Re: What Makes a Good Photograph? Was: Chicago
On 5/13/2010 1:20 PM, Christine Aguila wrote: Friendly correction: I said Southern Gothic and the grotesque. I think Flannery O'Connor would have liked Eggleston, and count me in as a fan of Eggleston. As I write this it's thundering & raining like crazy here in Chicago--most appropriate for thoughts on the gothic. As Doug said, there's something quite "menacing" in Eggleston's work. I am thinking that it was me who used the word "grotesque" in real life during the exhibition visit ;-). Boris -- 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.
Re: What Makes a Good Photograph? Was: Chicago
On 5/13/2010 4:19 AM, Miserere wrote: Summary of how I feel about Eggleston: If Stephen King were given a camera, he'd take the photographs Eggleston takes. Thanks. You did it for me... I mean put to words what I had in mind. Boris -- 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.
Re: What Makes a Good Photograph? Was: Chicago
Please don't squeeze the Charmin. On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 1:05 PM, Ken Waller wrote: > > Kenneth Waller > http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller > > - Original Message - From: "P. J. Alling" > > Subject: Re: What Makes a Good Photograph? Was: Chicago > > >> On 5/13/2010 8:03 PM, Miserere wrote: >>> >>> On 13 May 2010 15:02, mike wilson wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> One man's charming is another's charmin. >>>> >>> >>> For the non-Americans: "Charmin" is a brand of toilet paper. >>> >> >> But it's soft and fluffy! > > And squeazable > > > -- > 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. > -- 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.
Re: What Makes a Good Photograph? Was: Chicago
Kenneth Waller http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller - Original Message - From: "P. J. Alling" Subject: Re: What Makes a Good Photograph? Was: Chicago On 5/13/2010 8:03 PM, Miserere wrote: On 13 May 2010 15:02, mike wilson wrote: One man's charming is another's charmin. For the non-Americans: "Charmin" is a brand of toilet paper. But it's soft and fluffy! And squeazable -- 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.
Re: What Makes a Good Photograph? Was: Chicago
On 5/13/2010 8:03 PM, Miserere wrote:
On 13 May 2010 15:02, mike wilson wrote:
One man's charming is another's charmin.
For the non-Americans: "Charmin" is a brand of toilet paper.
But it's soft and fluffy!
--
{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\deff0\deflang1033{\fonttbl{\f0\fnil\fcharset0 Courier
New;}}
\viewkind4\uc1\pard\f0\fs20 I've just upgraded to Thunderbird 3.0 and the
interface subtly weird.\par
}
--
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.
Re: What Makes a Good Photograph? Was: Chicago
On 5/12/2010 9:19 PM, Miserere wrote:
On 12 May 2010 20:51, Mark Roberts wrote:
Tom, perhaps what's bugging you about Eggleston's work subconsciously
is that same thing that bugs me consciously about it. I'm not an
Eggleston hater - quite the contrary, I find I have a greater
appreciation for his work after seeing it in person and in a large
collection. I see some pretty good ideas at play and some pretty good
work resulting. What annoys me is the over-glorification of Eggleston
by the art world. It's as if, after years of dismissing color
photography, when the art snobs found one color photographer they
liked they overreacted to the point of near-deification, compensating
for past oversights by heaping excessive praise on work that didn't
deserve it.
In short, I think his work does deserve praise, but not the ridiculous
adulation it's received from some quarters.
I think Mark has summed up my feelings here. I've never hated
Eggleston, I just didn't understand why others like him. Like I said a
number of times before Chicago, I really wanted to see the exhibit
because maybe seeing prints and taking time to look at a good chunk of
his work would help me understand. But it didn't. True, there are some
shots in there that I liked, but they were few and far between. When I
remarked to Stan how I quite liked his large portraits out in the
corridor, he said "I hate them, but I love the rest". So I learnt one
thing: Stan is the opposite of me. Ha ha.
I did come away with one thing, though. Like Christine said, Eggleston
has a knack for American Gothic and the bizarre, even if it's not
immediately apparent. Many of his photos had elements that made them
strangely unsettling, like the begining of a Friday the 13th movie,
when all is nice, calm and beautiful, just before Jason comes out and
hacks everyone to pieces. I could see putting a book together with all
of these Eggleston pics (which might have already been done) and
calling it a day. But like Mark said, the Art Snobs just keep going on
and on about it.
Summary of how I feel about Eggleston: If Stephen King were given a
camera, he'd take the photographs Eggleston takes.
--M.
Obviously a different Stephen King...
http://thestephenkingphotography.net/
The blond at the bottom is kind of scary though...
--
{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\deff0\deflang1033{\fonttbl{\f0\fnil\fcharset0 Courier
New;}}
\viewkind4\uc1\pard\f0\fs20 I've just upgraded to Thunderbird 3.0 and the
interface subtly weird.\par
}
--
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.
Re: What Makes a Good Photograph? Was: Chicago
On 5/13/2010 12:16 PM, John Sessoms wrote:
From: Mark Roberts
Tom C wrote:
>I think Doug has valid points even though I was not impressed with the
>bulk of Eggleston's work on display last weekend.
>
>I bow to his knowledge on the subject because he no doubt has a far
>vaster knowledge of photographic history than I do.
>
>And in the end, even discussing the subject has made me think, which I
>believe was Doug's intent (or maybe he just likes me better after
>having met me in person). LOL.
Tom, perhaps what's bugging you about Eggleston's work subconsciously
is that same thing that bugs me consciously about it. I'm not an
Eggleston hater - quite the contrary, I find I have a greater
appreciation for his work after seeing it in person and in a large
collection. I see some pretty good ideas at play and some pretty good
work resulting. What annoys me is the over-glorification of Eggleston
by the art world. It's as if, after years of dismissing color
photography, when the art snobs found one color photographer they
liked they overreacted to the point of near-deification, compensating
for past oversights by heaping excessive praise on work that didn't
deserve it.
In short, I think his work does deserve praise, but not the ridiculous
adulation it's received from some quarters.
Change that to "overreacted to the point of near-defecation" an I
think you've hit the nail on the head.
What a waste.
--
{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\deff0\deflang1033{\fonttbl{\f0\fnil\fcharset0 Courier
New;}}
\viewkind4\uc1\pard\f0\fs20 I've just upgraded to Thunderbird 3.0 and the
interface subtly weird.\par
}
--
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.
Re: What Makes a Good Photograph? Was: Chicago
Kenneth Waller http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller - Original Message - From: "Stan Halpin" Subject: Re: What Makes a Good Photograph? Was: Chicago - Original Message - From: "Cotty" Subject: Re: What Makes a Good Photograph? Was: Chicago Don't worry about it - on my mobile phone he comes up as Milk Wislon There must be something wrong with your phone's mammary card. Perhaps it's gone tits up. Could be. I'm sure he'll keep us abreast of the situation. it was just a boob, but I can see we're in for another suckle pun thread. OK folks, we have a weaner. No chance to nipple this one in the bud. No, and it's taking on a strange areola as well. I think this discussion needs silicon enhancement. Looks like this thread has been milked for all its worth. -- 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.
Re: What Makes a Good Photograph? Was: Chicago
> > - Original Message - From: "Cotty" > Subject: Re: What Makes a Good Photograph? Was: Chicago > > >> >> >>>>>>>> Don't worry about it - on my mobile phone he comes up as Milk Wislon >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There must be something wrong with your phone's mammary card. >>>>>> >>>>>> Perhaps it's gone tits up. >>>>> >>>>> Could be. I'm sure he'll keep us abreast of the situation. >>>>> >>>> >>>> it was just a boob, but I can see we're in for another suckle pun thread. >>> >>> OK folks, we have a weaner. >> >> No chance to nipple this one in the bud. >> > > No, and it's taking on a strange areola as well. > I think this discussion needs silicon enhancement. -- 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.
Re: What Makes a Good Photograph? Was: Chicago
- Original Message - From: "Cotty" Subject: Re: What Makes a Good Photograph? Was: Chicago Don't worry about it - on my mobile phone he comes up as Milk Wislon There must be something wrong with your phone's mammary card. Perhaps it's gone tits up. Could be. I'm sure he'll keep us abreast of the situation. it was just a boob, but I can see we're in for another suckle pun thread. OK folks, we have a weaner. No chance to nipple this one in the bud. No, and it's taking on a strange areola as well. -- 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.
