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
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
