John, I think you are right on the money.
From: John Sessoms <jsessoms...@nc.rr.com> To: pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: What Makes a Good Photograph? Was: Chicago Message-ID: <4bec1a38.2040...@nc.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed 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. -- 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.
