[pxt]

The prevailing assumption, mistaken in my view, is that photography may only be judged as an artistic endeavor. But photography is many other things, and there is no conscious artistic intention behind the vast majority of photographs. This does not mean they are "bad", or that 'artistic' photography exists on a higher plane.

You make classic mistate. You think from individual perspective and you lost perspective neutral and common for all people that they want beauty and good things not bad. Western civilisation is based on principle that whatever we doing it can be good or wrong. It is a classic binary choice. It is a more complicated thing when we get facts from historography. On 19th century fx. Thomas Buckley say in his history of England than free will not exist. At this point is not posible get unambiguous answer what is good and wrong on human activity like using photography tools and grading them. Popculture makes thoughts like Herders thoughts that all changing in progress more popular. Werner fx. wrote opposite that making more good is inprint in human.

It's looks like boring philosophy issue, but anyone who had history in school should know Allies or Aristotele logic. In 1991 israelish scientist Eyal Mozes from Weizmann Institute of Science on Department of Applied Mathematics created some type artifical intelligence based on that. I wrote about that because is not perspective of personal beliefs, religion on nationality is here. On base of math successor of intentional logic of Veatch create system to get simple yes and no answers on questions. It was called deductive database.

In short you have to first act like make photo before we can judge that.

From logic point of view photography can only be good or bad. Another option is nonsense, because the same photography in the same time in other hand can get labels "good" and "bad" what is contradictory. Neutral point of view from western civilisation descriibe that objectivity is above what we think about objectivity. Sun sunshine and sunrise without what we think about it. Sun is changing from dusk till dawn and it is fact. The same fact is "bad" or "good" in photograph. We have to only common for all point of view - neutral called nature law. It is exist without our intensions. Good and bad is not only artististic value. It is more strict grade which we can gave someone for what is we doing. If it is medical photography it will be good if can be use by doctor to help patient. If it is selfie is good if it not egoism, but deeper sense of this act. If it children photo will be good if children are show with respect to other people to get stronger connection with close family, friends. Technical aspects as sharpness are in second place. If intension is hurt someone is not good portrait. If you promote dead, making people angry about themself is wrong and simply bad photo and good technical aspects like lightings, compositions or interesting subject not change that. Troubles with classification born when someone has mess in head and he can't strict catalogue human acts.

In example if someone will be make great photography of torture-killer and Child-murderer of about 300 children Luis Garavito as happy and charmy man it will be bad photography. If someone shot his wife to makes them happy that he lost few kilo (pounds) and looks fantastic in blue dress it will be good.

Photo is always makes for someone. From other reason it is not make sense. If I see something why I should take photo of it? More logical is stand and see what happen on the front of us to not miss that. Siting lonely in home and catalogue for self photos is waste of time. Better is going with friends to the cinema.

At the summary good photo is not only technique, but usability, purpose. Bad photo is photos makes with bad reason and not usable from logic point of view. I add to last part what I mean. Piere Manzonie make can with his shit. He is calls that "Artist's Shit" in Italian "Merda d'artista" with label: "Artist's Shit Contents 30 gr net Freshly preserved Produced and tinned in May 1961". Some people buy it for 124 000 euro or £182 500!

Bad photo is like Manzoni's artwork "Artist's Shit".

[dsmithhfx]

I'd love you to point to examples of non artistic photos that are on a higher plane than the Heisler, Clark and LaChappelle pictures you've just seen, DS.

To me, there's no way that you planning out a concept and honouring it with subject, background and perspective choice isn't more artistic than other purposes of photography, like a medical X ray, or taking pictures of items for insurance documentation, or a selfie to show you were at the ball game.

To use an example from just the other day from a forum member asking about taking pictures at a family occasion, it's not just snapping away the grandchild and then turning to its mother, it's asking the mother to lift the child out of the cot and to fill the frame with them both looking at each other before pressing the shutter release, capturing the connection.

That takes it to a higher plane, if you don't think that's better, I don't know what to say!

Photography is a recording medium. No more, no less. Trying to apply artistic standards to it is very difficult (note I do not say, 'impossible'), because it is so homogenizing. It utterly lacks any innate character connecting it to human manipulation (in moving from analog processes to digital, it is going in the wrong direction). Most efforts to overcome this limitation come across as contrived at best. So for example it is quite easy for an AI program to mimic photographic manipulations, to the point where they are indistinguishable from "professional" (whatever that means) work. This does not prove that AI is clever. It only proves that 'artistic' photography is bound by a set of tedious and quite predictable tropes that very, very few human photographers ever break free of.

Dave Lachapelle has managed to achieve the apotheosis of kitsch. I suppose that is something, but I don't personally consider it very creative (YMMV). Larry Clark operates on the level of photojournalism, providing 'edgy' (and titillating) glimpses of an American demimonde. He offers a combination of compelling subjects and interesting stories. This is veering into the realm of cinema and literature. The artistic qualities (in terms of visual art) are eclipsed by other, more important aspects.


It is an interesting problem that has been written about and discussed endlessly. Photography has many other meanings and applications than the artistic, something that all photographers, even aspirational artistic ones, would do well to consider.

[ffking]

So - I've only just come to this, and don't have time to read all the (very interesting) comments, so as ever apologies if I'm repeating what you've said better already.

There are some photographs that almost everybody would see as great, but they are usually because of skill (or even luck) in catching a unique moment of drama or beauty or whatever - or great portraits that seem to sum up the person (Karsh's Churchill) or capture a look that connects with everybody (McCurry's Afghan girl).

the rest is more subjective

BUT - there are photographs that capture an essence, an atmosphere, in an undefined way - and anyone can take them, if they allow themselves to feel the essence or atmosphere - it's just that some people seem to be better at it than others.

And then there's recognising what you've got - not chucking it out or deleting it because it's not technically perfect

And then, of course, there's that sense of uniqueness - there aren't thousands of similar pictures, even when the subject is ordinary and the technical aspects don't seem too demanding.

So, I'd say that there are two sorts - unique moments and connections at a deep level with something in people - one for the technician, one for the artist,

And my favourite published photographers are mostly people who some people absolutely love and others just don't get at all, so maybe a bit of that is necessary in non-technical great images too.

---------- Post added 24-08-18 at 06:07 AM ----------

(except Paul McCartney's "Wonderful Christmastime" - I think everybody agrees that this song is just horrible and should never have been written or recorded )

Ooh, I do like a bit of gratuitous abuse

[normhead]

I could write a book on this.
It would include chapters on JUng's archetypes, evolutionary predisposition, pattern recognition, selective memory, limits of perception, mental reconstruction, and the flow of consciousness.

A photograph is good because people respond to it. Human responses ar based on evolutionary conditioning. To understand what makes a good photograph is to understand how a human being functions. Photgraphs are just one way of examining what humans find meaningful. A static image taken from infinite possible images because it in some way condenses an incomprehensible universe into a frozen fraction of a second from one view point out of an infinite number of available viewpoints.

There is only one judge of a photograph. It catches your attention. As Fenwoodian said, a good photograph holds your attention for a long time. A bad photograph, you just walk by with the possible comment "nothing to see there."

To take good photographs, you have to be engaged with your surroundings.

But to understand what a good photograph is, you have to be able to pay attention to your reaction to it. No reaction? Crappy photograph. The good thing is you don't have to understand how neural pathways, genetic pre-disposition, evolutionary preferences, the neurological memory, or any of the the myriad of other sciences that could be applied. Many of us are so clued out, we don't even analyze why we push the shutter button. (and that can be a good thing, if you're immersed in the moment and just stick your head out of the experience lone enough to get the image.) It's much easier to just be human than it is to understand a human behaviour.

But as general statement. When it comes to understand from a theoretical sense what makes a good picture, most photographers are in way over their heads. And even a solid theoretical undersatnding of what a good picture is has no relevance when it comes to taking good picture.

To take good picture, all you need to do is create a situation where you can enjoy the moment, and capture in an image what it was that brought you joy as incomplete as that may be from a whole life perspective.

All you need to do to appreciate such a photograph is to be able to place yourself behind the camera and allow yourself to get drawn into whatever the photographer saw.

You can analyze the whole of human consciousness trying to define what a good photograph is.
Or you can just say "I know what I like and I like that one, and I don't like this one."
Only students of human perception and the meaning of evolutionary archetypes, neurology and psychology will come closest actually to having an intellectual understanding of what makes a good photograph. Because they study what humans respond to, how and why.

For the rest of us, " I don't know art, but i know what I like." Is probably as good as it gets.
That is life from within the human bubble, instead of trying to peer in from the outside to analyze what's happening.
I've heard it said the human brain can only comprehend about maybe 5% to 10% of what is going on around it at a given moment in time. That's what i call the human bubble. Much of what makes a good photograph is outside the human bubble. The beauty of photography is that it freezes time and lets us more closely examine the moment, even if it is only visual information.

There's absolutely no advantage to getting all complicated. The deeper you dig the more complicated it gets. Just like the rest of life.

See image, take image look at image, select the ones that move you is all you need to know. Maybe other people like it, maybe they don't. But odds are given our common genetic evolutionary history, if you really like something many others will as well. If there are enough of them you will be one of the stars of photography. I not, well, at least you enjoy them.

---

Last edited by normhead; 08-24-2018 at 06:30 AM.

[ChristianRock]

Wow, I was hoping to get some good thoughts on this subject but there's been some truly inspiring responses.

Quick oversimplifying summary:

. Recognizing the time and effort put into an image, as Ian said, makes one appreciate a photographic work. Similar to painting in that sense, I think.
. Being able to stir up feelings and/or emotions in most of the people that see it also makes a photograph stand out. Norm was able to elaborate on this a bit and yes I think he should write that book

I think these have been the two main lines of thought on this discussion.

[dsmithhfx]

Recognizing the time and effort put into an image [...] makes one appreciate a photographic work. Similar to painting in that sense, I think.

