Originally posted by RioRico Almost all photography is bad. Much is very very bad.
I have a book
STIEGLITZ STEICHEN STRAND put out by the Museum of Modern Art. It's one of those big, over-priced, but well printed, artsy coffee table books. It gave a good and pretty complete survey of these three photographers lifetime work.
Anyway one time I sat down and just looked at each picture quickly just using my gut reaction and asking - "did I like the image?" Note: I did not ask whither I disliked an image but simply what really intuitively grabbed my attention and appealed to me.
Result: 12% of the lifetime work of three of the "greatest masters" of 20th century photography were, to me, "good" images. The rest "bad" or indifferent in my opinion.
CONCLUSION: Anything that I say about a given images says more about me than it does about the objective quality of the image let alone the "art" of the image.
But then, how could it be otherwise?