Bob W. wrote:
But I don't think it's completely subjective. There is widespread agreement
within the photographic world about the central canon of greats, and this
is
not simply because the photo world is a self-perpetuating clique. There's
more to it than that, although quite what it is, I don't completely know.
Most people who spend time and effort looking at photographs agree, by and
large, about which photographers, and which of their photographs, are
really
great. So to the extent that this agreement exists, there must be something
objective about the quality of photography (and works in other media).
I'll bow to your statement above. Maybe it's related to the collective
subjective perceptions of the majority? Does the subjectivity of a majority
= objectivity of a sort?
Of course most of us never will be published or become noticed enough to
reach any heights of notoriety. That's not necessarially because we lack
the skill or the vision. Sometimes it may be that some of the 'greats'
were simply in the right place at the right time or were early in their
niche, and doors were subsequently opened that afforded them the opportunity
to practice while being noticed.
Tom C.
