Why is "good" photography so important?

[al_kaplan1]

A lot of boring mediocre photos only take on a life of their own, and become interesting, when they've survived long enough to acquire historical significance. Imagine if you had a photograph of a young black kid with a guitar jamming with a group of white kids in a garage band. The white kids (who later recorded as Jefferson Airplane and Jefferson Starship) decided that times weren't right for featuring a black lead guitarist (Jimi Hendrix) with a white band and being able to get a recording contract. (True story.) Imagine what the value a couple rolls of Tri-X exposed in that garage might be worth today. It wouldn't matter if they were properly exposed or well composed, only that the people were recognizable!

[mike_webster]

Travis,

 

You don't have to explain anything to anyone here. Continue to do what you're doing. I for one, like what you do.

 

Frankly, it's real simple. If someone doesn't like an image, rather than get nasty all they have to do is click their mouse and "poof", its gone. Screw the anonymous naysayers!

 

Mike

[hil3]

I bet there are more "mediocre" boxes of crappy snaps in closets and under beds than there are "good" photos hanging on gallery walls every where.

 

I wouldn't trade one of my dad's snaps of me and my brothers growing up for Moonrise over Hernandez, even though I know which one is "better."

 

I have a lot of respect for people who post their work for comment on this and other forums. Ultimately, I think most of us just want to keep improving our technique so that we get closer to putting on a print what we saw with our eyes and minds. A lot of us bought into Leica to eliminate "crappy gear" from the equation. We are using manual methods because we want control over our output. What's left?

Quite a lot. Film selection, exposure technique, development, and so forth. Takes a lot of "mediocre" shots to get better at any of it. I can learn from someone else's attempts and experiments and not just my own.

 

For some of us know-it-alls, getting good photos is an intellectual excercize - no need to click the shutter, really.

[grant_.]

some people like the way an orange tastes. some do not. the orange is still an orange tho, neither good nor bad.

<br>

<br>

same goes with a photograph. its just a personal taste.

[kevin_hundsnurscher]

The internet is pretty starved for good content, so I think the negative attitudes are partially due to people's impatience with having to wade through other people's work that is self absorbed and not intended for mass consumption.

[kevin_hundsnurscher]

When I say "good content" I mean, content that has been fleshed out and is complete and fulfilling.

[stephen hazelton]

You remind me of the Dilbert, where Dilbert gives his little speech about "Why must we judge each other? Why can't we just accept each other as we are? etc". Dilbert finishes, Dogbert holds up a numbered rating card, and says, "Good, but it lacked emotion."

[h._p.]

I've been trying to say this around here for quite some time, and usually got shot down for my efforts. I sincerely believe that there is no such thing as good or bad art of any sort, only what you like or don't like. People talk about 'great artists' by which they mean the people they've been told are great artists, or the people whose stuff they like, and belittle or dismiss anyone who dares to disagree with those judgements. Woe betide the poor fool who dares to say that, for example, he isn't all that impressed by the Mona Lisa.

 

The truth is, it's a status game. Someone who's invested a lot in getting a degree in Fine Art, doesn't want to be told that his opinion of what is good or bad art is exactly as relevant as the man who collects his rubbish every week. The sad truth is, you will never get the people who believe they know what's 'good' to back off, so it becomes a dialogue of the deaf.

 

When I comment on a picture I try to stick to explaining why I like it or not, without pretending to judge it by some non-existent rules of artistic quality. I may say that I think something would be better left out or added in but I try to make it clear that I'm expressing a personal opinion.

[ray .]

Good post Travis. Tough question. Grant's comments sound dead on to me, and seem the most relevant from my perspective.

 

Still, I'm not prepared to disregard Rob's perspective and accept Harvey's altogether. Probably an element of truth in both.

[sprouty]

<I>�When I say "good content" I mean, content that has been fleshed out and is complete and fulfilling.�</I>

<P>

<a href=" http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=005LBq">Here</a> is a �rule breaker� that I find filling to the last drop. I suspect there are LOTS more of these but they are suffocated by the piles of images of exposed breasts, over-saturated landscapes, and PS creations.

[OCULUS New York]

"Good" photography of any sort is nearly impossible to appreciate in this 72 dpi medium. Now THAT'S something somebody ought to improve.

 

Ray Hull

[kevin m.]

Grant, precisely because you practice what you preach, the

images you post are consistently among the most

attention-worthy on this forum. But there's a South American

author (whose name escapes me) who is as good with words

as you are with a camera, and about writing he had this to say:

<i>"Read what you like; write what you must."</i> Substitue

<i>Read</i> and <i>Write</i> with whatever words are

appropriate for the craft you practice and there's not much more

to say. Which is what I think you were getting at.

<p>

I will add this: I almost always find the work that has the

longest-lasting effect on me is the work I resist initially, but that

keeps nagging at me until I go back and have another go.

Conversely, I am now quite skeptical about anything that initially

appeals to my senses, because it's usually designed to be in

accord with whatever it is I think I 'know,' which is almost always

false.

<p>

We admire good technique and craftsmanship, but that's not

enough. We admire daring and innovation, but that's not enough

by itself, either. There must be some balance between the two,

however lopsided, to achieve the affect we mean when we speak

of 'art.'

<p>

Finally, I think Travis is just saying <i>'Play nice; you're not

talented enough to be rude.' </i>

[al_kaplan1]

Amen!

[erik_den_hartigh]

I think there is something like 'good' and 'mediocre' photography. In this respect I agree with what Rob Appleby said above. Obviously the distinction is not clear-cut. But also in art, I think many people would agree that a Van Eyck picture is 'better' than the one your neighbour produced after his first aquarel lesson (exceptions precluded).

 

The cultural relativism that speaks from most of the above posts is perhaps very polite, in the sense that we are all trying to be nice to each other, but it is not very productive. How are you going to improve your photography or the photography of others if you don't have a concept of what is 'better' and what is 'worse'? If you adopt the relativist stand, then you can just say that 'a photograph is good' because you personally have a positive emotional feel about it'. If it is so personal, then why post it and share it with others? In the same way you will get comments like 'this photograph is total crap' from people who have a negative emotional feel about it. Both reactions contain exactly zero information.

 

As I understand Josh' initiative for the CRIT posts, the very idea of these is to argument why you think a photograph is good or not. Argument beyond the level of just 'I like it' or 'I think it's crap'.

 

NB don't misunderstand me, I think we should remain at all times polite while criticising each other's photogrpahs. But we should also give honest critique.

[joshroot]

Happened to read a quote yesterday that I think is very appropriate to this discussion (and to all of us):

 

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself--and you are the easiest person to fool. So you have to be very careful about that." -Richard Feynman

 

We all trick ourselves one way or the other when looking at our own photos. We either think they are much more than they really are (due to our closeness to a particular subject or experience) or we find fault with them when others would not (probably due to perfectionist feelings that our own work can never be "great").

[andy m.]

I'm having problems reconciling the fact that we who favour the (arguably) best cameras, or sharpest optics etc. are arguing that (for example), someone's happy snaps (laudible though they may be), taken with a focus-free camera, are as good as some of the beautifully crafted shots that one is really capable of capturing with the the Leica. I mean, I have seen such beautiful shots on this forum. <p>

 

Of course I agree that people should be polite and constructive when apprasing another's shots. But surely some photos are simply better than others. <p>

 

When I was learning to play the guitar as a teenager, 10-15 years ago, I would have loved to have been given a recording contract because "all art is equally good". But thank goodness I wasn't!

 

Then lets consider painters (I am no expert on this subject), but take Picasso for example... No better than anyone else?

