I see lots of arguments here defining "good" or "bad" around the "viewer". This reminds me of this discussion I read some time ago, it's a simple thought experiment that got me thinking about why I shoot what I shoot.
The premise is simple: "Let's say you just emerged from a cave to find that everyone else was gone. You're the last person on the planet. None will ever follow. You have every camera ever made at your disposal, as well as unlimited lenses, film, batteries, paper, as well as crates all the world's remaining Polaroid film. Whatever you would need to shoot whatever you want for the rest of your life, without consideration of cost or effort, would be at your disposal. (Your cave is also stocked with food, water, clothes and all of that other stuff, so you won't need to expend much time or effort on basic survival.) Knowing that you will be the only one to ever, ever see your pictures, would you still bother to make them?" Source: http://www.flickr.com/groups/onthestreet/discuss/72157611943044274/ On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 11:26 AM, John Sessoms <[email protected]> wrote: > Stick my two cents in here ... for whatever it's worth. > > I'm one of those who doesn't "get" Eggelston. To me his work looks like a > compilation of discarded snapshots purchased from yard sales and flea > markets. > > But it's a matter of taste. Some people appreciate it, some people don't. > Same could be said about any photographer. Annie Liebowitz has her fans ... > so do Tony Sweet and Ken Rockwell. > > For me, a "good photograph" evokes a response from the viewer - it could be > an emotional response or an intellectual response, but it evokes SOMETHING > from the viewer other than boredom. > > That's why it's so hard to define a "good photograph", because what evokes a > response from me might not evoke one from you. There seem to be some > photographs that are universally acclaimed, some that are not. > > How do you catalog the characteristics of those universally acclaimed photos > to define goodness? What minimum of those characteristics are required for a > new work to automatically become a "good photograph"? > > I don't think anyone has yet found the surefire recipe. > > > From: Tom C >> >> Hi Doug, (take everything I say as not an argument, but more or less >> musing) >> >> I don't know the history of Eggleston or how/why he became famous. >>> >>> From the exhibit I saw, I suspect either some beatniks in a coffehouse >> >> somewhere or some art professors who talk vs. do, were looking for >> deeper meaning and stared at some photographs long enough until they >> thought that they'd found it. Realizing he could achieve fame and/or >> money by doing more of the same he set out to deliver what the >> 'intellectuals' wanted. >> >> The above may not be true, but it's the sense I get, because if I were >> to show a similar set of photographs, which would be quite easy to >> produce, I'd be uniformly chastized. >> >> If a person deliberately sets about shooting in what I'd call a >> 'crappy snaphot style', is it good because it was deliberate as >> opposed to haphazard? Or is it good because it reminds people of the >> way things were in years gone by and hence evokes an emotion? >> >> I called his photographs crappy because I found them largely devoid of >> any discernible style or intent, and I did not find them aesthetically >> pleasing. I did not enjoy the majority of them individually nor did I >> see any cohesiveness as a group. If that was what he was shooting for, >> he achieved it. >> >>> > And what I'm trying to do, somewhat clumsily, is get you to articulate >>> > those >>> > reasons. What I'm trying to get at is that we all have our templates, >>> > as >>> > photographers, and sometimes to our detriment. How often do we take the >>> > lazy >>> > way out and just rely on the rule of thirds to compose a photo instead >>> > of >>> > taking the time to think about what composition really suits the >>> > subject >>> > matter best? The rule of thirds is not the only game in town, and the >>> > same >>> > can be said for any other compositional/sharpness/exposure/color habit >>> > we >>> > get into. >> >> Yes, I deliberately tried NOT to articulate the reasons why I would >> consider a photograph good, and leave it open to interpretation. :-) >> Why? Because I KNOW, that sure as grass is green, if I elaborate on >> some specific criteria that someone will argue the opposite or the >> exception, and point out to me (as if I'm a total idiot) that I cannot >> be the sole arbiter of what makes a good photograph (and I can't). So >> I did not fall into the trap. :-) >> I do however agree with your statements above. The formula for making >> a good photograph is wide and varied, and we can easily become trapped >> in our formulaic way of seeing and producing. That, in essence, >> probably becomes our style, but it's certainly good to keep an open >> mind and consider that our subject at the time could posiibly benefit >> from a different approach than our norm. >> >>> > The same can be said for how we view photographs. We like best those >>> > that >>> > are like what we shoot, as photographers. The trick is to separate our >>> > photographer selves from our viewer selves and go from there. Can we do >>> > it? >>> > Can we look at other photographs, or do the years seeing the world >>> > through a >>> > viewfinder ruin that for us? >> >> It should not ruin it for us, but as individuals we all have >> preferences and tastes in both subject and style. Certainly we can >> learn by trying to see thinngs differently than our own personal norm. > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and > follow the directions. > -- http://www.flickr.com/photos/ferand/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
