good photographer or good subject?

thomasw_ said:
I reject theories which are self-contradictory, as I will show this one to be. If there are "no absolutes in photography," then there is one statement which is absolute about photography; namely, that "there are no absolutes in photography." This is self contradictory, and a reasoning being must reject the theory at least as presented in the statement. Note that I am not presenting a positive theory about aesthetic absolutes in its place, for I am unclear about what would be. That said, I am unsatisified with merely saying personal 'liking' is the determiner to what makes an art object 'good'; a case in point being Picasso's painting "Guernica", which gives me no pleasure and I do not 'like' it, but I find more beautiful and sublime than I could write in words. I aesthetic responses are personal in part, but I think there is something more going on as well; as such I find the subjective aesthetic theories rather shallow and incomplete.

respectfully, thomas
Click to expand...

All generalizations are false!

Obviously, I did not intend for my post to be a declaration of my aesthetic theory. I was feeling the "aesthetic judgements" being made seemed to suggest there were absolute "rules" to which a photograph must conform. (Is flat lighting really bad?) (Naturally, an absolute declaration of nothing being absolute is a syntactical paradox.) But "good art is just what I like" is equally absolute and so would not be a view I would agree with. And we agree about "subjective aesthetic theories."
 
An idea occurred to me:

Artistic Test

1. Does the image register any emotion with you?
2. Did the artist/photog achieve their goal in creating the image
3. Is this image memorable?
4. Is this image original in nature, thought, or execution?
5. What meaning is being given by the artist/photographer and has it been effectively communicated?


Not in the test:
Do you like the image?
Does the image follow the rules of composition, etc.
Is the image technically well done?
Do you like the model, subject, time of day, etc.

Pardon me, but when I look at someone else's art work, I try to see what the artist was trying to convey. I also as an artist, try to learn something from it. I know I can be too analytical, but I to come back from the experience with something.

Dave
 
Windwalker57 said:
An idea occurred to me:

Artistic Test

1. Does the image register any emotion with you?
2. Did the artist/photog achieve their goal in creating the image
3. Is this image memorable?
4. Is this image original in nature, thought, or execution?
5. What meaning is being given by the artist/photographer and has it been effectively communicated?


Not in the test:
Do you like the image?
Does the image follow the rules of composition, etc.
Is the image technically well done?
Do you like the model, subject, time of day, etc.

Pardon me, but when I look at someone else's art work, I try to see what the artist was trying to convey. I also as an artist, try to learn something from it. I know I can be too analytical, but I to come back from the experience with something.

Dave
Click to expand...

That does not work, but lets look at some of these:

1. Frank did not like it and so there was an emotional response.
2. Can you provide a link showing the artist's goal? Would work created in the decisive moment which would not have a particular goal still be valid artwork?
3. Frank remembers it.
4. I have never seen that before. Are traditional arts based on imitation of form no longer art?
5. Here again, provide a link to the meaning the artist intended and then I can answer. Does a work have to have meaning?

Not in the test:

Frank did not like, but that does contradict rule number one above.
Images that follow rules of composition cannot be good? See traditional art above.
Artist cannot be technically competent. Can a writer be a writer if he can't write?
Frank liked the model (sorry Frank if I misinterpreted that), but he still hated the picture.


Dave, it is a good thought, but the subject is more complex than that. The trouble is there are so many uses for a work of art it cannot be brought under simple concepts.

The other problems are the assumptions that form your criteria are unproven. Does art have meaning? You assumed so, but why? I see no meaning in Van Gogh's sunflowers. Does art have to have an emotional response and how do you define emotion? You could argue you get more of an emotional response from a Playboy centerfold than Venus de Milo. Does that make Miss July a better piece of work? Why does art have to be original? Immitation and following rules has been a backbone of art for centuries.
 
Finder-
Thanks for views on my "tests". I will admit to having some technical skill in photography, but those people that criticize my work say that my images have no meaning, and therefore no artistic value. I do not have formal art or art history training, so this is my attempt to learn on my own.

So, the image in the original post is a failure in my opinion. I can not grasp what the photographer is trying to portray with his image. I can take the components of the image apart and I can see how it was created, but I can't see more than what it first appears - flat and lifeless. If I had come across the image on my own, I would hardly have given it more than one glance. But for Franks thread, I would have not given it a thought.

Can anyone tell me what the photographer was trying to do with this image, even if it was only to show off the models endowment?
Dave
 
Sorry for the small interuption in your philosophic wonderings;

If I have identified the model in the first photo correctly then I know that this particular lady is tall and slender. With that in mind, I can state that the photo is not doctored, as some people have suggested a page back, in areas concerning her leg.

carry on ;)
 
Thought she might be a known model. In photoshop I determined that the leg does belong to the model. Her lower torso has just enough twist to suggest that her leg was being twisted to the extreme like the one in the image.
 
I don't think it was doctored either.

The model is extra-ordinary, IMO.

The question was, do you like this photo? If so, is it because of the photographer's skill, or due to the attractiveness of the subject. If not, why not. This is not about whether it meets any absolute criteria for a piece of art, which I agree do not exist, or at least are difficult and contentious to define.

I think it is valid to discuss a photograph on this level.

Why the wet blanket, finder? (If that indeed is your real name.) ;)
 
Windwalker57 said:
Finder-
Thanks for views on my "tests". I will admit to having some technical skill in photography, but those people that criticize my work say that my images have no meaning, and therefore no artistic value. I do not have formal art or art history training, so this is my attempt to learn on my own.

So, the image in the original post is a failure in my opinion. I can not grasp what the photographer is trying to portray with his image. I can take the components of the image apart and I can see how it was created, but I can't see more than what it first appears - flat and lifeless. If I had come across the image on my own, I would hardly have given it more than one glance. But for Franks thread, I would have not given it a thought.

Can anyone tell me what the photographer was trying to do with this image, even if it was only to show off the models endowment?
Dave
Click to expand...

Unless the photographer comes here and gives a statement for that image, we will not know what his/her intent was. But does that matter? I have viewed many works of art without having knowledge of artistic intent.

But did you ever consider the photographer was trying to give a lifeless feel to the image. To make the woman more of an object than a person to a point where the woman is almost a plastic mannequin. The selection of the model could have been very important to give a slightly unreal feel yet extrude a very sexual presence. The image is unsettling in a very subtle way and that may have been intended.

Not all images have to be warm and beautiful. If you don't like it (and I am not a fan for a variety of reasons), that is fine. But can you fault the photograph and call it bad? You may find your "reasons" for not liking it are just that - you don't like it. And that does not have anything to do with the image. Certainly, discussing whether the image can be made "better" is a pointless exercise as the image may be perfect in its own context. You would simply be remaking it to suit your preferences.
 
FrankS said:
The question was, do you like this photo? If so, is it because of the photographer's skill, or due to the attractiveness of the subject. If not, why not.
Click to expand...

Can the two be separated? Is part of the skill of the photographer selecting the model? Or even using the model to the best advantage?
 
This shot is yet another example of dreary male gaze photography. There is nothing significantly artful about it at all. The light is flat and utterly boring; the pose is mundane, the expression vacant and uninteresting; even the framing is boring. The photographer got the exposure well enough, which might be enough to call him or her competent, but I don't think anything more is expressed by this photo- other than perhaps "oohh, big boobies!".

I agree with Frank's initial thesis that an extraordinary photographer can make an extraordinary photograph of a mundane subject, and that any competent photographer can make an incredible photo of an extraordinary subject. But I find nothing remarkable about this image at all, and I don't think this image does much to stimulate real discussion of the topic. Sure, it's a remarkable rack, but this image is nothing more than trying to polish the turd of sexual objectification photography into "art". There is far too much of this sort of poor image-making going on out there. I have no problem with nude photography, or even pornography, so long as everyone involved (subjects, photographers, and viewers) are clear and up-front about what they are doing. I have seen excellent artful nudes- sometimes even erotic ones; this isn't one. Art, like beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I understand that there is of course some subjectivity involved in defining what is art and what isn't. I won't say this isn't art- and I'm not saying it's pornographic; but I will say it's lame, whatever it is.
 