[brambor]

I think the photos here should be limited to photos made with Leica equipment. When I actually get a Leica lens for my M6, which is hopefully somewhere in transit right now, I hope to post some pictures here for educational critique. I would want to hear WHY my picture sucks and also have the opportunity to challenge that opinion until I finally get the educational pointer or until I am clear on the opinion because that is the only way to learn and get ahead. I wouldn't want someone KNOWLEDGEABLE to beat around the bush and waste my time. At last, though, one thing I would like to see is that the person critiquing could actually back their opinion up with reasonable portfolio so that I feel assured I'm not listening to eight year old Johny who is on his school break.

[joshroot]

<i>"is that the person critiquing could actually back their opinion up with reasonable portfolio"</i><P>You are sure to miss some useful knowledge and advice with that requirement.<P>

One doesn't have to be a great artist to be able to talk about the craft of painting. Why should photography be any different? I frequently talk about and critique my local pro sports teams. I do the same with my elected officials. And I can guarentee that I will never play professional sports, and with any luck will never be elected to office.

[Brad_]

<I>...so that I feel assured I'm not listening to eight year old Johny who is on his

school break.</I><P>

 

Busted!

 

When I post photos here, I'm not looking for critique. I have a few online photo friends

whose work and judgement I highly respect should I need that. I can't imagine

seeking critique online from people whose work or critiquing abilities are unknown.

[ray .]

It shouldn't be a problem for people to express their opinion

about work, in fact it's something that's needed. I agree though

that a condescending attitude toward someone's efforts in

general can be an annoyance. Anyone with any sense or

understanding of what it means to encourage someone and not

squash their ego in a teaching situation should understand this.

Conversely, it's probably important to contribute to the

conversation if it seems obvious to you that someone has an

over-inflated view of their work. Many times you're helping them

by doing it , giving them a reality check.

 

It's up to the photographer to expect that there are all kinds of

opinions out there, and he/she should be prepared for any of it.

Anyone who produces something creative or has experienced

critiques in art school or simialar environment knows that having

a tough hide and not taking things too personally is something

that's a necessity. If a criticism is malicious, then putting the

attacker back in his place can both be a joy and a necessary

skill, unless of course your instincts and preference are to

simply ignore it. The best artists probably view every person's

input as an opportunity to learn something... to a greater or

lesser extent. Even a condescending comment can end up

giving you more confidence and energy for what you're doing,

once you consider it, and maybe the place where it came from.

 

Being shaken to the foundation and questioning everything

you've ever done on occaision is something that most artists

experience anyway, and isn't entirely a bad thing. Those meant

to continue survive it and usually end up stronger in the long run.

As long as you find value for yourself in what you're doing, you'll

continue doing it, regardless.

[brambor]

Josh,There is an exeption to every rule but I still stand behind my statement.

[brambor]

Let me just elaborate on the last statement a little more. I venture to say that there is enough knowledgeable photographers on this forum who can back their opinion with their work . It is then safe to conclude that we would not be 'desperate' for an opinion from secret 'Ansel' who chooses to think posting own photos is beneath him/her. If we can conclude that then let's deal with the sure thing and let those who want to play, step up and prove their credentials first.

[ray .]

Peter, I don't necessarily agree with Rob all the time but I think it's good to have his perspective here. Many times when giving his assessment of the talent on this forum he's included himself in the mix. I just wish he'd be nice to Sandy though. Rob, you listening? ;)

 

Now, I hate reading long winded posts and I hate writing them, so what was it I said a couple posts above? Probably mostly horsesht... at least a large dollup or two...

[tom h.]

Well said Ray. The only thing worse than taking an elitist stance

with no photographs in your folder, is to do it with excellent

photographs in your folder.

[joshroot]

Rene,

 

Yes, I do get your point. However, considering that we're on a internet forum where anyone can call themselves any name they want. And I could load up any photo in the world and tell you it was mine with no proof other than my word. I think that relying on a internet portfolio is a waste of time as a quality check for image critiquing.

 

I can tell if someone is a know nothing blowhard a lot faster by listening to what they have to say than looking at the photos in their photo.net portfolio.

 

And you ignore the fact that not everyone has the time, money, or intrest to scan in their photos just to post them on the internet.