Re: What Makes a Good Photograph? Was: Chicago
Bob Sullivan wrote: WILSON MICHAEL, Why are you SHOUTING at us? Regards, Bob S. My apologies. Virginmedia has changed its webmail interface and a number of things are cockeyed. Praise the Lord for Netscape Mail On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 9:18 AM, WILSON MICHAEL wrote: On 14 May 2010 01:03, Miserere wrote: On 13 May 2010 15:02, mike wilson wrote: One man's charming is another's charmin. For the non-Americans: "Charmin" is a brand of toilet paper. I really should apologise for being so harsh. But I just couldn't pass up the straight line. Mea maxima culpa. -- 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.
Re: What Makes a Good Photograph? Was: Chicago
>>Don't worry about it - on my mobile phone he comes up as Milk Wislon > > There must be something wrong with your phone's mammary card. Perhaps it's gone tits up. >>> >>> Could be. I'm sure he'll keep us abreast of the situation. >>> >> >> it was just a boob, but I can see we're in for another suckle pun thread. > >OK folks, we have a weaner. No chance to nipple this one in the bud. -- 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.
Re: What Makes a Good Photograph? Was: Chicago
- Original Message - From: Subject: Re: What Makes a Good Photograph? Was: Chicago William Robb wrote: From: "Mark Roberts" Don't worry about it - on my mobile phone he comes up as Milk Wislon There must be something wrong with your phone's mammary card. Perhaps it's gone tits up. Could be. I'm sure he'll keep us abreast of the situation. it was just a boob, but I can see we're in for another suckle pun thread. OK folks, we have a weaner. William Robb -- 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.
Re: What Makes a Good Photograph? Was: Chicago
> William Robb wrote: > >>From: "Mark Roberts" >> Don't worry about it - on my mobile phone he comes up as Milk Wislon >>> >>> There must be something wrong with your phone's mammary card. >> >>Perhaps it's gone tits up. > > Could be. I'm sure he'll keep us abreast of the situation. > it was just a boob, but I can see we're in for another suckle pun thread. -- 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.
Re: What Makes a Good Photograph? Was: Chicago
William Robb wrote: >From: "Mark Roberts" > >>>Don't worry about it - on my mobile phone he comes up as Milk Wislon >> >> There must be something wrong with your phone's mammary card. > >Perhaps it's gone tits up. Could be. I'm sure he'll keep us abreast of the situation. -- 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.
Re: What Makes a Good Photograph? Was: Chicago
- Original Message - From: "Mark Roberts" Subject: Re: What Makes a Good Photograph? Was: Chicago Don't worry about it - on my mobile phone he comes up as Milk Wislon There must be something wrong with your phone's mammary card. Perhaps it's gone tits up. William Robb -- 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.
Re: What Makes a Good Photograph? Was: Chicago
p...@web-options.com wrote: >Don't worry about it - on my mobile phone he comes up as Milk Wislon There must be something wrong with your phone's mammary card. -- 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.
Re: What Makes a Good Photograph? Was: Chicago
Don't worry about it - on my mobile phone he comes up as Milk Wislon B > Maybe it's my gmail, but he doesn't come up as Mike Wilson. > He comes up as WILSON MICHAEL in the gmail preview lines. > Regards, Bob S. > > On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 9:52 AM, Daniel J. Matyola > wrote: >> For the non-Americans, Shout is a brand of laundry detergent. >> >> Dan >> >> On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 10:49 AM, Bob Sullivan >> wrote: >>> WILSON MICHAEL, >>> Why are you SHOUTING at us? >>> Regards, Bob S. >>> >>> On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 9:18 AM, WILSON MICHAEL >>> wrote: On 14 May 2010 01:03, Miserere wrote: > On 13 May 2010 15:02, mike wilson wrote: >> >> One man's charming is another's charmin. > > For the non-Americans: "Charmin" is a brand of toilet paper. >> >> -- >> 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. > > -- > 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. > -- 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.
Re: What Makes a Good Photograph? Was: Chicago
> On May 14, 2010, at 12:59 AM, mike wilson wrote: > >>> The only reason I haven't waded into the thread with all opinions >>> blazing to tell everyone how wrong they are is that I'm having to use a >>> crappy webmail interface at the moment, which cleaves to my e-palette >>> and >>> renders me speechless, to adapt a phrase. >> >> palate, surely? Or are we still talking about art? > > Maybe he means he'd otherwise be talking in shades of brown. > > :) Me? Never! -- 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.
Re: What Makes a Good Photograph? Was: Chicago
That was definitely dry and witty. :-) Laughing. On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 10:52 AM, Daniel J. Matyola wrote: > For the non-Americans, Shout is a brand of laundry detergent. > > Dan > > On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 10:49 AM, Bob Sullivan wrote: >> WILSON MICHAEL, >> Why are you SHOUTING at us? >> Regards, Bob S. >> > > One man's charming is another's charmin. For the non-Americans: "Charmin" is a brand of toilet paper. > -- 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.
Re: What Makes a Good Photograph? Was: Chicago
p...@web-options.com wrote: this. The only reason I haven't waded into the thread with all opinions blazing to tell everyone how wrong they are is that I'm having to use a crappy webmail interface at the moment, which cleaves to my e-palette and renders me speechless, to adapt a phrase. palate, surely? Or are we still talking about art? yea, that too And Verminmedia has just "upgraded" its webmail interface (powered by Gurgle, no less) so that it has gone from clunky to virtually unusable. If that's the same as the Gmail interface, the users have my deepest sympathy. Why do people insist on fixing things that are not broken? We need a plague that targets solely management. I won't even sanctify that word with inverted commas. -- 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.
Re: What Makes a Good Photograph? Was: Chicago
LOL oh sorry, lol On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 10:52 AM, Daniel J. Matyola wrote: > For the non-Americans, Shout is a brand of laundry detergent. > > Dan > > On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 10:49 AM, Bob Sullivan wrote: >> WILSON MICHAEL, >> Why are you SHOUTING at us? >> Regards, Bob S. >> >> On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 9:18 AM, WILSON MICHAEL >> wrote: >>> On 14 May 2010 01:03, Miserere wrote: On 13 May 2010 15:02, mike wilson wrote: > > One man's charming is another's charmin. For the non-Americans: "Charmin" is a brand of toilet paper. > > -- > 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. -- http://www.flickr.com/photos/ferand/ -- 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.
Re: What Makes a Good Photograph? Was: Chicago
Maybe it's my gmail, but he doesn't come up as Mike Wilson. He comes up as WILSON MICHAEL in the gmail preview lines. Regards, Bob S. On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 9:52 AM, Daniel J. Matyola wrote: > For the non-Americans, Shout is a brand of laundry detergent. > > Dan > > On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 10:49 AM, Bob Sullivan wrote: >> WILSON MICHAEL, >> Why are you SHOUTING at us? >> Regards, Bob S. >> >> On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 9:18 AM, WILSON MICHAEL >> wrote: >>> On 14 May 2010 01:03, Miserere wrote: On 13 May 2010 15:02, mike wilson wrote: > > One man's charming is another's charmin. For the non-Americans: "Charmin" is a brand of toilet paper. > > -- > 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. -- 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.
Re: What Makes a Good Photograph? Was: Chicago
For the non-Americans, Shout is a brand of laundry detergent. Dan On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 10:49 AM, Bob Sullivan wrote: > WILSON MICHAEL, > Why are you SHOUTING at us? > Regards, Bob S. > > On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 9:18 AM, WILSON MICHAEL > wrote: >> On 14 May 2010 01:03, Miserere wrote: >>> On 13 May 2010 15:02, mike wilson wrote: One man's charming is another's charmin. >>> >>> For the non-Americans: "Charmin" is a brand of toilet paper. -- 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.
Re: What Makes a Good Photograph? Was: Chicago
WILSON MICHAEL, Why are you SHOUTING at us? Regards, Bob S. On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 9:18 AM, WILSON MICHAEL wrote: > On 14 May 2010 01:03, Miserere wrote: >> On 13 May 2010 15:02, mike wilson wrote: >>> >>> One man's charming is another's charmin. >> >> For the non-Americans: "Charmin" is a brand of toilet paper. > > I really should apologise for being so harsh. But I just couldn't > pass up the straight line. Mea maxima culpa. > > -- > 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. > -- 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.
Re: What Makes a Good Photograph? Was: Chicago
On 14 May 2010 01:03, Miserere wrote: > On 13 May 2010 15:02, mike wilson wrote: >> >> One man's charming is another's charmin. > > For the non-Americans: "Charmin" is a brand of toilet paper. I really should apologise for being so harsh. But I just couldn't pass up the straight line. Mea maxima culpa. -- 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.
