One Persons Top Shot is Another's Average capture!

Thanks for taking the time to post CM. I'd see a lot of the reaction in this thread as coming from those who feel they have been disenfranchised by those who appear able to define and control art. This is entirely separate from possessing images of what ever quality or value one may care to assign them. It may seem preposterous to you that uneducated proles might want to displace those with genuine (or imagined) knowledge, but this is a place where revolutions start.

Worth considering: the religious art you mention was seen as admirable and beautiful by the populace as a whole, rather than risible as some of the examples mentioned in the thread. In many ways the art did belong to them, because they enjoyed it and used it for what it was worth. To your eyes it was a means of oppression and control, but to theirs a thing of joy and beauty.

Tomorrow I shall be busy working in the mediums that have replaced the religious art - have fun in the museums.
 
StephenM said:
I certainly don't believe that anyone is entitled to mock something that they neither understamd, nor have made any attempt to understand.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, I couldn't agree more on that particular point but I'm also very aware there are certain topics of discussion/argument that simply have no answer. It doesn't matter how hard you look for an answer, you just won't find one The thread title says it all here - one man's top shot is another's average capture, and it's absolutely true. Not only is that true from a photographer's point of view but it also applies every bit as much to the viewer. Unfortunately, as has happened here, discussions like this ultimately end up getting personal which is a massive waste of time and effort. Go take photos, go for a beer, go play with your cat; do anything but argue and get personal about what you like because that's entirely up to you and you don't have to justify or explain your reasons for liking something to anyone. (I'm talking in a general sense here, Stephen, rather than directing this at you :))

I've spent 20 years in music, 15 of them professionally both in technical and artistic roles, which taught me a long time ago that the old saying 'you can't please everyone' is very much true and I've carried that outlook across to photography where it's just as appropriate. As long as you enjoy what you do, you don't annoy anyone else doing it and that's all you really want out of it, who cares about anything beyond that?
 
Last edited:
PMN said:
Go take photos, go for a beer, go play with your cat; do anything but argue and get personal about what you like because that's entirely up to you and you don't have to justify or explain your reasons for liking something to anyone. (I'm talking in a general sense here, Stephen, rather than directing this at you :))
Click to expand...

Well spotted that I'm a catophile :D

I would however just like to point out that nowhere have I said that I like modern art. I may, or may not (and I have said several times in various places that I make a clear distinction between liking something and appreciating its value); all I've been trying to say is that like it or hate it, it does have a meaning and value. And you're quite at liberty to hate it for all that I care - I'd just like to see fair play in the form of understanding that just perhaps there might be something in it.

And I actually hate beer :D

I'll remain on the fence about taking photos :)

On the other hand - just alluding to your final paragraph - some people do care insofar as they would like to genuinely understand why people can react to the same image in different ways. Knowing perhaps that something is written in a foreign language may enable them to appreciate why some people can get something from it that they can't.

And there can be a matter of familiarity and experience at play to explain differences in appreciation. A five year old may speak English, but won't appreciate things that may become very precious to them when they become older and more adapt with the language. Literature can grow on you (but Dickens never did on me!). And there will always be the matter of personal likes and dislikes - you know the sort of thing - "I don't like (name your own foodstuff here)" "Have you ever tried it?" "No, I because I don't like it".

I did once try beer....
 
StephenM said:
I would however just like to point out that nowhere have I said that I like modern art. I may, or may not (and I have said several times in various places that I make a clear distinction between liking something and appreciating its value); all I've been trying to say is that like it or hate it, it does have a meaning and value.
Click to expand...

And nowhere did I say you had. I did state very clearly I wasn't aiming that post at you. :)

-typing with cat and red wine very close by-
 
PMN said:
And nowhere did I say you had. I did state very clearly I wasn't aiming that post at you. :)

-typing with cat and red wine very close by-
Click to expand...

True; and I did realise it even if my post didn't show it. Apologies for that. I was just trying to emphasise again that there was more to it than liking or disliking, which is certainly personal; and appreciating which may be a matter of knowledge.

I rather think I've said all I can on the actual thread topic now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PMN
Firstly, I shall apologise if I caused offence to anyone :) my post was never about that, it was purely about how an individuals eye views a photograph and their reception of it.

However the thread has been interesting to read and the depth of conversation has been rewarding.

It has given me food for thought and enlightened my perception of photography and not art. As stated art is a major topic in itself (albeit i deem the art of photography to be a different subject altogether too) and this thread was never intended to digress in such a manner but such as the forum topics generally do its not been at a loss.


I like everyone else are entitled to an opinion whether you think it's right or wrong, trying to sway someones opinion because one is so adamant that they are right is morally wrong.

Thanks again you for your posts, its appreciated.
 
Being an photographer,I don't think of myself as an artist,and at the moment the only person I have to please with my photography is me :)
 
I know I said I'd said everything I had to say but...

You might find it interesting to read Beaumont Newhall's History of Photography. He covers the technical basics, but the main thrust (or at least the major lessons I came away with) were the way photography developed as an art form. Why people took the photographs they did in the way that they did. Worth a look, at least.
 
simonblue said:
Being an photographer,I don't think of myself as an artist,and at the moment the only person I have to please with my photography is me :)
Click to expand...

And I prefer to think of myself as an artist who uses photography. That's the great divide in the final analysis: between those who see photography as another art form (like painting, sculpture etc.) and those who see it as something sui generis. At the very minimum, unless you're into a branch of photography which attempts pure recording, you probably want to produce something that is more than a pure record; and that takes you into art territory.

BUT - even so, you never have to please anyone else.
 
Last edited:
st599 said:
There are 2 qualities of any image or video, objective and subjective.

Objective are measurable, noise, over sharpening, aberration etc.
These are indisputable. How much they matter is down to circumstances. In a fine art shot, a lot. In a journalism scoop, not much.

Then there is subjective, how much you like it. That's totally individual.
Click to expand...


I agree and will add that certain things are right or wrong no matter who is looking at it. On the flip side, you also have to consider the audience. Not to sound arrogant but if you are a pro showing their shots to a group of amateurs for a critique chances are they won't get what is going on in the shot or say they like it for all the wrong reasons. Flickr is a great example of the audience factor. I see some really fantastic shots that get little or no attention and then I see these shots that look like they came from a cell phone hanging out of a passing car that people go crazy for. Like he said, "objectives are measurable" and if this part passes the test you move on to subjective side.
 
shaylou said:
I agree and will add that certain things are right or wrong no matter who is looking at it.
Click to expand...

I can't agree with that unless you can provide examples that I can accept. I could imagine situations in which all the original objective qualities that were mentioned as being bad could be used to positive effect.

"Right" and "wrong" to me suggest moral rights and wrongs or unambiguous answers or solutions to unambiguous questions or problems. I don't think that art - or even photography - has a set of divinely given ten commandments; and I'm not really aware of anything in science or mathematics that are invariably right or wrong. Most people would say that the following statements in mathematics are definitely wrong, no matter who said them or to whom "two plus two does not equal four" and "the sum of the interior angles in a triangle is not exactly one hundred and eighty degrees" - but they aren't. In science, it's easy to pick out statements that were regarded as settled forever and are now no longer believed.

Both the above mathematical statements have one thing in common - they contain sweeping assertions I have not proved mathematically. And neither I nor anyone else can, until and unless we all agree on the underying (and usually unexpressed) presuppositions. Most people are aware of the problem with syllogistic reasoning - the conclusion is blatently contained in the starting premises. Logically, the following is true:

Major premise: All red headed people are stupid.
Minor premise: John has red hair.

Conclusion (and obviously true): Therefore John is stupid.