Most photographs are the product of button-pushing. Compare this "time and effort" to Ivan Albright - Wikipedia

[MossyRocks]

But try to avoid this...(sadly not updated since 2016)

You Are Not A Photographer - Exposing Fauxtographers Since 2011

I've taken some bad pictures but I don't think I've deliberately taken one as bad as those. Ones where I set something wrong or missed the focus yest but I didn't do that on purpose and no one gets to see those.

[normhead]

I think he should write that book

If I thought it would help my photography I might, but, it would only effect the way I think about photgraphy.
Anyone familiar with my spelling knows what chore writing a book would be for me. # typos in every sentence.
To me, learning about photography is preparation. But in that moment, when you are shooting it's like sport. You have to transcend all those things going on in your head, trust your training and practice and be completely engaged with your shutter and your subject. In that moment it's a sum that's more than it's parts. It's like the game winning 3 point shot that you knew was in the second it left your hand because you were "feeling it." Photography is a physical endeavour and relies on the same skills, so preparation counts, but if you aren't here where you need to be in your head in the moment, it's all for nothing. You shoot, but the ball rims out and the buzzer goes. That makes for a long week of practice, but, a short memory and focussing on what went wrong makes you better prepared the next week. You think until it's time to react, and then you react. In that moment it's all about how well you've prepared yourself and your execution.

You see the picture coming, you know you have the settings you want. You press the shutter. Preparation, practice and opportunity leads to success. Same as a 3 point shot.

And I have to say having done both, taking the winning shot as the clock winds down and taking a winning image feels about the same. Except for the part where there are no team mates to mob you after the picture.

You even think the same thing.
"YES. I nailed it.! :

[Kerrowdown]

What is a great picture anyway? And what is an actual bad picture?

From a mercenary professional viewpoint its easy... one puts dinner on the table, the other doesnae.

[ChristianRock]

Most photographs are the product of button-pushing. Compare this "time and effort" to Ivan Albright - Wikipedia

Well there's no question that a good painting takes a whole lot longer - a WHOLE lot longer - but I can appreciate the fact that someone created a light environment (with light modifiers, after studying the angles and characteristics of the natural light, etc) and positioned everything just right for that shot.
The same goes for those landscape shots where a photographer traveled to a remote location and had to wait for that one day at the right time, when the light fell just right, and there were enough good looking clouds, but not so much that it looked grey, and everything just worked together... this can take several days for just one shot and it's the kind of thing that made people like Ansel Adams famous.
Not to mention the time and effort put into PP work... to make an image look like it wasn't really the product of a lot of PP...

[ChristianRock]

From a mercenary professional viewpoint its easy... one puts dinner on the table, the other doesnae.

Well then this picture is the best picture ever, because it sold for the most money:


And this picture of a potato is better than anything Ansel Adams ever did, because it sold for over a million dollars: Is this the most photogenic potato? Photo sold for ?1m - CNN Style
Behold the potato:

[normhead]

Well then this picture is the best picture ever, because it sold for the most money:


And this picture of a potato is better than anything Ansel Adams ever did, because it sold for over a million dollars: Is this the most photogenic potato? Photo sold for ?1m - CNN Style
Behold the potato:

And neither employs shallow Depth of Field.

But in all fairness, very few of Gursky's images translates well to the small screen. I've never seen one full size, and he has his own ware house to display them, but apparently it's visually like being there. Huge size prints with almost infinite detail. And a 3D effect created with his own process of combining different focals length images taken at the same time and place. If he'd patented his process, I'm guessing a lot more people would employ it. But, it's all in his head, and impervious to industrial espionage.

And you have to admit, that potato is good.

[Kerrowdown]

Well then this picture is the best picture ever, because it sold for the most money:

I just wish I'd taken either of those... could have been thinking retirement then, instead of grafting away in an ever tougher profession.

[ChristianRock]

And neither employs shallow Depth of Field.

Yes it's an aesthetically pleasing thing if done right but hardly worthy to ever be called art

And you have to admit, that potato is good.

You have to wonder who ate it

Re: Gursky, you are right, it's the whole experience of having the final huge print - but from the traditional perspective of composition, one of the usual rules of thumb is that "if a picture doesn't look good in a thumbnail format, it's probably a bad composition"... it just shows that rules are made to be broken I guess.

[normhead]

Yes it's an aesthetically pleasing thing if done right but hardly worthy to ever be called art



You have to wonder who ate it

Re: Gursky, you are right, it's the whole experience of having the final huge print - but from the traditional perspective of composition, one of the usual rules of thumb is that "if a picture doesn't look good in a thumbnail format, it's probably a bad composition"... it just shows that rules are made to be broken I guess.

Man I've lost the link to my favourite composition resource. Which makes the point in photography we don't have rules, we have suggestions. They take all the established rules of visual art and photography, and post an award winning picture by a famous photographer that breaks every one of them. In photography knowing the "rules" is an impediment if you don't know when to break them.