A good image should grab you.

Music has taught me a lot. Pop music may grab someone due to its initial catchiness, but eventually it becomes annoying. More challenging music may take longer to appreciate, but once you get it, it sticks. Of course, there are exceptions. Many photographers I did not like 20 years ago, I love today. Tastes change and mature. You figure things out which you could not before. An image that catches me, may not catch the next person.

Garry winogrand, when talking about Robert franks photo of a gas station, which he certainly loved, said he didn't give a rap about gas stations... But he still loved the photo. You cannot predict what works and what people will feel. You just have to be honest in your approach and be true to your vision (if you have one). Perhaps someone will notice, perhaps they won't.

There is no one way to use photography. A bad photo can work sometimes depending on the context.
 
Originally Posted by FrankS
"I think that a lot of good images will grab you immediately, but I'm open to the possibility that there are good images that need some time to grow on you and that you will grow to appreciate."

FrankS is absolutely right in my opinion. A good image can grab you but it doesn't have to. A lot of great images do not grab or engage me in any way, what grabs the viewer often has more to do with the individual viewer than the image. A cat lover is grabbed by an image of a cat a hater on the other hand?

I also often appreciate images that grow on me more than images that instantly grab me.

Dominik
 
Interesting topic. I look forward to seeing where it goes.

For me, I find that if a photo 'grabs me', it's likely (maybe even a must) that I will really like the photo and consider it a good photo.

However, there are many images that I came to appreciate after it was explained or after I learned a bit. Often these images did not 'grab me' at all, though I still very much appreciated them.

In short: An image that grabs me is almost always a good image, but a good image does not necessarily have to grab me.
 
Appreciation of a photo, how "good" it is, is purely subjective on an individual level, however there is also popular consensus, and historical/academic appreciation of goodness in photography/art.
 
I'm thinking of the Ed Ruscha quote...
"Good art should elicit the response of, 'Huh? Wow!', rather than 'Wow!, Huh?"

The best pictures show you something new, or at least something in a new way. That often doesn't just it you on the head.

Gary
 
Your argument does not ring true on a number of levels. Firstly, there is something people refer to as acquired taste and many of our sensual experiences are affected by that. I did not appreciate wine, whiskey or coffee the first time I drank them but over time I have grown to like them very much. Sugary drinks like, on the other hand, have 'grabbed' me from the first time I drank them. Does it follow that Coke is intrinsically better than a good single malt??

I think your argument is fundamentally flawed because it rests upon the assumption that visual experience is some sort of primal thing that is not influenced by prior knowledge or prior experience. But that's not the case. We're bombarded with imagery nowadays through the internet, advertising, tv, movies, etc. etc. All this has a profound impact on how you view images and what kind of imagery speaks to you. If you do not wish to attend classes, read or look at books, or go to art galleries that is your choice but that does not mean that your appreciation of photography is any more 'primal' than one that comes from doing these things.
 
Consider that the total number of images we see everyday includes those in the newspaper, those we see in online news articles, those we see on TV programs, as well as those we see in thousands of advertisements via print, online, billboards and others.

Those images we see when we are consciously looking at "photographs" as construed here on RFF are an insignificant part of the total.

Based on a broader more realistic definition of "images", Peter Prosophos contention that an image must immediately grab you makes sense.
 
In an exhibition a small subtle photograph is less likely to grab your attention than a bold big image with strong contrast. But the smaller subtler image can or often is better (good) than the big bold photo. Attention grabing = shock marketing works for a short time but leaves one cold after a while.
 
DominikDUK said:
In an exhibition a small subtle photograph is less likely to grab your attention than a bold big image with strong contrast. But the smaller subtler image can or often is better (good) than the big bold photo. Attention grabbing = shock marketing works for a short time but leaves one cold after a while.
Click to expand...
That's my feeling too.

Cheers,

R.
 
I think a lot of the focus of this discussion is on the word "grab," which implies having an immediate and, maybe, strong effect on the viewer, which many (myself included) would disagree with (especially the immediate part). I am not sure if that was intended or not. That said, I do think that, to a certain extent, a good photograph should have an impact on you (immediate or not) regardless of whether or not you are familiar with the background story even in the case of reportage photos. I feel that people often impart their own feelings and memories of what they saw when they took a picture and believe that it is more emotionally charged/meaningful/etc than it really is forgetting that the viewer was not there and does not have that emotional baggage.
 
With due respect, I understand the intent but have to call it for what it is: incomplete and myopic.

From your own, personal, context I believe what you say may be true. As well, words, as written, are often inadequate to fully describe intent and that is often trecherous.

Assuming others will apply the same lens to a subject, as you have, is precarious. Many others have more, less or different lenses from yourself, and a few are shopping for more!

Accessibility, simplicity often used to describe this, is at the core of what you assert. You will find general agreement it strengthens appeal for sure, but it assumes many things you omit and even exclude.

You fail to acknowledge the 'fragility of certainty', the role of personal experience, emotion, society and preexisting education, formal or otherwise. Many of these relate back to the ability to identify, relate and therefore associate attraction -- something you imply in your stance.

Additional points of failure begin with the suggested pace and universality. Those belly-flop into a shallow pool, one easily filled with mediocrity. Fast food restaurants fill the void, are easily accessible and could be 'good' under such terms.

As others have noted 'good' isn't good enough to convey your meaning. The application of 'good', where or from what perspective it will be viewed are too broad to sustain your message.

A 'good' forensic photo, one that instantly 'grabs' attention, likely won't be accepted in a general setting. On the contrary, this is likely a negative attraction, even though the subject could be intimately known.

Just as none of us can reliably choose what is 'good' for others, we cannot presume others have provided 'good' work for ourselves. Though not overt nor intended, that can be extracted from your text with little effort.

At best if you like a work, that is fortuitous. That alone does not make it good for anyone but yourself. Neither is it essential for you, me or any other group or individual to like a work for it to be good. Contract, commissioned and commercial work notwithstanding of course.

Had you more eloquently asserted the following, it may have been received better:

Many common elements exist in strong, appealing, photographs. These elements, the building blocks of an aesthetic, have as varied appeal as viewers in a room.

Strong, clean, well balanced (which is rarely symmetrical) composition with attractive, identifiable subjects are common elements influencing popularity; what some call success.

The major problem for all who seek the 'fickle mistress': success needs an audience.
 
Jamie123 said:
I think your argument is fundamentally flawed because it rests upon the assumption that visual experience is some sort of primal thing that is not influenced by prior knowledge or prior experience. But that's not the case. We're bombarded with imagery nowadays through the internet, advertising, tv, movies, etc. etc. All this has a profound impact on how you view images and what kind of imagery speaks to you. If you do not wish to attend classes, read or look at books, or go to art galleries that is your choice but that does not mean that your appreciation of photography is any more 'primal' than one that comes from doing these things.
Click to expand...

I never stated or implied any of the above.

Re-read my words carefully please.

Peter.
 
gns said:
I'm thinking of the Ed Ruscha quote...
"Good art should elicit the response of, 'Huh? Wow!', rather than 'Wow!, huh?
Click to expand...

I like some of Ed ruscha's work, but I would gather he gets the latter response most of the time. :D
 
... one would think the Widelux was a poor technology to send to Mars, but yes, wouldn't that be so much better with a blurry background?
 
good images dont necessarily grab you. i agree with Frank that a lot of images tend to grow on us. perfect examples (in my case) are the works of Eggleston, Parr, and Meyerowitz. I did not understand their popularity before but after letting the images sink in and seeing how complex the compositions and "stories" of the images are, i really do appreciate their body of work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom