves. Most likely, there will be some combination of the two, the kind of tension between existing within an already-developed art world and breaking free of it that is the history of both art and photography.

Edited December 26, 2022 by samstevens

[Allen Herbert]

"But the "Critics" and self styled "Experts" 😇 have enormous influence (it has always been like this) , and tend to carry the day."

Of course.

If they decide, then it it is decided. They will cloak the photograph in a thousand words of hyperbole .Quoting various photographs from the past to create a picture of learning and credibility. 

Superior intellect and education.

The reality is, does a photograph communicate/work it really does not need a thousand words or be cloaked in hyperbole.  

[inoneeye]

On 12/26/2022 at 7:31 AM, samstevens said:

scofflaws will get their turn

🥂

[AlanKlein]

For every photographer trying to produce "art" and have to bow down to the art world gatekeepers, there are hundreds if not thousands of workaday photographers earning a living selling photos to newspapers, magazines advertisers, married couples, families, and others and who prove themselves by their work, creativity, and effort.  

Edited December 28, 2022 by AlanKlein

[AlanKlein]

Which reminds of the quote about fame being 10% inspiration and 90% perspiration. 

[za33photo]

"Organized Art" is so artificial , prestige and MONEY driven.

 

 

[je ne regrette rien]

 A good photograph makes sense.

• It may make sense because of its aesthetics.
• it may make sense because it stands out in the landscape of thematically or aesthetically comparable photos.
• it may make sense emotionally, as it stirs feelings.

Making sense to whom?

• the author.
• a restricted audience.
• a wide audience thanks to a communication and diffusion channel.
• critics or experts in the history of photography.
• followers on a social media platform.

It depends.

Novelty and originality are important, but to whom? And what is the background, the knowledge, the context awareness of this person, struck by the picture, its novelty and originality?

What makes a good photograph raises more questions than answers can be given. And still, when I see a good picture I know it is a good one.

[mikemorrellNL]

Pfff ... I still stick to the adage "beauty in is the eye of the beholder".

In other words, any 'valuation' of any photo is always subjective. Depending on personal criteria and preferences. Some people just really love sunrises and sunsets!

So for me, this thread is mostly about 'talking amongst yourselves'.

[je ne regrette rien]

It is not purely subjective.

There are universal criteria to set up a picture story, to compose a picture, to place a certain work into the overall body of photographic work of the world. What the beholder knows is extremely important and determines the context, within which the picture or the work is placed.

Roxana Marcoci, MoMA's Chief curator of photography, certainly knows much more than any average beholder, as does Clement Chéroux, former curator a the MoMA and now Director of the Henri Cartier-Bresson Foundation.

Likewise, did John Szarkowski and Edward Steichen. They were photographers but also "knew" photography and were able to spot master work, even if still not yet universally recognised.

Edited December 28, 2022 by je ne regrette rien

[samstevens]

2 hours ago, mikemorrellNL said:

Pfff ... I still stick to the adage "beauty in is the eye of the beholder".

In other words, any 'valuation' of any photo is always subjective. Depending on personal criteria and preferences. Some people just really love sunrises and sunsets!

So for me, this thread is mostly about 'talking amongst yourselves'.

The question of the thread was "what makes a good photo" which is a different question from "what makes a beautiful photo".

Many good photos are not beautiful. Perhaps more importantly, many beautiful photos aren’t very good!

Subjectivity isn't as subjective as it might seem. And our viewing of photos isn't just a matter of personal criteria and preference, even though those criteria and preferences vary. Our supposedly subjective judgments are heavily influenced by culture, biology, class, race, background, and exposure. So, much of what we think of as subjective actually has more objectivity than we often give it credit for. 

There are experts in all fields, including photography and photo criticism, worth listening to. Healthy skepticism is warranted but outright dismissal usually is not.

Talking amongst ourselves is exactly what this forum and most other forums here (except, of course, No Words) is about. 

 

 

Edited December 28, 2022 by samstevens

[za33photo]

In the subjective field of "Art" , why does it always seem to be necessary for the "experts" to tell us what is "good", or "bad" Art.

Each individual sees things differently , or are people no longer expected or allowed to think or judge for themselves.

In the Technical and Scientific fields things are different , as knowledge can (usually) , be proven , or not proven , as the case may be.

This is how I see it anyway.

 

[je ne regrette rien]

2 hours ago, za33photo said:

In the subjective field of "Art" , why does it always seem to be necessary for the "experts" to tell us what is "good", or "bad" Art.

Art is not subjective in the sense of “like it” or “not like it”. It is subjective in that its appraisal depends on knowledge. Of what was produced as art so far, photographed if you will, and how something seen at a certain moment relates to it.

This does not mean that feelings, emotions or taste are not important. Or that any viewer is in any way limited in their freedom of expression. We do not “need” any experts, but they may be very useful to understand better what we see. In this specific case it is not the expert per se who tells us anything, it’s their knowledge of history of photography to understand creativity, expression, and emotions. And then make up our mind.

[je ne regrette rien]

We debated this topic here at length twelve+ years ago.

What I can suggest today is:

• A good photo, which does not necessarily mean “a beautiful photo”, is a photo which makes sense to the photographer in first instance.
• It’s up to the photographer to explore and understand all the factors and elements, which make sense to her and which she wants to be part of her work.
• This exploration and understanding is the path to a wider contextualisation of the creative work and to the determination of its sense beyond the individual perception of the photographer.

We may want to widen this discourse delving deeper into the photographer’s perspective as well as into the beholder’s perspective.

[Allen Herbert]

Does it work? Or, does it need a thousand words?

"his exploration and understanding is the path to a wider contextualization of the creative work and to the determination of its sense beyond the individual perception of the photographed"

I mean, really.

"sense beyond the individual perception"

Only Angels could possibly understand what is beyond our perception. Perhaps the poster, of such deep perception, has risen above mere humanity, and has become a Angel. 

Our full it.

 

[Allen Herbert]

Hey Hoy

All sort of stuff on the web, much like the newspapers.

But, they put a smile on your face.

 

 

[AlanKlein]

If you stay looking at the picture longer than two seconds, then it's a good picture.  If others do the same than it's even better.

[Allen Herbert]

But then, you have to spare the two seconds.

[Allen Herbert]

Rarely do folks do.