daniel_braithwaite

Ellis i do not mean to be rude, but if i am struggling to put across my point clearly im sorry, but i dont think your responses are helpful.

And it was john that mention Capa sorry!

My wording may not have been quite as helpful as i had intended. What I ment by that statement, is that although people feel that the first response to photography is instinctive, this doesnt account for social conditioning, i.e a flower is beautiful but in a certain social perspective its meaning changes. But the point i was trying to emphasis is that using this form of presentation is equally as important in the creation of a photograph as is the subject itself, one without other leads to what i described.

Mike has made a very good point of which i had not considered, does the capture of extreme moments, and events of social importance also effect how we judge a photo, and why?

"here is the one thing you must know about what great photogrpahy or other arts are all about: paying attention."

True, technique is something everyone can master, and so is quoting. However what is the basis behind that statement, what attention can you pay to something that makes your work better, what effects the overall ability to wow someone. Is it visual, is it personal, or is it a combination of to many unknown factors.

Ive made a similar thread that encompasses a similar question. Roger Scruton, a british philospher has written a good essay on the subject of how photography cannot represent. It says we cannot appreciate a photograph like we would a painting, because the painting is a representation of how the artist percieves a person or place, where as a photography is a carbon copy of a angle and a time and that appreciating the photograph is just an appreciation of the subject.

You like a photograph of a ferrari not becuase of the photograph but because you like ferraris.

However there are counter arguements as such, but at the moment i cant remember the guys name.

http://d-sites.net/English/scrutonphotography.htm

Its a supported theory that when observing photos or any art in particular,

that we judge a pieces worth by comparing it to inbuilt instinctual

references. An example of the "innocent eye" is portrayed in Tanseys artwork,

where a cow is shown a lifelike painting of a bull, with scientifical dressed

men waiting eagerly for a reaction. It could be said this is the basis of the

basic rules of photography, such as dynamic lines and rules of third, and that

art is just an extention for an appreaction of naturally created beauty.

However this doesnt account for representation by an artist, or societys

norms. A flower doesnt not connote beauty if it is a lilly on a coffin. So

what is more important, or do they have equal properties that should be

considered on judgement.

Im writing a piece for my studies, and by no means would consider having

anyone on this forum do my work, but i would like a broader perspective on the

subject, than just the books im reading. Scolars like Arthur Danto would say

that art can be anything, as long as it is subject to criticism and

recognition by "the art world" consisting of knowledgable people. Movements

such as conceptualism apply no aesthetic value at all, but base their artistic

merit on what something can mean or represent. In photography however, and

what im trying to argue is that representation and aesthetics are equal in

merit, but only a "great" photo can exist when the two are combined, one

without the other only leads to repetition or plain stupidity. Aesthetics

understanding without representation creates basic patterns and similarly

repeating copies of shapes you'd see in nature. Lines running from corner to

corner, clones of basic rules. Representation without aesthetic value leads to

uninteresting confusing photos that do nothing to tempt a viewer into deeper

thought, and only become apparent with background understanding or text. Roger

Scruton would disagree with me and even says that a photo is incapable of

representing anything, and that photography isnt art, in so much as it is just

a pure carbon copy of something that we already appreciate, you do not

appreciate a photograph, you only appreciate its subject, where as art you

appreciate how the subject was created.

Do you think that the greatest photos follow a similar pattern? Do you think

this or another reason is why some photos stick out more than others, or do

they just apply a greater aesthetic than most. Id like to know what you

everyone thinks is the reason that we appreciate some works more than others.

If anyone has any text or books that they would like to suggest in the

subjects of aesthetics, representation and the philosphy of photography of art

i would be very appreciative.

Thanks for reading.<div></div>