It follows as certainly as anything can - there are no logical errors - but only because of the assumption in the major premise. My mathematical examples were chosen because the statements are correct if you start with the appropriate assumed premises.

Hence, unless we spell out our assumptions, we can't really understand the differences of opinion.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BBR
Having trawled through all the above and had a wee rest to allow the brain the cool down, what have I learned from the debate?
One thing which quickly became clear is that people on an Internet forum can often disagree. I had previously suspected this to be the case, but sought confirmation.
The word "art" can often induce participants to flee towards the stables, from where they emerge on their highest horse, typer-writering stuff which makes sense only to themselves.

I learned a Latin word from the nice lady, who may or may not have hung a pile of bricks on her wall. I might have missed the point she was making, as I am stupid and it was around this time I first noticed the giddiness.
One gem of truth was that "Art has a language, a vocabulary, a grammar" I say "gem of truth" as this came from a chap who doesn't like beer, so it must be true.

Having glossed over the bit about some poor soul having cancer on a aeroplane, I decided that if Phil ever puts a home-made sofa in the "For Sale" section, I, for one, will not be making an offer. Think of the postage.

I could have learned a good deal from the lengthy history lesson by the nice lady, but how is a simpleton like myself supposed to understand all THAT? It could be the basis for a BBC3 documentary.
After I'd taken my tablet, maths entered the equation. "Mathematics involves symbolism" said Noah Beery, so again, it must be true.

It was here I decided that the conversation was way over my head (yes, I should have noticed sooner) so decided to merely glance at the remaining contributions, where Isaac Newton, Gottfried Leibniz and Charles Dickens all got a mention.
While this is all very well, I expected an appearance from some petrolhead with the good car/bad car argument which the lowbrow could understand.

To summarise, I really don't think I learned anything, though some things which I'd strongly suspected were confirmed, so not a total waste of time. If you've made it this far, then I apologise for wasting yours.
Finally, if proof of just how thick I am was needed, I can tell you that the above-mentioned wee red headed Johnny was Dux of my school.
 
For Charlotte and flyguy - I once took a picture of derelict garden furniture in a derelict garden. In the foreground, there was a boulder. A friend of mine who has studied graphical arts (one of the practical applications of it, I don't know the precise name of his studies) and who works in the field as well, told me that that boulder kind of distracts the eye from what is relevant in the picture. I had actually thought it fits in with the other parts of the picture quite well. But I know he knows his job, he knows what he is talking about, and he has proven it upon other occasions.

A few weeks later I showed the image to another hobby photographer like myself, and he said 'that boulder fits in there really well'. So what gives?

I think what happened was that my friend saw the image in the light of all the knowledge which is 'state of the art', how get maximise the effect of the image, or the motif. While us two hobby photographers just looked at the overall image and thought it's a nice mix. By following my friends advice (not possible due to what the location looks like) I would have maximised the central motif, made it stand out and look interesting. With what I really did, I took a nice picture of a scenery I had encountered. Still with a bit of an artsy touch, as the image told a story of things forgotten and left to decay.

I think I took a bit of an artsy picture, while my friend had told me how to use all the know-how of the art to make the picture special. And while I think that sometimes not following the rules can create art, I think that only becomes art when we know what we are doing (and which rules we are skipping) ;-) If we simply don't know the rules, and then by chance take a good picture, we just got lucky I guess.

So, I think, while art lies in the eye of the beholder, and we are all entitled to our opinion... ;-) by using the knowhow those who are in the knowing have gathered, we could make those pictures special in an even more elaborate way.

I also don't know most of the rules, unfortunately, and go by gut feeling much more often than I like, so I say all this in all modesty. I wish I'd understand those rules and techniques better. But if it were so easy that reading a book is enough, then people wouldn't need to study these arts for years...
 
What a terrific thread, just read the whole thing..

Some people are just delighted that the photograph is in focus and that the picture of Little Johnny caught him on a day when his football strip was clean. The fact that the composition excluded his feet or that he appeared to have a telegraph pole growing out of his head while he was squinting in the midday sunshine, is completely lost to them.