Re: What Makes a Good Photograph? Was: Chicago
On May 14, 2010, at 12:59 AM, mike wilson wrote: >> The only reason I haven't waded into the thread with all opinions >> blazing to tell everyone how wrong they are is that I'm having to use a >> crappy webmail interface at the moment, which cleaves to my e-palette and >> renders me speechless, to adapt a phrase. > > palate, surely? Or are we still talking about art? Maybe he means he'd otherwise be talking in shades of brown. :) Cheers, Dave -- 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.
Re: What Makes a Good Photograph? Was: Chicago
On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 9:44 AM, Daniel J. Matyola wrote: > Gee, I don't know how you can say Eggleston's work is distasteful. > This one, for example, is downright charming: > > http://www.egglestonphotography.com/portfolio.html > > Dan Great. Now I'll have to poke my eyes out with hot needles. Thanks for that, Dan! ;-) cheers, frank -- "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson -- 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.
Re: What Makes a Good Photograph? Was: Chicago
On 13 May 2010 15:02, mike wilson wrote: > > One man's charming is another's charmin. For the non-Americans: "Charmin" is a brand of toilet paper. -- \/\/o/\/\ --> http://WorldOfMiserere.com http://EnticingTheLight.com A Quest for Photographic Enlightenment -- 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.
Re: What Makes a Good Photograph? Was: Chicago
On 2010-05-13 14:12, Jerry in Arizona wrote: The ongoing discussion only reinforces the idea that there is no universally accepted definition of a "good" photograph. Not only there isn't, but there literally can't be one in any "universe" of more than a few people. It's too subjective. -- Thanks, DougF (KG4LMZ) -- 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.
Re: What Makes a Good Photograph? Was: Chicago
k (Heh, thanks, Jack.) Marnie In a message dated 5/13/2010 12:51:36 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, jdavi...@yahoo.com writes: You'd make a good judge. Jack --- On Thu, 5/13/10, eactiv...@aol.com wrote: > From: eactiv...@aol.com > Subject: Re: What Makes a Good Photograph? Was: Chicago > To: pdml@pdml.net > Date: Thursday, May 13, 2010, 12:13 PM > A good photograph is one *I* like. > > Marnie aka Doe ;-) Finis. -- 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.
Re: What Makes a Good Photograph? Was: Chicago
You'd make a good judge. Jack --- On Thu, 5/13/10, eactiv...@aol.com wrote: > From: eactiv...@aol.com > Subject: Re: What Makes a Good Photograph? Was: Chicago > To: pdml@pdml.net > Date: Thursday, May 13, 2010, 12:13 PM > A good photograph is one *I* like. > > Marnie aka Doe ;-) Finis. > > In a message dated 5/12/2010 6:45:47 A.M. Pacific > Daylight Time, > caka...@gmail.com > writes: > On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 12:47 AM, Doug Brewer > wrote: > > >OK, if we're going to discuss this, first you > have to define what exactly > makes a good photograph, without saying "a good photo > is not this..." or > "a good photo is >not that..." > > > -- > 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. > -- 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.
Re: What Makes a Good Photograph? Was: Chicago
Mark! On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 3:02 PM, mike wilson wrote: > > One man's charming is another's charmin. > -- 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.
Re: What Makes a Good Photograph? Was: Chicago
From: Jerry in Arizona Beauty continues to be in the eye of the beholder. That's why I always wear safety glasses. -- 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.
Re: What Makes a Good Photograph? Was: Chicago
A good photograph is one *I* like. Marnie aka Doe ;-) Finis. In a message dated 5/12/2010 6:45:47 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, caka...@gmail.com writes: On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 12:47 AM, Doug Brewer wrote: >OK, if we're going to discuss this, first you have to define what exactly makes a good photograph, without saying "a good photo is not this..." or "a good photo is >not that..." -- 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.
Re: What Makes a Good Photograph? Was: Chicago
Daniel J. Matyola wrote: Gee, I don't know how you can say Eggleston's work is distasteful. This one, for example, is downright charming: http://www.egglestonphotography.com/portfolio.html Dan One man's charming is another's charmin. On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 9:05 AM, Tom C wrote: I have a philosophy?... Thanks Bill... :-) If I have one, it's simply that I when I find a subject that moves me to press the shutter button, I try to think about how to best render the subject so that the viewer will also know why I pressed the shutter button. That's likely why I found Eggleston's work distasteful. It struck me as largely antipodal to my own. I saw no reason for him to have pressed the shutter button, much less feel that the images were display worthy. I know others see something in it. I saw something in some of them... but a number of them, like the bags of garbage and the oven interior... I suppose I feel as Mark said. OK, maybe his work is interesting in some respects, but I saw a big disparity between what he actually produced and the amount of adulation received. Tom C. On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 10:14 PM, William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: "Bob Sullivan" Subject: Re: What Makes a Good Photograph? Was: Chicago I'm quite enjoying the exchange of ideas. Both Doug and Tom are photographers whose images I respect at worst, and like a whole lot at best. Getting their philosophies as well is huge. William Robb -- 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.
Re: What Makes a Good Photograph? Was: Chicago
>> this. The only reason I haven't waded into the thread with all opinions >> blazing to tell everyone how wrong they are is that I'm having to use a >> crappy webmail interface at the moment, which cleaves to my e-palette >> and >> renders me speechless, to adapt a phrase. > > palate, surely? Or are we still talking about art? > yea, that too -- 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.
Re: What Makes a Good Photograph? Was: Chicago
The ongoing discussion only reinforces the idea that there is no universally accepted definition of a "good" photograph. Beauty continues to be in the eye of the beholder. BTW, Adams was also a consultant and early tester for Polaroid. He also shot 35mm. -- 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.
Re: What Makes a Good Photograph? Was: Chicago
From: Mark Roberts Tom C wrote: >I think Doug has valid points even though I was not impressed with the >bulk of Eggleston's work on display last weekend. > >I bow to his knowledge on the subject because he no doubt has a far >vaster knowledge of photographic history than I do. > >And in the end, even discussing the subject has made me think, which I >believe was Doug's intent (or maybe he just likes me better after >having met me in person). LOL. Tom, perhaps what's bugging you about Eggleston's work subconsciously is that same thing that bugs me consciously about it. I'm not an Eggleston hater - quite the contrary, I find I have a greater appreciation for his work after seeing it in person and in a large collection. I see some pretty good ideas at play and some pretty good work resulting. What annoys me is the over-glorification of Eggleston by the art world. It's as if, after years of dismissing color photography, when the art snobs found one color photographer they liked they overreacted to the point of near-deification, compensating for past oversights by heaping excessive praise on work that didn't deserve it. In short, I think his work does deserve praise, but not the ridiculous adulation it's received from some quarters. Change that to "overreacted to the point of near-defecation" an I think you've hit the nail on the head. -- 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.
Re: What Makes a Good Photograph? Was: Chicago
I mostly disagree. It's pretty close to being just another "cute kid" shot, which is at least as tired a category as kittens/puppies/flowers. On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 09:44:34AM -0400, Daniel J. Matyola wrote: > Gee, I don't know how you can say Eggleston's work is distasteful. > This one, for example, is downright charming: > > http://www.egglestonphotography.com/portfolio.html > > Dan > > On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 9:05 AM, Tom C wrote: > > I have a philosophy?... Thanks Bill... :-) > > > > If I have one, it's simply that I when I find a subject that moves me > > to press the shutter button, I try to think about how to best render > > the subject so that the viewer will also know why I pressed the > > shutter button. > > > > That's likely why I found Eggleston's work distasteful. It struck me > > as largely antipodal to my own. I saw no reason for him to have > > pressed the shutter button, much less feel that the images were > > display worthy. > > > > I know others see something in it. I saw something in some of them... > > but a number of them, like the bags of garbage and the oven > > interior... > > > > I suppose I feel as Mark said. ?OK, maybe his work is interesting in > > some respects, but I saw a big disparity between what he actually > > produced and the amount of adulation received. > > > > Tom C. > > > > On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 10:14 PM, William Robb wrote: > >> > >> - Original Message - From: "Bob Sullivan" > >> Subject: Re: What Makes a Good Photograph? Was: Chicago > >> > >> I'm quite enjoying the exchange of ideas. > >> Both Doug and Tom are photographers whose images I respect at worst, and > >> like a whole lot at best. Getting their philosophies as well is huge. > >> > >> William Robb > > > > -- > > 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. > > > > -- > 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. -- 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.
