kevin_matthews1

I like this picture. Pleasing rhythms.

What would make this picture better? I like the subject because of

the tonal range.

Our reaction to this picture engages our thinking about art along three axes, in my opinion, not two: beauty, originality, and creativity. It is worthwhile to preserve the distinctions among them. Let me go out on a limb to attempt to define them as follows: beauty is simply the visual appeal in itself, although here I do not oppose beauty to ugliness, but to banality. Diane Arbus?s pictures can be both beautiful and ugly, even simultaneously, because they are never banal. Originality is how different the image is from other images we have seen, and creativity is how much the image reveals the unique talent of the creator to organize visual elements in a beautiful and/or original way. Mr. Gaffney?s photo of the barn owl in flight reflects beauty and originality, but not creativity. In my opinion this does not diminish the photo, but it is a useful distinction to maintain nonetheless. People who dislike birds may not find the picture beautiful while to those who are not interested in bird pictures, it may not seem very original since it reminds them of all the other bird-in-flight shots they have seen in the past. Those making such judgments, however fair in their way, are simply not the intended audience for this image. I find the image very beautiful because I like birds. It also seems original to me, because, while I have seen many birds-in-flight pictures, I haven?t ever seen one of a barn owl. Barn owls in repose don?t appear nearly so dynamic or interesting as this animal. It often seems to me that a bird in flight is fundamentally a different animal from the same bird on a perch. Those of us who watch birds through binoculars are likely to be more impressed by this shot, rather than less, because we know we have never actually seen a barn owl like this.

 

Other examples of originality that makes for powerful photographs are the first bullet-breaking-glass or pictures-of-the-earth-as-seen-from-space shots that appeared when suitable technical means became available for the first time. We have all seen these pictures. The first time we saw them it told us something unforgettable about the world that was not available until photography reached that level of technical means. Who could possibly fail to find them interesting? Original pictures like these are powerful, but many are also inevitable. If the photographer in question did not take them then someone else would have not very long after. They are important because they tell us something about the world, not something about the photographer.

 

Creativity is a different quality although we only see it through the appearance of beauty and originality. Richard Avedon?s revealing photos of celebrities (e.g. Ike Eisenhower with a face made terrifyingly blank by a stroke or the older Truman Capote staring dully into space, worn out by a life of excess) are highly creative because they peel off the cliche of the celebrity face and show something else underneath that all the other photographers missed. There was a wonderfully creative picture as the critique subject on photo.net a few days ago of a person in a dark coat and umbrella crossing a snowy street. It was somehow exquisite while appearing simple. We have all walked by that shot thousands of times and this photographer showed it to us and showed his or her creativity. We remember the greats because they were creative: Ansel Adams, Cartier-Bresson, Atget, and so on.

 

I believe that thinking about aesthetics is useful and even fun although others may find discussions of any kind tedious. The most important point to me is that, contrary to some assertions, these distinctions are not purely in the eye of the beholder. If they were so completely idiosyncratic, all discussions about art would amount to no more than I-like-pistachio vs. I-don't-like-pistachio and we would have nothing informative to say to each other on the subject. I don?t think this is the case, fortunately. Recently I looked at Philip Greenspun?s female nude exhibit and was disappointed, although I like Greenspun?s other work a lot. One of the commentators pointed out that they lack sufficient tonal contrast. I hadn?t noticed that, but I think it is true and I think that is a deficiency in the photographs, not merely a purely idiosyncratic taste on the part of the commentator which would therefore be no interest to me. The eye seems to like tonal contrast although this observation does not rise to the stature of an inviolable rule among other reasons because the eye also requires novelty and is likely to get tired of a steady diet of even well-wrought contrast.

 

While we can make the case that we can sometimes say something meaningful about an image based on paying attention to our reactions, it does not follow that everyone?s reactions are equally valid. For example, if someone tells a joke in Swahili, some people will not get the joke because they lack the minimum language competence to be among the audience. Others will get the joke and laugh while still others will get the joke and be offended. Only those who actually get the joke can offer reactions that tell us anything about the joke itself. In looking at art everyone may have his own reaction, however powerful and honestly put, but not everyone?s reaction is equally informative since not everyone ?gets? it. It is not important to ?get? it all the time, but it is desirable to know when you have ?got? it and when you have not.

 

In sum, I find Mr. Gaffney?s owl in flight to be both beautiful and original. Since I myself am acquainted with both birds and bird pictures I consider myself competent to judge this photo and am reasonably confident that my judgment says something about the picture and not merely about my own ineffable tastes. Such creativity as Mr. Gaffney may muster will be available to us in his other photos; I do not miss it in this particular image.

Even with AF this is hard to do. Very impressive indeed to get this shot with MF. Also, original in the sense that I have never seen a picture of an owl like this and I look at bird pictures a lot. The shape is so different in flight by comparison with a perch shot that it looks like a different animal. This picture will permanently change my idea of a barn owl.

 

I think originality may be less relevant to bird photography than some other areas since excellent technique, as applied here, is often enough to show the viewer what he has never seen before.

Very nice picture. I notice that it works well at the "normal" size, but also as a thumbnail.

I have to disagree with the favorable comment over this picture. It looks fake to me. Now I am not saying that it is fake, but it appears to me to have the kind of unreality that is easy to produce with a computer and not interesting to see. If the scene was real, then it is too bad for the photographer that modern aesthetics (mine, at least) have devalued this kind of effect. So, it looks ugly to me. Being there might have been awe-inspiring, but we are talking about a picture.