On art and mundane

February 5th, 2011

A friend of mine made a first and then a second posts on his blog about what does not make a good photograph. But while it is easy to point out badly composed, out of focus images run through one or two un-suck filter, it seems to be harder to say what a good picture should have.

It is almost two months I am thinking on the subject, and not much came out of it. In fact, I thought that old good suggestion of looking at other peoples images, at images of the masters, would help. I carefully studied the few photograph exhibits while in New York in Met and MoMA and then I followed up on few books of those photographers I found in the local library. I enjoyed simplicity of Alfred Stieglitz images, those taken in New York, first of horse carriages and then of rising skyscrapers were fascinating. But I was wondering if they were great by themselves or because of their historical value. Some of them were dark to our current standards, for example. Although, the composition was impeccable. And I loved his images of Georgia O’Keeffe, her hands on different objects for example, beautifully posed both on the object and in the frame.

I also spend some time looking at Dorothea Lange photographs, especially those of Great Depression in San Francisco and life of migration workers in California. Those are great stories and they certainly evoke emotions. They tell the story by themselves, you don’t need to see the caption of when it was taken and who it represents. But these images tell the universal stories through emotions on people’s faces, their posture, surrounding. So, the image needs to convey emotions. Which is easy, or at least doable with images of people. How about the landscape and macro of flower petals?

Also, looking at many images in National Geographic magazine, and their books, I come to the conclusion that the technical quality has not much to do with the image being good or not. It is all not about perfect exposure or focus. Maybe it is even not about the composition. But it is also not what a photographer feels about the image, especially if it special to me because it connects to my personal story. Eli Reinholdtsen wrote about it some time ago. Unless the story can be made universal to all people. It needs to make any viewer appreciate the beauty of the scene, or understand the story being told without any caption.

Do you have any thoughts on the subject? When you see a photo, what makes you think it is a good image or a bad image? What are your criteria?

Dorothea Lange photographs on the wall in MoMA. As just about anything else in that exhibition hall was drawing attention of bored tourists, I could contemplate it in peace.

Camera & Lens: NIKON D300 30.0 mm f/1.4, Flash did not fire.
Focal length: 30 mm Shutter: 1/160 sec. ISO: 320 Aperture: f/1.4

Related posts:

How to - redesigning your blog in one evening
Microstock summary for 2010 and New Years toast
Some FlashBus flashbacks
"Your Creative Mix" by Corvin Hiebert- e-book review
Thursday read - beginners guide to post-production in "Photo nuts and post"
Permalink
  • Pingback: Tweets that mention On art and mundane -- Topsy.com

  • http://quotidian-photography.blogspot.com Jessica Sweeney

    I think maybe you’re overthinking it. Art by definition is subjective: what pleases me doesn’t necessarily please you. Personally I shoot to my own definition of art, and let others decide if it works for them or not.

    I certainly don’t love all celebrated photographers, but some I just adore. Find the principles that speak the most to you, and use those. The rest, ignore.

  • http://boringpic.wordpress.com/ Devlin

    It’s all not that simple, really, but the first mistake you can make is setting your own preferences or taste with something you spot on the wall in the random gallery or on some magazine. Critical example – World Press Photo images. Another comparison – should you not judge the art of music by turning on the radio and being suddenly exposed to some “tune” performed by Lady Gaga or other Rihanna.

  • Izabela

    Devlin, I don’t necessarily agree with you. I think galleries (or radio in your example) show certain trends. You might not need to follow them, but it is probably smart to be aware of them. I am for example sick of seeing landscape images with stones setting up the foreground before showing a lake or mountain or something on middle ground. It makes me feel that it was too calculated and intentional. But it is a trend, and I noticed it, even I don’t shoot this way. At the same time, I don’t think I would recognize Lady Gaga song, although I probably heard many of them- to that extend I am not interested in music :).

  • Izabela

    Jessica, as much as I agree with you and I would go and shoot what I please, as often I don’t particularly like what I see on the screen. These are the moments I feel I need something more than reading another book or blog post about rule of thirds. And I will go and look at some master’s work, and instead of finding what I like about them, I start seeing flows. And that leads me to think and overthink :). But I think there are some universal rules of arts and temporary trends, which I want to understand.

  • Pingback: Some more on art and greart photographs