Re: What Makes a Good Photograph? Was: Chicago
From: Doug Brewer Tom C wrote: > 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. You're going to play the populist card? If it weren't for Eggleston, Stephen Shore, and Joel Meyerowitz, and their pioneering color work, we'd probably all still be out looking for Saint Ansel's tripod marks and f/64ing the hell out of our monochrome emulsions, because no serious photographer would ever shoot in color. Are you sure about that? Ansel Adams shot color ... medium format Kodachrome to be sure, and he's not really famous for that, but still he was a "serious photographer" and he did shoot in color Like it or not, critical and curatorial judgment affects what we do. Maybe, maybe not. It affects what we can SELL. If that's the only thing you're interested in. While I would like to have commercial success as a photographer ... to be "In The Gallery" as Dire Straits put it, that isn't what drove me to pick up the camera in the first place. I would like to make some kind of a living from photography, and I hope the critics and curators will find my work worthy, but my work is shaped by what *I* find worthy ... the critics and curators can like it or lump it. If they don't, I'm still going to continue to pursue my own vision. Critics and curators don't really produce any body of work, they just comment on what others have produced. I expect that, in the main, what photographers and artists DO affects critical and curatorial judgment far more than what critics and curators think influences what photographers and artists do. -- 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.
Re: What Makes a Good Photograph? Was: Chicago
A tired quip,I know, but..."To be known as a great photographer, you must throw away those that are only good." Sorry if a thread distraction! Jack --- On Thu, 5/13/10, Jerry in Arizona wrote: > From: Jerry in Arizona > Subject: Re: What Makes a Good Photograph? Was: Chicago > To: pdml@pdml.net > Date: Thursday, May 13, 2010, 8:50 AM > John, I think you are right on the > money. > > > From: John Sessoms > 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. > -- 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.
Re: What Makes a Good Photograph? Was: Chicago
John, I think you are right on the money. From: John Sessoms 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.
Re: What Makes a Good Photograph? Was: Chicago
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.
Re: What Makes a Good Photograph? Was: Chicago
Yes there were certain images I did like but the ratio was about 1 out of 15. The drink on the airplane tray was a very good image. I also liked the low angle tricycle and the portrait of the man in western garb with the bright bowtie. Probably a handful of others. If there was something about the colors I should be getting, I guess I didn't get it. It looked largely like images shot on color film from that era looked. The fact that I can't remember very many of the images I saw speaks to how I felt. I remember the ones I liked and the ones I hated, but nothing of the vast majority in between. Tom C. On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 9:41 AM, Boris Liberman wrote: > On 5/12/2010 4:45 PM, Tom C wrote: >> >> A bad photograph is one that a person sees once and never cares to >> look at again. >> >> Tom C. > > Tom, I am thinking (in fact I am recalling having been told by someone else) > that unsuccessful photograph (notice, not bad per se) is one that a viewer > will forget very soon after they look at it. And the sooner the viewer > forgets (assuming they have healthy memory) the worse the photo is. > > Naturally, it goes the other way. Good photos are those that you remember. I > am thinking that really good photos are those that you try to shoot yourself > on a whim, like going along the Chicago street, seeing a scene, making a > shot and immediately thinking - "gee, I saw that shot made by (Juan Buhler > *wink*); mine is somewhat similar"... > > Now, in both cases these notions are strictly individual. I think it was > Doug who said that he quite liked the Eggleston, whereas I remember > discussing it with AnnSan and may be with mister Robb and others that I have > hard time comprehending it because I am not American by a long shot - it > does not grab me. Having said that I still remember that wonderful > photograph of a light from the plane window going through a glass of some > drink and two ladies holding their cigarettes. > > Boris > > > -- > 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. > -- 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.
Re: What Makes a Good Photograph? Was: Chicago
- Original Message - From: "Daniel J. Matyola" Subject: Re: What Makes a Good Photograph? Was: Chicago Gee, I don't know how you can say Eggleston's work is distasteful. This one, for example, is downright charming: http://www.egglestonphotography.com/portfolio.html Steam driven server. I gave up after almost 2 minutes. William Robb -- 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.
Re: What Makes a Good Photograph? Was: Chicago
Oh, you meant THAT Eggleston! Actually, I like a few of his images of roadside signs, but I agree that much of his work is gruesome and pointless, like his 'portrait" of the freezer compartment of a refrigerator. Dan On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 9:44 AM, Daniel J. Matyola wrote: > Gee, I don't know how you can say Eggleston's work is distasteful. > This one, for example, is downright charming: > > http://www.egglestonphotography.com/portfolio.html > > Dan > > On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 9:05 AM, Tom C wrote: >> I have a philosophy?... Thanks Bill... :-) >> >> If I have one, it's simply that I when I find a subject that moves me >> to press the shutter button, I try to think about how to best render >> the subject so that the viewer will also know why I pressed the >> shutter button. >> >> That's likely why I found Eggleston's work distasteful. It struck me >> as largely antipodal to my own. I saw no reason for him to have >> pressed the shutter button, much less feel that the images were >> display worthy. >> >> I know others see something in it. I saw something in some of them... >> but a number of them, like the bags of garbage and the oven >> interior... >> >> I suppose I feel as Mark said. OK, maybe his work is interesting in >> some respects, but I saw a big disparity between what he actually >> produced and the amount of adulation received. >> >> Tom C. >> >> On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 10:14 PM, William Robb wrote: >>> >>> - Original Message - From: "Bob Sullivan" >>> Subject: Re: What Makes a Good Photograph? Was: Chicago >>> >>> I'm quite enjoying the exchange of ideas. >>> Both Doug and Tom are photographers whose images I respect at worst, and >>> like a whole lot at best. Getting their philosophies as well is huge. >>> >>> William Robb >> >> -- >> 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. >> > -- 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.
Re: What Makes a Good Photograph? Was: Chicago
Gee, I don't know how you can say Eggleston's work is distasteful. This one, for example, is downright charming: http://www.egglestonphotography.com/portfolio.html Dan On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 9:05 AM, Tom C wrote: > I have a philosophy?... Thanks Bill... :-) > > If I have one, it's simply that I when I find a subject that moves me > to press the shutter button, I try to think about how to best render > the subject so that the viewer will also know why I pressed the > shutter button. > > That's likely why I found Eggleston's work distasteful. It struck me > as largely antipodal to my own. I saw no reason for him to have > pressed the shutter button, much less feel that the images were > display worthy. > > I know others see something in it. I saw something in some of them... > but a number of them, like the bags of garbage and the oven > interior... > > I suppose I feel as Mark said. OK, maybe his work is interesting in > some respects, but I saw a big disparity between what he actually > produced and the amount of adulation received. > > Tom C. > > On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 10:14 PM, William Robb wrote: >> >> ----- Original Message - From: "Bob Sullivan" >> Subject: Re: What Makes a Good Photograph? Was: Chicago >> >> I'm quite enjoying the exchange of ideas. >> Both Doug and Tom are photographers whose images I respect at worst, and >> like a whole lot at best. Getting their philosophies as well is huge. >> >> William Robb > > -- > 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. > -- 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.
Re: What Makes a Good Photograph? Was: Chicago
On 5/12/2010 4:45 PM, Tom C wrote: A bad photograph is one that a person sees once and never cares to look at again. Tom C. Tom, I am thinking (in fact I am recalling having been told by someone else) that unsuccessful photograph (notice, not bad per se) is one that a viewer will forget very soon after they look at it. And the sooner the viewer forgets (assuming they have healthy memory) the worse the photo is. Naturally, it goes the other way. Good photos are those that you remember. I am thinking that really good photos are those that you try to shoot yourself on a whim, like going along the Chicago street, seeing a scene, making a shot and immediately thinking - "gee, I saw that shot made by (Juan Buhler *wink*); mine is somewhat similar"... Now, in both cases these notions are strictly individual. I think it was Doug who said that he quite liked the Eggleston, whereas I remember discussing it with AnnSan and may be with mister Robb and others that I have hard time comprehending it because I am not American by a long shot - it does not grab me. Having said that I still remember that wonderful photograph of a light from the plane window going through a glass of some drink and two ladies holding their cigarettes. Boris -- 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.
