How do you judge a picture?

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Jim,

Yes, I impressed myseñlf. Maybe that's what's slowing down the server....

I always liked the observation that a computer can make the same number of errors in a fraction of a second as could be made by 100 highly skilled men in 100 years.

Cheers,

R.

 

[DtheG]

Subsidiary question(s): how much is judging contextual, i.e. dependent on the intended use of the picture? And what do we mean by 'use'? (Private wall, competition, exhibition, magazine, book...) Who decides context?

There is always a context, but should you set aside your own context and judge in the context of the photographer? Or the context of the photographer's client? Or...

It can be related to the position of the historian. The evidence —in archives, museums, oral testimony, etc— always has a context, a context. The document in the archive was created for a purpose, by someone with a motive . So the historian must take account of that point of view when attempting to discern "wie es eigentlich gewesen". But the historian also writes with a purpose and, however detached, has a perspective. So the is a double relativity in every assessment, in every judgement.

 

[Roger Hicks]

There is always a context, but should you set aside your own context and judge in the context of the photographer? Or the context of the photographer's client? Or...

It can be related to the position of the historian. The evidence —in archives, museums, oral testimony, etc— always has a context, a context. The document in the archive was created for a purpose, by someone with a motive . So the historian must take account of that point of view when attempting to discern "wie es eigentlich gewesen". But the historian also writes with a purpose and, however detached, has a perspective. So the is a double relativity in every assessment, in every judgement.

Aha... Now we have meta-context: deciding the context within which the context is chosen.

It occurs to me that we can also have hyper-context: the context in which the context of the context is chosen (or possibly disregarded/invented/postulated -- Barthes, Sontag...)

Any advance on hypercontext?

Cheers,

R.

 

[FrankS]

Über-context?

 

[Paulbe]

I really like Helen's comments--very well stated!
Re the cafe thread--specifically--the ones I like are the one that I feel as if I am invited in--to share the warmth. To go in, sit down with your SO or friends--or both--have a beer--glass of wine--and just enjoy.
Some of these pictures say exactly that--come on in..
Paul

 

[Roger Hicks]

. . . Re the cafe thread--specifically--the ones I like are the one that I feel as if I am invited in--to share the warmth. To go in, sit down with your SO or friends--or both--have a beer--glass of wine--and just enjoy. Some of these pictures say exactly that--come on in..
Paul

Dear Paul,

I think you're (mostly) right: the subject matter imposes its own context. The only reason for 'mostly' us that I think there's another possibility or context, too: alienation/loneliness, the person without friends, or whose only friends are at the café-bar. And of course there's always formal semi-abstraction, just shapes and/or colours.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Michael Markey]

I was discussing this thread with a friend of mine who is currently writing his thesis on perception in art.
He`s a retired scientist and currently a successful photographer/artist.
He directed my attention to the work of VS Ramachandran on how the mind perceives and judges art.
It may be meat and drink to some here ,and I apologise if that is so.
I was particularly struck by his analogy to young herring gulls regarding motivation in what they ,and possibly we ,regard as pictorially attractive .

I should add that no brain cells were harmed posting this ,I merely had internet access and post to hopefully encourage the discussion.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200907/unlocking-the-mysteries-the-artistic-mind

 

[Jamie123]

For me there are basically two criteria:

1) Do I like it?
2) Is it a cliché?

The reason for number 2 is simply that I'm quite aware of the fact that I find some things pretty despite them being clichés but that doesn't mean I think they're good. To make an example, I might appreciate an image of a run down building on 8x10 film but most of the time it's a cliché so I don't think it's really good. All other aspects (compositional, technical, etc.) usually only come into play once I need to explain why I do not like an image.

 

[Jamie123]

Subsidiary question(s): how much is judging contextual, i.e. dependent on the intended use of the picture? And what do we mean by 'use'? (Private wall, competition, exhibition, magazine, book...) Who decides context?

Cheers,

R.

I don't think anyone can decide context per se but you can decide to view something in a certain context and you can present something in a way that you think will make them see it in a certain context.

We can easily see how important context is in regards to judging images if we look at things like Richard Prince's re-photographs of Marlboro ads. In the context he placed them in (i.e. art) they do a good job at selling as wall pieces but presumeably a very bad job at selling cigarettes. In the context of the Marlboro ads the original pictures did a very good job at selling cigarettes but they do a rather bad job at selling as art (even though some of the original photographers are trying to recontextualize their own ad pictures as art).

 

[Murchu]

For me there are basically two criteria:

1) Do I like it?
2) Is it a cliché?

The reason for number 2 is simply that I'm quite aware of the fact that I find some things pretty despite them being clichés but that doesn't mean I think they're good. To make an example, I might appreciate an image of a run down building on 8x10 film but most of the time it's a cliché so I don't think it's really good. All other aspects (compositional, technical, etc.) usually only come into play once I need to explain why I do not like an image.

An important aspect, I think. There are many visual schticks, ones I am sure we all have our own weaknesses for, and something it is important to recognise.

Your second comment I also find insightful, and suspect it illustrates a lot of what I see in photo critique on the web, and explains to me why I dislike much (but not all) of the critique I see.

 

[Murchu]

I was discussing this thread with a friend of mine who is currently writing his thesis on perception in art.
He`s a retired scientist and currently a successful photographer/artist.
He directed my attention to the work of VS Ramachandran on how the mind perceives and judges art.
It may be meat and drink to some here ,and I apologise if that is so.
I was particularly struck by his analogy to young herring gulls regarding motivation in what they ,and possibly we ,regard as pictorially attractive .

I should add that no brain cells were harmed posting this ,I merely had internet access and post to hopefully encourage the discussion.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200907/unlocking-the-mysteries-the-artistic-mind

Quite thought provoking, thanks for sharing the above.