How many rolls of film had Christmas scenes on the beginning and the end, with views of sandcastles and sangria in the middle?

I would be rich (slight exaggeration to make the point) if I had a quid for every time someone said to me "That's an amazing picture, you must have a great camera!!".

In the end, each individual person will form an opinion of a given image or piece of art. In the first instance it will appeal to them in some way or it won't. Some will appreciate the image even though they don't like it. Some will not appreciate it even though they do like it. With an education in art or photography, the former is quite likely. The latter requires no education on the part of the observer.

Does any of this matter? For me I'm happy if people like my images, but I'm happier if they appreciate them.
 
StephenM said:
I can't agree with that unless you can provide examples that I can accept. I could imagine situations in which all the original objective qualities that were mentioned as being bad could be used to positive effect.

"Right" and "wrong" to me suggest moral rights and wrongs or unambiguous answers or solutions to unambiguous questions or problems. I don't think that art - or even photography - has a set of divinely given ten commandments; and I'm not really aware of anything in science or mathematics that are invariably right or wrong. Most people would say that the following statements in mathematics are definitely wrong, no matter who said them or to whom "two plus two does not equal four" and "the sum of the interior angles in a triangle is not exactly one hundred and eighty degrees" - but they aren't. In science, it's easy to pick out statements that were regarded as settled forever and are now no longer believed.

Both the above mathematical statements have one thing in common - they contain sweeping assertions I have not proved mathematically. And neither I nor anyone else can, until and unless we all agree on the underying (and usually unexpressed) presuppositions. Most people are aware of the problem with syllogistic reasoning - the conclusion is blatently contained in the starting premises. Logically, the following is true:

Major premise: All red headed people are stupid.
Minor premise: John has red hair.

Conclusion (and obviously true): Therefore John is stupid.

It follows as certainly as anything can - there are no logical errors - but only because of the assumption in the major premise. My mathematical examples were chosen because the statements are correct if you start with the appropriate assumed premises.

Hence, unless we spell out our assumptions, we can't really understand the differences of opinion.
Click to expand...


Put a person in the middle of the room frame them dead center and shoot. Would you consider this a correctly composed shot? If not what is the opposite of correct? Could the word wrong be used in place of the word incorrect? Yes it could. I think this is a case of splitting hairs. If there is nothing wrong with shots then everything is right. Put your thumb on your lens and fire away,, nothing "wrong" with that shot right?
 
shaylou said:
Put a person in the middle of the room frame them dead center and shoot. Would you consider this a correctly composed shot? If not what is the opposite of correct? Could the word wrong be used in place of the word incorrect? Yes it could. I think this is a case of splitting hairs. If there is nothing wrong with shots then everything is right. Put your thumb on your lens and fire away,, nothing "wrong" with that shot right?
Click to expand...

The point I was making was that NOTHING was ever absolutely wrong in and of itself; I understood your previous post that produced mine to be saying this, but on rereading I see that I was wrong. If all you meant was that there were bad/poor photographs, then, yes, of course I agree - I've seen too many to doubt it.

But - even with a person dead centre, I wouldn't on that basis say it was poorly composed. It depends entirely on what else was in the room - certain arrangements would mean that placing the person anywhere else would be wrong.
 
shaylou said:
Put a person in the middle of the room frame them dead center and shoot. Would you consider this a correctly composed shot?
Click to expand...

There are plenty of great artworks that feature central compositions and are indeed praised due to this fact.
 
Quite. The old distinction between a do-it-by-the-book photographer and those who look a little further.

I once used a comment like this as my signature line:
"Photography captures images by a mechanical process, so it is entirely appropriate that photographers should also compose mechanically according to the rules".

I have seen (on other forums) time and again photographers who think art is boring and not relevant to photography - the "sui generis" status I remarked on in an earlier post.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top