Re: What Makes a Good Photograph? Was: Chicago
I have a philosophy?... Thanks Bill... :-) If I have one, it's simply that I when I find a subject that moves me to press the shutter button, I try to think about how to best render the subject so that the viewer will also know why I pressed the shutter button. That's likely why I found Eggleston's work distasteful. It struck me as largely antipodal to my own. I saw no reason for him to have pressed the shutter button, much less feel that the images were display worthy. I know others see something in it. I saw something in some of them... but a number of them, like the bags of garbage and the oven interior... I suppose I feel as Mark said. OK, maybe his work is interesting in some respects, but I saw a big disparity between what he actually produced and the amount of adulation received. Tom C. On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 10:14 PM, William Robb wrote: > > - Original Message - From: "Bob Sullivan" > Subject: Re: What Makes a Good Photograph? Was: Chicago > > I'm quite enjoying the exchange of ideas. > Both Doug and Tom are photographers whose images I respect at worst, and > like a whole lot at best. Getting their philosophies as well is huge. > > William Robb -- 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.
Re: What Makes a Good Photograph? Was: Chicago
p...@web-options.com wrote: [...] dang. It's tough being an Art Snob around here. No doubt Mark! will pick that one up all on his ownsome without my help. Don't worry too much about it, Doug. I'm shoulder-to-shoulder with you on this. The only reason I haven't waded into the thread with all opinions blazing to tell everyone how wrong they are is that I'm having to use a crappy webmail interface at the moment, which cleaves to my e-palette and renders me speechless, to adapt a phrase. palate, surely? Or are we still talking about art? -- 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.
Re: What Makes a Good Photograph? Was: Chicago
Mark Roberts wrote: It's as if, after years of dismissing color photography, when the art snobs found one color photographer they liked they overreacted to the point of near-deification, compensating for past oversights by heaping excessive praise on work that didn't deserve it. Seems Mark!ish to me. -- 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.
Re: What Makes a Good Photograph? Was: Chicago
Tom C wrote: >On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 8:51 PM, Mark Roberts wrote: >> >> Tom, perhaps what's bugging you about Eggleston's work subconsciously >> is that same thing that bugs me consciously about it. I'm not an >> Eggleston hater - quite the contrary, I find I have a greater >> appreciation for his work after seeing it in person and in a large >> collection. I see some pretty good ideas at play and some pretty good >> work resulting. What annoys me is the over-glorification of Eggleston >> by the art world. It's as if, after years of dismissing color >> photography, when the art snobs found one color photographer they >> liked they overreacted to the point of near-deification, compensating >> for past oversights by heaping excessive praise on work that didn't >> deserve it. >> >> In short, I think his work does deserve praise, but not the ridiculous >> adulation it's received from some quarters. >> > >Mark, > >Interesting perspective. I must admit that I've never known there was >a predjudice regarding color photography in it's early days. I've of >course noticed how black and white is often viewed as art regardless >of the merits of the image, so maybe that's still a leftover from >years ago. I'm sure some still deify B&W. It's true. Heck, one could probably write a history of art built around various trends and the eventual overreaction against them. One of the recurring issues with art in general and photography in particular is that of beauty: There are people who think a pretty subject is necessary (and sufficient). Hence all the kitten and flower photos in the world. As a reaction to this is the notion that "good art" must *not* be beautiful. It's trite to say that neither view is correct and almost everyone would agree with that statement, but there are plenty who don't behave that way, though they'd certainly deny it. Somewhere in the Eggleston exhibit was a quotation from a critic disparaging color photography because it had only been used for advertising or for the kind of (beautiful) photographs seen in National Geographic (horrors!) To the kind of person who is deeply suspicious of beauty, Eggleston was a godsend and he reaped the benefits of producing the right work at the right time. -- 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.
Re: What Makes a Good Photograph? Was: Chicago
On 13 May 2010 06:20, Christine Aguila wrote: > > Friendly correction: I said Southern Gothic and the grotesque. I stand corrected and humbly bow down to your prodigious memory. -- \/\/o/\/\ --> http://WorldOfMiserere.com http://EnticingTheLight.com A Quest for Photographic Enlightenment -- 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.
Re: What Makes a Good Photograph? Was: Chicago
- Original Message - From: "Miserere" To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2010 8:19 PM Subject: Re: What Makes a Good Photograph? Was: Chicago I did come away with one thing, though. Like Christine said, Eggleston has a knack for American Gothic and the bizarre, even if it's not immediately apparent. Friendly correction: I said Southern Gothic and the grotesque. I think Flannery O'Connor would have liked Eggleston, and count me in as a fan of Eggleston. As I write this it's thundering & raining like crazy here in Chicago--most appropriate for thoughts on the gothic. As Doug said, there's something quite "menacing" in Eggleston's work. -- 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.
Re: What Makes a Good Photograph? Was: Chicago
[...] > > dang. It's tough being an Art Snob around here. > No doubt Mark! will pick that one up all on his ownsome without my help. Don't worry too much about it, Doug. I'm shoulder-to-shoulder with you on this. The only reason I haven't waded into the thread with all opinions blazing to tell everyone how wrong they are is that I'm having to use a crappy webmail interface at the moment, which cleaves to my e-palette and renders me speechless, to adapt a phrase. B -- 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.
Re: What Makes a Good Photograph? Was: Chicago
Miserere and I had a brief discussion about Eggleston's work while we were wandering through. It got me to thinking rather than just feeling. Thanks Miserere! First, I don't study art, I don't read art critics' stuff, and I may have once heard the name Eggleston but had no clue who he was and what his purported place is/was in the pantheon of photographic greats. From the viewpoint of that naive viewer, I think I liked his work. First, except for the B&W portraits, it all seemed to be of one style. This is a guy comfortable with his vision of the world. Second, it was all of one "place." St. Ansel's place was not just Yosemite but all outdoors. Egglestons place was the American mid-south. I think both represented their own place well, in very different ways obviously! I wonder if someone who is an urban dweller with no prior experience with the Southwest or Yosemite, etc. could see the art in Adams' work? I think that one who has no prior experience with the American South would likewise have difficulty feeling the Eggleston work. But even so, there is much to be admired in both. Their compositions, their ability to capture the essence of place and time. Eggleston happened to use color rather than B&W and was obviously as comfortable with the use of color as Adams was with the use of sharp B&W. Do I "like" Eggleston's work? I am not sure about that but I think so. And I did buy the exhibit book and I expect I will spend quite a few hours looking at the images. Do I admire his work? Sorta. Am I inspired to try to shot like him? No, I would rather find my own way. But for me, the important metric is Will I remember his images? And there the answer is Yes. There are a few that stick in my mind, and they join a few handfuls of other images I have seen in galleries, museums, and PDML books. Thanks to Doug (?) who first suggested that exhibit as a Saturday morning outing for the group. stan On May 12, 2010, at 7:51 PM, Mark Roberts wrote: > Tom C wrote: > >> I think Doug has valid points even though I was not impressed with the >> bulk of Eggleston's work on display last weekend. >> >> I bow to his knowledge on the subject because he no doubt has a far >> vaster knowledge of photographic history than I do. >> >> And in the end, even discussing the subject has made me think, which I >> believe was Doug's intent (or maybe he just likes me better after >> having met me in person). LOL. > > Tom, perhaps what's bugging you about Eggleston's work subconsciously > is that same thing that bugs me consciously about it. I'm not an > Eggleston hater - quite the contrary, I find I have a greater > appreciation for his work after seeing it in person and in a large > collection. I see some pretty good ideas at play and some pretty good > work resulting. What annoys me is the over-glorification of Eggleston > by the art world. It's as if, after years of dismissing color > photography, when the art snobs found one color photographer they > liked they overreacted to the point of near-deification, compensating > for past oversights by heaping excessive praise on work that didn't > deserve it. > > In short, I think his work does deserve praise, but not the ridiculous > adulation it's received from some quarters. > > -- > 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. -- 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.
Re: What Makes a Good Photograph? Was: Chicago
- Original Message - From: "Miserere" Subject: Re: What Makes a Good Photograph? Was: Chicago Summary of how I feel about Eggleston: If Stephen King were given a camera, he'd take the photographs Eggleston takes. Having read Stephen King's assessment of how to write horror, I really think you have hit pretty close to the bone. William Robb -- 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.
Re: What Makes a Good Photograph? Was: Chicago
- Original Message - From: "Bob Sullivan" Subject: Re: What Makes a Good Photograph? Was: Chicago Wow Tom, your really pressing Doug's buttons. This is the most he's written to the list in years. I'm quite enjoying the exchange of ideas. Both Doug and Tom are photographers whose images I respect at worst, and like a whole lot at best. Getting their philosophies as well is huge. William Robb -- 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.
Re: What Makes a Good Photograph? Was: Chicago
Miserere wrote: On 12 May 2010 20:51, Mark Roberts wrote: Tom, perhaps what's bugging you about Eggleston's work subconsciously is that same thing that bugs me consciously about it. I'm not an Eggleston hater - quite the contrary, I find I have a greater appreciation for his work after seeing it in person and in a large collection. I see some pretty good ideas at play and some pretty good work resulting. What annoys me is the over-glorification of Eggleston by the art world. It's as if, after years of dismissing color photography, when the art snobs found one color photographer they liked they overreacted to the point of near-deification, compensating for past oversights by heaping excessive praise on work that didn't deserve it. In short, I think his work does deserve praise, but not the ridiculous adulation it's received from some quarters. I think Mark has summed up my feelings here. I've never hated Eggleston, I just didn't understand why others like him. Like I said a number of times before Chicago, I really wanted to see the exhibit because maybe seeing prints and taking time to look at a good chunk of his work would help me understand. But it didn't. True, there are some shots in there that I liked, but they were few and far between. When I remarked to Stan how I quite liked his large portraits out in the corridor, he said "I hate them, but I love the rest". So I learnt one thing: Stan is the opposite of me. Ha ha. I did come away with one thing, though. Like Christine said, Eggleston has a knack for American Gothic and the bizarre, even if it's not immediately apparent. Many of his photos had elements that made them strangely unsettling, like the begining of a Friday the 13th movie, when all is nice, calm and beautiful, just before Jason comes out and hacks everyone to pieces. I could see putting a book together with all of these Eggleston pics (which might have already been done) and calling it a day. But like Mark said, the Art Snobs just keep going on and on about it. Summary of how I feel about Eggleston: If Stephen King were given a camera, he'd take the photographs Eggleston takes. --M. dang. It's tough being an Art Snob around here. -- 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.
Re: What Makes a Good Photograph? Was: Chicago
On 12 May 2010 20:51, Mark Roberts wrote: > > Tom, perhaps what's bugging you about Eggleston's work subconsciously > is that same thing that bugs me consciously about it. I'm not an > Eggleston hater - quite the contrary, I find I have a greater > appreciation for his work after seeing it in person and in a large > collection. I see some pretty good ideas at play and some pretty good > work resulting. What annoys me is the over-glorification of Eggleston > by the art world. It's as if, after years of dismissing color > photography, when the art snobs found one color photographer they > liked they overreacted to the point of near-deification, compensating > for past oversights by heaping excessive praise on work that didn't > deserve it. > > In short, I think his work does deserve praise, but not the ridiculous > adulation it's received from some quarters. I think Mark has summed up my feelings here. I've never hated Eggleston, I just didn't understand why others like him. Like I said a number of times before Chicago, I really wanted to see the exhibit because maybe seeing prints and taking time to look at a good chunk of his work would help me understand. But it didn't. True, there are some shots in there that I liked, but they were few and far between. When I remarked to Stan how I quite liked his large portraits out in the corridor, he said "I hate them, but I love the rest". So I learnt one thing: Stan is the opposite of me. Ha ha. I did come away with one thing, though. Like Christine said, Eggleston has a knack for American Gothic and the bizarre, even if it's not immediately apparent. Many of his photos had elements that made them strangely unsettling, like the begining of a Friday the 13th movie, when all is nice, calm and beautiful, just before Jason comes out and hacks everyone to pieces. I could see putting a book together with all of these Eggleston pics (which might have already been done) and calling it a day. But like Mark said, the Art Snobs just keep going on and on about it. Summary of how I feel about Eggleston: If Stephen King were given a camera, he'd take the photographs Eggleston takes. --M. -- \/\/o/\/\ --> http://WorldOfMiserere.com http://EnticingTheLight.com A Quest for Photographic Enlightenment -- 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.
Re: What Makes a Good Photograph? Was: Chicago
On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 8:51 PM, Mark Roberts wrote: > > Tom, perhaps what's bugging you about Eggleston's work subconsciously > is that same thing that bugs me consciously about it. I'm not an > Eggleston hater - quite the contrary, I find I have a greater > appreciation for his work after seeing it in person and in a large > collection. I see some pretty good ideas at play and some pretty good > work resulting. What annoys me is the over-glorification of Eggleston > by the art world. It's as if, after years of dismissing color > photography, when the art snobs found one color photographer they > liked they overreacted to the point of near-deification, compensating > for past oversights by heaping excessive praise on work that didn't > deserve it. > > In short, I think his work does deserve praise, but not the ridiculous > adulation it's received from some quarters. > Mark, Interesting perspective. I must admit that I've never known there was a predjudice regarding color photography in it's early days. I've of course noticed how black and white is often viewed as art regardless of the merits of the image, so maybe that's still a leftover from years ago. I'm sure some still deify B&W. You're basically right I think. What annoys me (to the degree I wish to be comfortably annoyed) is that I think an image should stand or fall on it's own merits. I saw three images in the Eggleston exhibit that I felt stood very tall on their own. I saw a handful of images that I thought were interesting, but I left feeling much the way I feel about some of my own images, i.e., if I'm not sure, then "no". The rest were rejects in my opinion. So in the end, I think I agree. I liked some of his work, but I cannot understand the wholesale carte blanche that appears to be granted. Thanks for providing that insight. It's made me think once again. Tom C. -- 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.
Re: What Makes a Good Photograph? Was: Chicago
Tom C wrote: >I think Doug has valid points even though I was not impressed with the >bulk of Eggleston's work on display last weekend. > >I bow to his knowledge on the subject because he no doubt has a far >vaster knowledge of photographic history than I do. > >And in the end, even discussing the subject has made me think, which I >believe was Doug's intent (or maybe he just likes me better after >having met me in person). LOL. Tom, perhaps what's bugging you about Eggleston's work subconsciously is that same thing that bugs me consciously about it. I'm not an Eggleston hater - quite the contrary, I find I have a greater appreciation for his work after seeing it in person and in a large collection. I see some pretty good ideas at play and some pretty good work resulting. What annoys me is the over-glorification of Eggleston by the art world. It's as if, after years of dismissing color photography, when the art snobs found one color photographer they liked they overreacted to the point of near-deification, compensating for past oversights by heaping excessive praise on work that didn't deserve it. In short, I think his work does deserve praise, but not the ridiculous adulation it's received from some quarters. -- 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.
Re: What Makes a Good Photograph? Was: Chicago
I think Doug has valid points even though I was not impressed with the bulk of Eggleston's work on display last weekend. I bow to his knowledge on the subject because he no doubt has a far vaster knowledge of photographic history than I do. And in the end, even discussing the subject has made me think, which I believe was Doug's intent (or maybe he just likes me better after having met me in person). LOL. Tom On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 6:30 PM, Bob Sullivan wrote: > Wow Tom, your really pressing Doug's buttons. > This is the most he's written to the list in years. > Regards, Bob S. :-) > > On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 5:10 PM, Doug Brewer wrote: >> Tom C wrote: >>> >>> 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. >> >> You're going to play the populist card? >> >> If it weren't for Eggleston, Stephen Shore, and Joel Meyerowitz, and their >> pioneering color work, we'd probably all still be out looking for Saint >> Ansel's tripod marks and f/64ing the hell out of our monochrome emulsions, >> because no serious photographer would ever shoot in color. >> >> Like it or not, critical and curatorial judgment affects what we do. Edward >> Hopper would have been laughed out of any number of salons and local art >> clubs, but someone had to decide his work was good. Monet, Gauguin, , Walker >> Evans, the list is endless. People who produced work that was not in keeping >> with the prevailing style. Someone stepped up and said hey wait, this is >> good. Then that stuff goes on to influence whoever came next, either in >> agreement or opposition. >> >> Of course, it can go bad. I don't care for what Andy Warhol did, but I >> understand what he was saying, and somewhat agree. >> >>> >>> 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. >> >> Sounds like a challenge to me. Go ahead. Make a gallery of Eggleston-like >> photos. But do keep in mind, and this is key: subject matter plays but a >> supporting role in the work. Color is everything. >> >> But don't do it for my amusement. Do it as a challenge to yourself. Get out >> of your photographic comfort zone and see how easy or hard it is to produce >> usable work in a different style. >> >>> >>> 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. >> >> Well, they do have a discernible style; He doesn't shoot like anyone else. >> Intent is there, but you (generic you) have to be open to it. >> >> >>> 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 don't think anyone thinks you're an idiot. Remember, I'm carrying the >> minority flag on this. If anyone looks foolish, it's me, and I'm quite >> accustomed to it. You've met me. Do you really think I'm allowed out in >> public that often? >> >>> >>> 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. >> >> Yes, I like to call it working the subject. >> >>> 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
Re: What Makes a Good Photograph? Was: Chicago
Excuses, excuses. We always like to hear what you have to say. Regards, Bob S. On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 5:39 PM, Doug Brewer wrote: > Bob Sullivan wrote: >> >> Wow Tom, your really pressing Doug's buttons. >> This is the most he's written to the list in years. >> Regards, Bob S. :-) > > I'm between sessions and don't have to shoot anything until tomorrow. > > > -- > 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. > -- 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.
Re: What Makes a Good Photograph? Was: Chicago
Bob Sullivan wrote: Wow Tom, your really pressing Doug's buttons. This is the most he's written to the list in years. Regards, Bob S. :-) I'm between sessions and don't have to shoot anything until tomorrow. -- 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.
Re: What Makes a Good Photograph? Was: Chicago
Wow Tom, your really pressing Doug's buttons. This is the most he's written to the list in years. Regards, Bob S. :-) On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 5:10 PM, Doug Brewer wrote: > Tom C wrote: >> >> 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. > > You're going to play the populist card? > > If it weren't for Eggleston, Stephen Shore, and Joel Meyerowitz, and their > pioneering color work, we'd probably all still be out looking for Saint > Ansel's tripod marks and f/64ing the hell out of our monochrome emulsions, > because no serious photographer would ever shoot in color. > > Like it or not, critical and curatorial judgment affects what we do. Edward > Hopper would have been laughed out of any number of salons and local art > clubs, but someone had to decide his work was good. Monet, Gauguin, , Walker > Evans, the list is endless. People who produced work that was not in keeping > with the prevailing style. Someone stepped up and said hey wait, this is > good. Then that stuff goes on to influence whoever came next, either in > agreement or opposition. > > Of course, it can go bad. I don't care for what Andy Warhol did, but I > understand what he was saying, and somewhat agree. > >> >> 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. > > Sounds like a challenge to me. Go ahead. Make a gallery of Eggleston-like > photos. But do keep in mind, and this is key: subject matter plays but a > supporting role in the work. Color is everything. > > But don't do it for my amusement. Do it as a challenge to yourself. Get out > of your photographic comfort zone and see how easy or hard it is to produce > usable work in a different style. > >> >> 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. > > Well, they do have a discernible style; He doesn't shoot like anyone else. > Intent is there, but you (generic you) have to be open to it. > > >> 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 don't think anyone thinks you're an idiot. Remember, I'm carrying the > minority flag on this. If anyone looks foolish, it's me, and I'm quite > accustomed to it. You've met me. Do you really think I'm allowed out in > public that often? > >> >> 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. > > Yes, I like to call it working the subject. > >> >>> 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. > > Yes. Again, it doesn't matter to me if you or any else likes what I like. > What I am intensely curious about is how other people see. >> >> Tom C. >> > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/ma
Re: What Makes a Good Photograph? Was: Chicago
Tom C wrote: 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. You're going to play the populist card? If it weren't for Eggleston, Stephen Shore, and Joel Meyerowitz, and their pioneering color work, we'd probably all still be out looking for Saint Ansel's tripod marks and f/64ing the hell out of our monochrome emulsions, because no serious photographer would ever shoot in color. Like it or not, critical and curatorial judgment affects what we do. Edward Hopper would have been laughed out of any number of salons and local art clubs, but someone had to decide his work was good. Monet, Gauguin, , Walker Evans, the list is endless. People who produced work that was not in keeping with the prevailing style. Someone stepped up and said hey wait, this is good. Then that stuff goes on to influence whoever came next, either in agreement or opposition. Of course, it can go bad. I don't care for what Andy Warhol did, but I understand what he was saying, and somewhat agree. 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. Sounds like a challenge to me. Go ahead. Make a gallery of Eggleston-like photos. But do keep in mind, and this is key: subject matter plays but a supporting role in the work. Color is everything. But don't do it for my amusement. Do it as a challenge to yourself. Get out of your photographic comfort zone and see how easy or hard it is to produce usable work in a different style. 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. Well, they do have a discernible style; He doesn't shoot like anyone else. Intent is there, but you (generic you) have to be open to it. 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 don't think anyone thinks you're an idiot. Remember, I'm carrying the minority flag on this. If anyone looks foolish, it's me, and I'm quite accustomed to it. You've met me. Do you really think I'm allowed out in public that often? 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. Yes, I like to call it working the subject. 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. Yes. Again, it doesn't matter to me if you or any else likes what I like. What I am intensely curious about is how other people see. Tom C. -- 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.
Re: What Makes a Good Photograph? Was: Chicago
Tom C wrote: As I said, I think the PDML exhibit in Chicago was a far better collection of images than the Eggleston exhibit. That's my opinion. For instance I saw nothing artistic or good about the photographs of a pile of garbage or the black porcelain interior of an oven. There were half a dozen to a dozen photos at Eggleston that I really liked. While I can empathize with his finding beauty in the mundane, those photos work better on their own than mixed in with 150 others. Also, our photos had the advantage of each photographer going through a year's worth of photos to pick their three best from the year. Then Mark went through those and picked one or two of their best. Then Sue went through and picked 45 of those. So each photograph was by some measure, the best of the best of the best. Meanwhile, Eggleston had something like 30 from one day in Carter's hometown. I don't care who you are, nobody in one day is going to crank out 30 photos of the caliber of most of the pictures in the PDML exhibition. Maybe none of our best photos match Eggleston's best, and maybe he'll get 30 in a year of the quality that we aspire to get a few of each year, but of those 30, I'd say that there were maybe three worth showing. Granted, his goal wasn't 30 great shots, it was a set to convey the feeling of that one town. Another advantage that we had is the 40 or so years of state of the art, both artistic and technologic between when his pictures were taken and when ours were. I don't know if I could do what he did, using the equipment that he did. I've also had the benefit of looking at pictures taken by people who have looked at all the pictures taken between then and now. It's probably easier to define a bad photograph as opposed to a good one. A bad photograph is one that a person sees once and never cares to look at again. Unless the photo was meant to evoke a negative response, perhaps like the famous one of the vietnamese officer executing a prisoner. The reason someone may not want to see it again could have everything to do with what makes it a great photo. Tom C. -- 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.
Re: What Makes a Good Photograph? Was: Chicago
Hi John,
Are they really snapshots? Do you not expend some effort reaching the
locale, getting set up, in the right spot, using a desired focal
length lens, and then set aperture and shutter speed, and compose,
then fine-tune?
If so, then they're not really snapshots, to my way of thinking. While
maybe not what you would consider art, you must certainly have
criteria for judging how successful your shots are, and some you are
no doubt sublimely happy with, while others must be considered
failures, and the range between both ends of the spectrum.
Personally, liking cars and auto racing, I would consider a well
composed, thought out, aesthetically pleasing photo of a race car, a
work of art.
Tom C.
On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 3:05 PM, John Francis wrote:
> On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 01:40:06PM -0400, Tom C wrote:
>> 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.
> {snip, snip]
>> 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.
>
> There probably has to be a little more to it than that, though.
>
> The foregoing critique could pretty much describe most of my photography.
> Perhaps the intent is apparent in my action photographs (of cyclists or of
> race cars), but apart from that I produce snapshots rather than artwork.
>
> But I'm happy with that (and that I'm not a famous photographer).
>
> Perhaps that's part of it - if I tried to persuade you that my work had
> artistic merit (whatever that may be) you would judge it more harshly.
>
> (Again, not trying to be argumentative; just adding my musings to yours)
>
>
> --
> 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.
>
--
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.
Re: What Makes a Good Photograph? Was: Chicago
On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 01:40:06PM -0400, Tom C wrote:
> 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.
{snip, snip]
> 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.
There probably has to be a little more to it than that, though.
The foregoing critique could pretty much describe most of my photography.
Perhaps the intent is apparent in my action photographs (of cyclists or of
race cars), but apart from that I produce snapshots rather than artwork.
But I'm happy with that (and that I'm not a famous photographer).
Perhaps that's part of it - if I tried to persuade you that my work had
artistic merit (whatever that may be) you would judge it more harshly.
(Again, not trying to be argumentative; just adding my musings to yours)
--
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.
Re: What Makes a Good Photograph? Was: Chicago
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. Tom C. -- 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.
Re: What Makes a Good Photograph? Was: Chicago
Tom C wrote: We and I may be mixing up the terms art and good in this discussion... oh well... We can save the discussion about whether photography is art for later. I asked what makes a good photograph. There can be be no single answer to the question because photographs are taken for a variety of reasons. Some photographs are intended as a form of artistic expression while others may be simply documentary. Some are documentary of an event, say a party, while others are taken for more mundane reasons. I believe some photos are taken for practically no reason whatsoever or maybe no obvious reason? - the person has a camera and therefore is using it (similar to what happens if you give a child a camera and they mostly, indiscriminately, start walking around actuating the shutter). (Like Eggleston, IMO, wink) Eggleston may be many things, but indiscriminate isn't one of them. He's quite deliberate in what he shows, but it sometimes takes some work to see what he's revealing. There's at least two ways of defining good when it's applied to photography: 1. Good because the image fulfills the requirements for which it was taken Are we talking just record-keeping? Here is a scene and here is what it looked like? 2. Good because the image possesses some attributes that make it stand out in a positive way Attributes such as? And why positive? Individually we all define good somewhat differently. Sure. And we are all, when we reach a certain level of competency, convinced that the way we do it is the way everyone should do it. Nature of the beast, you know. It seems to me that invoking/or not an emotional response is not the whole thing either. First, one viewer is different from the next, so will be impacted differently. Second, the viewer may have an emotional response to the image that has little to do with the merits of the image itself. Example 1: I love my baby, so a picture of my baby invokes an emotional response. Example 2: I remember the day JFK was shot, so when I see images of that traumatic event, it invokes an emotional response. In both examples above the subject matter alone is what may produce a response. I would think that a snapshot baby picture or a hastily taken image documenting an event, likely does not qualify as art unless it invokes a response for reasons other than the subject matter itself. 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. 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? In the GESO I just posted of wide angle portraits. Are they good or bad? Are they art? I didn't intend them to be art. Nor would I ever submit that they are such. Yet, I took them with the sole purpose of invoking an emotional response (which from what I read is either amusement or horror). Are they good? IMO, yes, but only in that they invoked the response I was hoping for). Are they good because they possess some other qualities, such as excellent composition, lighting, exposure control? No. 19 is a lark. A million is art. In the end, I suppose, the only statements I can really make that are unassailable is "I like that image" or "I think that's a good image". My thoughts and emotions are my own and require no validation. If someone disagrees, their opposite statements are just as valid. True. I really don't care if anyone else likes Eggleston's work, but if you're going to say a photo, any photo, is "crappy," it's only fair to ask why. As I said, I think the PDML exhibit in Chicago was a far better collection of images than the Eggleston exhibit. That's my opinion. For instance I saw nothing artistic or good about the photographs of a pile of garbage or the black porcelain interior of an oven. It's probably easier to define a bad photograph as opposed to a good one. A bad photograph is one that a person sees once and never cares to look at again. Tom C. -- 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.
Re: What Makes a Good Photograph? Was: Chicago
I think the approach you guys are using to analyse this might be flawed for some type of work, some photos need to be evaluated as part of a whole, and even in an intended sequence (e.g. Robert Frank's "The Americans"). These are the photos that evaluated individualy are mundane but are elevated to a different level as part of a whole. On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 9:45 AM, Tom C wrote: > On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 12:47 AM, Doug Brewer wrote: > >>OK, if we're going to discuss this, first you have to define what exactly >>makes a good photograph, without saying "a good photo is not this..." or "a >>good photo is >not that..." > >>Fire when ready. > > Thought about in my sleep. :-) > > I'll cop out with the following: > > We and I may be mixing up the terms art and good in this discussion... > oh well... > > There can be be no single answer to the question because photographs > are taken for a variety of reasons. Some photographs are intended as a > form of artistic expression while others may be simply documentary. > Some are documentary of an event, say a party, while others are taken > for more mundane reasons. I believe some photos are taken for > practically no reason whatsoever - the person has a camera and > therefore is using it (similar to what happens if you give a child a > camera and they mostly, indiscriminately, start walking around > actuating the shutter). (Like Eggleston, IMO, wink) > > There's at least two ways of defining good when it's applied to photography: > > 1. Good because the image fulfills the requirements for which it was taken > 2. Good because the image possesses some attributes that make it stand > out in a positive way > > Individually we all define good somewhat differently. > > It seems to me that invoking/or not an emotional response is not the > whole thing either. First, one viewer is different from the next, so > will be impacted differently. Second, the viewer may have an emotional > response to the image that has little to do with the merits of the > image itself. > > Example 1: I love my baby, so a picture of my baby invokes an > emotional response. > Example 2: I remember the day JFK was shot, so when I see images of > that traumatic event, it invokes an emotional response. > > In both examples above the subject matter alone is what may produce a > response. I would think that a snapshot baby picture or a hastily > taken image documenting an event, likely does not qualify as art > unless it invokes a response for reasons other than the subject matter > itself. > > In the GESO I just posted of wide angle portraits. Are they good or > bad? Are they art? I didn't intend them to be art. Nor would I ever > submit that they are such. Yet, I took them with the sole purpose of > invoking an emotional response (which from what I read is either > amusement or horror). Are they good? IMO, yes, but only in that they > invoked the response I was hoping for). Are they good because they > possess some other qualities, such as excellent composition, lighting, > exposure control? No. > > In the end, I suppose, the only statements I can really make that are > unassailable is "I like that image" or "I think that's a good image". > My thoughts and emotions are my own and require no validation. If > someone disagrees, their opposite statements are just as valid. > > As I said, I think the PDML exhibit in Chicago was a far better > collection of images than the Eggleston exhibit. That's my opinion. > For instance I saw nothing artistic or good about the photographs of a > pile of garbage or the black porcelain interior of an oven. > > It's probably easier to define a bad photograph as opposed to a good one. > > A bad photograph is one that a person sees once and never cares to > look at again. > > Tom C. > > -- > 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. > -- http://www.flickr.com/photos/ferand/ -- 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.
What Makes a Good Photograph? Was: Chicago
On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 12:47 AM, Doug Brewer wrote: >OK, if we're going to discuss this, first you have to define what exactly >makes a good photograph, without saying "a good photo is not this..." or "a >good photo is >not that..." >Fire when ready. Thought about in my sleep. :-) I'll cop out with the following: We and I may be mixing up the terms art and good in this discussion... oh well... There can be be no single answer to the question because photographs are taken for a variety of reasons. Some photographs are intended as a form of artistic expression while others may be simply documentary. Some are documentary of an event, say a party, while others are taken for more mundane reasons. I believe some photos are taken for practically no reason whatsoever - the person has a camera and therefore is using it (similar to what happens if you give a child a camera and they mostly, indiscriminately, start walking around actuating the shutter). (Like Eggleston, IMO, wink) There's at least two ways of defining good when it's applied to photography: 1. Good because the image fulfills the requirements for which it was taken 2. Good because the image possesses some attributes that make it stand out in a positive way Individually we all define good somewhat differently. It seems to me that invoking/or not an emotional response is not the whole thing either. First, one viewer is different from the next, so will be impacted differently. Second, the viewer may have an emotional response to the image that has little to do with the merits of the image itself. Example 1: I love my baby, so a picture of my baby invokes an emotional response. Example 2: I remember the day JFK was shot, so when I see images of that traumatic event, it invokes an emotional response. In both examples above the subject matter alone is what may produce a response. I would think that a snapshot baby picture or a hastily taken image documenting an event, likely does not qualify as art unless it invokes a response for reasons other than the subject matter itself. In the GESO I just posted of wide angle portraits. Are they good or bad? Are they art? I didn't intend them to be art. Nor would I ever submit that they are such. Yet, I took them with the sole purpose of invoking an emotional response (which from what I read is either amusement or horror). Are they good? IMO, yes, but only in that they invoked the response I was hoping for). Are they good because they possess some other qualities, such as excellent composition, lighting, exposure control? No. In the end, I suppose, the only statements I can really make that are unassailable is "I like that image" or "I think that's a good image". My thoughts and emotions are my own and require no validation. If someone disagrees, their opposite statements are just as valid. As I said, I think the PDML exhibit in Chicago was a far better collection of images than the Eggleston exhibit. That's my opinion. For instance I saw nothing artistic or good about the photographs of a pile of garbage or the black porcelain interior of an oven. It's probably easier to define a bad photograph as opposed to a good one. A bad photograph is one that a person sees once and never cares to look at again. Tom C. -- 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.