If you ask me, the photographer may have been intimidated by her natural atributes and used the chair to deflect attention away. This only causes confusion I don't know what to look at the natural elements or the unnatural ones. They don't work together. To test this theory I cropped out the most natural element, her face, and the image seemed to work better. Also I think the backdrop is too distractive and the lighting is garish. Nothing seems to work together in this image, yet I still need to look...
Chris
 
Originally Posted by FrankS
The question was, do you like this photo? If so, is it because of the photographer's skill, or due to the attractiveness of the subject. If not, why not.


Finder: Can the two be separated? Is part of the skill of the photographer selecting the model? Or even using the model to the best advantage?


Let's talk about sunset photos. I think sunset photos presented as anything more redeeming (ie. art) than documentation of nature's beauty/grandeur, is silly. (Using a sunset as an effective background for a fore or mid-ground subject is a different story.) It's like taking a straight photo of a painting and calling the photo art. In a sunset photo, the beauty comes from the subject, not the photographer's talent. So, yes, I think one can separate the two.
 
Last edited:
An artist should not have to tell me what their intent was, the work must be able to stand on its own. I did give a lot of thought to the idea that the whole point was to make the model a sexual object rather than a person. I came away with the thought that the only message is awkwardness and that it was not intentional.

What I like:
The coldness in the model's eyes, her figure, the use of contrasting textures.

What I didn't like:
The square format used to give balance to an awkward pose and composition. The lack of three dimensional depth to the image. The feeling that the image is made of parts stacked together (it wasn't). The fact that I don't see it as one thought, image, or composition. Substitute any other person, and the image has no value.

So, Finder, tell us just what merits does this image have? What do YOU see in it?
As FrankS asked, "is it an extra-ordinary photograph? If it is, is it because of the subject, or the photographer's skill (beyond competency)? Would the photograph still be as compelling if the model were more ordinary?" I have given my opinion in hopes that someone else would also give theirs by which I might grow as a photographer.
 
That's a tricky question Frank!

Now, everyone, block her boobs with finger and look at the photo again. Did it become better or worse?

I can't answer that myself decidedly. Without boobs photo becomes more geometric, but, well.. :cool:
 
FrankS said:
Let's talk about sunset photos. I think sunset photos presented as anything more pretentious than documentation of nature's beauty/grandeur, is silly. (Using a sunset as an effective background for a fore or mid-ground subject is a different story.) It's like taking a straight photo of a painting and calling the photo art. In a sunset photo, the beauty comes from the subject, not the photographer's talent. So, yes, I think one can separate the two.
Click to expand...

So as a photographer, if I decide to photograph a sunset and not have a foreground and background interest because I think the sunset is enough and then I frame that sunset and select an exposure to increase saturation and contrast, then the photograph is not a result of my "talent." It is just the sunset? I am not buying that. I am still making a selection. I am still determining what goes into the picture. I am still deciding the sunset is worth photographing as well as the point during the sunset. With Adam's "Moonrise Over Hernandez," do you think it is the photographer or the subject?

Lets talk about the photo you linked to. Do you think part of the photographer's skill is in chosing the model and using her to the best effect?
 
Second test, block out her face. This is what most males will see first. Then try blocking out other parts, like her leg, or the chair. This is how I decided that the image looked like a pile of parts, not anything cohesive.
 
You are not going to impress me with sunset photos.

Finder, it wouldn't take a genius, or any extra-ordinary talent of a photographer, to select this particular model and to decide that shooting her nude, would be the best way to use her attribues to greatest effect - now would it?
 
Last edited:
IMO, the model is extra-ordinary and the photographer, with this image, was merely competent. But look at the comments he received - everyone loves it. Why? Because of the model, IMO.
 
Substitute anyone off the street, with or without clothing, and the image would not get the comments it did. So, the photographer used a model that would almost guarantee viewing. Why? For more positive comments? We all need a pat on the back, but some people seem to live for it.

Even someone with my artistic talent could produce this image, if I had such a model.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom