One Persons Top Shot is Another's Average capture!

[r1flyguy]

Hi All

I'd like to open a discussion on what 'We' see as and individual when we look at our photo's and think, wow, I did good, but someone else says, 'not that special'

The reason I have started this thread is maybe my own misconception, or want to actually do better but unsure which way to go.

Since taking possession of my 650D I have learnt huge amounts from both reading and this forum. I have also been a keen viewer of peoples posts and what has struck me of late is the huge variation of peoples perceptions and opinions on photos, some of which i myself have thought are not that good considering the comments being overly praising.

I have only my opinion and given my level of knowledge am not best placed to offer a professional opinion but just a vocal description of what my eyes, brain and if you can say it, heart tells me.

I find it fascinating to read peoples comments and think they are wrong, but truthfully, IS ANYONE WRONG?

What maybe one persons masterpiece is another persons standard photo album picture.

I have huge admiration for the many incredible photos on here and only wish that one day I can produce photos of my own composure and imagination to some degree of the same quality but even if I never do I know the ones I choose for my album are the best of the bunch.

A person viewing a picture posted on here has a different view from any other individual because i believe we are all truly unique and what 'We' see is unique to us. We only offer advice and criticism based on our own learnt knowledge and understanding but even still, its the unique character of every individual that allows us to interpret what we see as to whether its good, bad or indifferent.

So, given your uniqueness, your eyesight, your interpretation & what you perceive to be good, bad or indifferent are there bad photos??

Remember, someone thought a row of bricks in a museum was art!

Discuss

 

[RobbieB]

When it comes to photography I think there's often 2 categories; shots that some like and some don't - those numbers can vary on each side and shots that are almost unambiguously 'great'.

The first category is an image that people like but is much like what you describe. Some people will think it's great and some will think it's average and for some it wouldn't make it past the Lightroom cull. When I first started out photography I took a shot with my 550D, kit lens and a macro filter:

I was beyond pleased with it. I didn't really know how to PP very well, my kit was ridiculously light and the shot had taken nearly an hour to compose correctly. To this day I still love the shot. However, nobody likes it! It never really got any attention any where and that was that.

Then a few months later I took this shot:

I thought it was dreadful. Too contrasty in all the wrong places, no foreground interest, not following the rule of thirds, subdued colour... the list goes on. I didn't have filters and/or a clue about landscapes; I was still very new. However, it got to #2 on Flickr Explore and they used it as their home page for over a week.

That said, I think there are shots that are - like I said - unambiguously 'great'. A lot of Nat Geo's most famous shots for example. You will ALWAYS find people who think they are rubbish regardless of how amazing it might be but the more the general consensus agree on a photo ought to be the litmus test.

And if you like the photo and no one else does, sod the lot of them!

 

[Nod]

As long as "the client" likes it, who cares? By the client, I mean the end user, for whom the shot was taken, whether that's the photographer him/herself or an actual paying customer. As Rob's said, if YOU like the photo (and are the one whose opinion counts!), sod the lot of 'em that don't!

 

[r1flyguy]

You both have very valid points and thanks Robbie for you pics.

I think what you see in the photos and what someone else 'sees' may very well be different, not just on an 'opinion' level but a visual level too. Who can really tell if 2 people see exactly the same colour, hue, contrast, etc..
who says their 'professional' or otherwise opinion is correct? its bred into us from very early on that girls must play with dolls, boys with bikes, as is the composition, colour etc, we get told what should be right and we start to believe it and it becomes the norm!

I know the topic is deep but so is the the belief that what some people deem to be correct on their judgement, they may very well be.

I started this thread not because someone has slated a photo I have taken but because, like everyone else, I am my worst critic.

One persons arty row of bricks is another persons pile of rubble

 

[st599]

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.

 

[StephenM]

On the one hand, anything that our senses can detect has both objective and subjective qualities, so I'm not convinced that this is a helpful distinction. Any of the example "objective" qualities is also subjective to exactly the same degree - any of them can have a subjective effect in terms of whether they are perceived as improving an image or making it worse.

People will differ in what they like or dislike, but it's perfectly possible to separate this from what they perceive as "good" or "bad". There are photographs, paintings and other art works that I positively hate - but can recognise them as excellent art works. You'll never show me a photo of a healthy happy cat and not have me like it; and you'll never show me a photograph of a spider and not produce a feeling of loathing. But I can still recognise a bad cat photo and a good spider one.

Alfred Stieglitz said that there was no such thing as "bad" art - there was art and non-art.

I'd ignore a lot of opinions because many are based on a snap decision. Very often, what catches the eye does so for the same reason that a clash of cymbals catches the ear - the impact. But like the clash of cymbals, you might not want to spend a lot of time looking at it (or hearing, in the case of the cymbals). I strongly feel that you need to spend time considering, which is exactly what the current flickr design discourages by the way it presents images.

It's perfectly possible to miss the point with an artwork, and dismiss it as a result. Images use their own visual language, and if you don't know the language or vocabulary, you'll fail to understand it. Name any great writer in English, and see what someone who doesn't speak English makes of their works. Not a lot, I'd guess. Anyone who's read Lucretius' De Rerum Natura in the original Latin will understand why it was a "hit" with his contemporaries; anyone who's only read it in English will find it tedious in the extreme. Knowledge of the language is needed to understand, appreciate and perhaps even enjoy a work.

My own take on the two images presented so far (by RobbieB) is that I'd be prepared to put the first on my wall because of what I can see in it in terms of meaning; and I'd not show the second - and not just for the so-called technical deficiencies. As I said, all technical points are actually artistic ones because they should be subservient to the art.

And note - there are many branches of photography where art takes a decided back seat, and technicalities reign supreme. I'm on the art side of the spectrum.

 

[r1flyguy]

Thank you for your views and descriptions which I have found both enlightening & subjective.

Nice to read constructive views.

 

[ancient_mariner]

Beauty is very much in the eye of the beer holder, isn't it?

I've been wondering about posting the question "is there such a thing as the perfect image" which slightly touches on this. Some will see the art in a picture first, and that will grasp the imagination such that minor technical flaws don't matter, while others will see the technical flaws first and then filter the rest of the image through them. And it also begs the question as to whether an image can be great if it has technical flaws (history suggests the answer is yes - look at some famous images from the 20th century with blocky blacks, blown highlights, lack of sharpness & detail).

I suspect that having an expectation will also affect perception. It would be interesting to see critique of an image attributed to a famous photographer and that for the same image attributed to an unknown. Some years back I saw a Matisse exhibition in Copenhagen, and while there were some great pictures there, some of the paintings *looked to my eye* little better than the typical output of a 6th form art student.

And then for us photographers there's the issue of what we view the image on - monitors display differently unless carefully calibrated.

I'm sure there are bad images, just as there's bad art, but with photography if you don't like an image then it's easier to find technical reason to put it down than with a painting.

 

[Gaz J]

Everyone has a different way of looking at something. You can analyse why you like something or you can just think I like that and not know why or even want to know why you do.

There is no right or wrong way of liking a photograph or a painting. What appear to be technical deficiencies to some enhance it to others.

If you like it that's all that matter, whether you have taken it yourself or are looking at someone else's work.

But some people talk a lot of b****cks about,lets call it, "art"

To illustrate.

Some years ago my wife and a friend were at an exhibition and in amongst the exhibits was a bucket on the floor surrounded by barriers with a sign saying "do not move".

My wife and her friend overheard a small group of people discussing what the artist had intended with this arrangement. After they moved off my wife asked one of the attendants what the bucket was doing there. He replied "catching the water leak" !!!!

 

[BBR]

Would you hang that photograph on your wall or like to have taken it for your portfolio? If 'yes', then it's a good photo IN YOUR OPINION, if 'NO' then it isn't a good photo IN YOUR OPINION. Your opinion is of course as valid as mine or anyone elses. Therefore it is purely subjective.
Whether a photograph demonstrates 'good technique' is a different matter. You can of course have a 'great' photo with poor technique and a really 'bad' photo with good technique, but there is a generally received wisdom as to what makes a good technique.

 

[Jin]

IMO as someone that takes photos for myself and not for clients:

Acceptance is an amalgamation between approval from your demographic and approval from the masses. If you were an artist and you drew a perfect circle in the centre of a blank white canvas and hung it at an art gallery you will get a group of people that will state it is the most profound thing they have seen and you will get a large group saying "But is it art?".

For me if I can't incite a reaction from both the demographic I think a photo would appeal to as well as those that don't fit that profile then I don't think of the image as a good picture. Sure to me it is a good picture otherwise I would never have shared it but really the approval of others is what I crave for.

I believe this criteria stems from the internet and how browsing "blahdeblahs top 10 amazing photos you won't believe are real" articles made me realise that there are photos which can transcend beyond the target audience and that is what I feel is a top shot and what I try to aim for.

 

[Phil V]

Would you hang that photograph on your wall or like to have taken it for your portfolio? If 'yes', then it's a good photo IN YOUR OPINION, if 'NO' then it isn't a good photo IN YOUR OPINION. Your opinion is of course as valid as mine or anyone elses. Therefore it is purely subjective.
Whether a photograph demonstrates 'good technique' is a different matter. You can of course have a 'great' photo with poor technique and a really 'bad' photo with good technique, but there is a generally received wisdom as to what makes a good technique.

This I have to disagree with, everyone is indeed entitled to an opinion, but the idea that all opinions are equal is one of the cornerstones of our 'dumbed down' society.

If someone has spent 20 years studying cancer treatment and healing people, their opinion of a suitable cancer treatment is worth more than my Aunty Betty's or the fruitcake 'faith healer'.

If someone has studied aircraft design for 20 years, their opinion on the latest euro fighter is worth more than mine.

And if someone has studied art their entire adult life, their opinion is likely worth more than mine.

That doesn't mean I'm not allowed to justify my opinion, or that I'm forced to 'like' something, it just means that as I'm not an 'expert', my opinion has limited value.

 

[barratt1988]

For once I have to somewhat agree with phil v. But in the same breathe im sick of people of this site thinking they know everything because they have been doin it a while. If you run a business and have done for 10years it doesnt make you a good business man.

When it comes to likes and dislikes the everyones opinion is equal but one would tend to agree with an opinion backed up by experience and commendation

 

[Deleted member 67219]

I have only my opinion and given my level of knowledge am not best placed to offer a professional opinion but just a vocal description of what my eyes, brain and if you can say it, heart tells me.

It's worth considering, first off, that 'professional' is not a measure of quality, only income. There are many amateurs that are excellent at what they do - remember that 'amateur' is from the Latin that means 'to love'. I know it sounds like a pedantic point, but it's true.

I find it fascinating to read peoples comments and think they are wrong, but truthfully, IS ANYONE WRONG?

Yes, of course your opinion can be 'wrong' about a photograph. There are a multitude of reasons why this could be so and it's why it's important to consider your assertions carefully before you make them (both positive and negative).

What maybe one persons masterpiece is another persons standard photo album picture.

While this is a little true at the most basic level, actually it's generally not the case. There is a canon within both photography and art that guides us as to what is a 'masterpiece' and what is not. However if you're talking purely about opinion then sure, anything can be whatever anyone wants. Opinions are like a*seholes, everybody has one and it doesn't mean they make any sense.

A person viewing a picture posted on here has a different view from any other individual because i believe we are all truly unique and what 'We' see is unique to us. We only offer advice and criticism based on our own learnt knowledge and understanding but even still, its the unique character of every individual that allows us to interpret what we see as to whether its good, bad or indifferent.

I think this is dependant on how you look at photographs. If you are looking at them from an opinion of 'would I put this on my wall' then sure, be as individual as you like. But if you're looking at a photograph in more depth then like I said above, there is to an extent a canon that is there for a reason. Most people on a site like this are only capable of offering a 'critique' or some 'advice' based on the 'would I put this on my wall' viewpoint, which is absolutely fine but it needs to be considered as such.

So, given your uniqueness, your eyesight, your interpretation & what you perceive to be good, bad or indifferent are there bad photos??

There are absolutely bad photographs in the world. There are photographs that are conceptually bad, that are ethically bad, that are compositionally bad, that are bad for a million different reasons and my 'uniqueness' and my 'eyesight'(!) doesn't come into that judgement at all.

Remember, someone thought a row of bricks in a museum was art!

I wish you hadn't said that last sentence, because it really does sum up my 'would I put this on my wall' point very well. 'Good' art is not the same as 'pictures I would hang on my wall'. 'Good' art is something that says something or moves someone or expresses an opinion, a statement, a fact. Something that provokes you to look at the world differently or consider a thought process different to what you have considered before.

The fact is that Carl Andre and his 'pile of bricks' (Or to give it it's proper name 'Equivalent VIII' if it's the one you've seen at the Tate Modern) have made so many people consider things that they may not have considered before is testament to it being 'good' art. Personally I don't like to pass such value judgements on art, preferring rather to consider if they have fulfilled whatever the artist was trying to say/do/provoke. In this case it is a very successful piece of art as it has done exactly what Carl Andre set out to do.

I highly suggest reading the books "Why your five year old could not have done that" and "What are you looking at?". Not because I'm trying to be difficult or patronising, but rather because they are excellent beginners books to art theory that address everything you've asked here and a considerable amount more. If nothing else you will certainly learn that there is another way to look at art and photographs other than 'would I put it on my wall'.

 

[StephenM]

For me if I can't incite a reaction from both the demographic I think a photo would appeal to as well as those that don't fit that profile then I don't think of the image as a good picture.

You probably don't think this is a valid comnparison, but I do, so it must be (since my opinion as good as anyone else's) .

Name any great work of literature. Then ask yourself if it can really be a great work because the language isn't universally understood. Why should visual art be different? Art has a language, a vocabulary, a grammar. So why on earth should an artist resort to pidgin speak to be understood by everyone - even if pigin speak is universally understood? Suppose you message needs a technical vocabulary to get the message across? Is a science research paper "bad" because someone who knows no science can't understand it?

 

[On the Huh]

My a*sehole makes sense.

 

[woof woof]

This I have to disagree with, everyone is indeed entitled to an opinion, but the idea that all opinions are equal is one of the cornerstones of our 'dumbed down' society.

If someone has spent 20 years studying cancer treatment and healing people, their opinion of a suitable cancer treatment is worth more than my Aunty Betty's or the fruitcake 'faith healer'.

If someone has studied aircraft design for 20 years, their opinion on the latest euro fighter is worth more than mine.

And if someone has studied art their entire adult life, their opinion is likely worth more than mine.

That doesn't mean I'm not allowed to justify my opinion, or that I'm forced to 'like' something, it just means that as I'm not an 'expert', my opinion has limited value.

I may be the only one who thinks that comparisons to aircraft design and cancer treatment are ludicrous in this thread.

I'm sure we've all spoken to someone who knew what they were talking about, after all they're the expert, but in reality they were talking utter BS. In physical things like aircraft design and cancer treatment it's difficult to get away with talking BS because these things are physical arts and things can be proved and disproved.

I'm sure there's an awful lot of BS in the art world as art is different because it's about more than producing a thing, it's also about how we feel about the thing.

You can present an unmade bed and talk it into a great piece of contemporary art but does that mean it should be universally and unquestionably accepted as art? Never mind great art. How about a painting done by an elephant? If the experts say it's art, is it? Maybe it's art because the experts say it's art? Of course not. I reserve my right to call it BS or bad or good or great or anything along the line and if I'm a lone voice shouted down by experts I'll not care because which view is more valid is a personal opinion and that's not because I live in a dumbed down society, it's because I have a brain in my head and my own views and opinions and I refuse to be a sheep.

 

[StephenM]

As a matter of interest, do you actually know why the "experts" regard something as a work of art? If not, do you think it's reasonable to dismiss an opinion founded on reason because you have a different gut reaction? Apologies if you do indeed know, and have consciously rejected the reasons; I have found in other forums that those who take this view seem to regard it as so obvious (like the earth being flat) that they don't think it worthwhile to actually look into the matter.

 

[woof woof]

Hi All

I'd like to open a discussion on what 'We' see as and individual when we look at our photo's and think, wow, I did good, but someone else says, 'not that special'...

I have only my opinion and given my level of knowledge am not best placed to offer a professional opinion but just a vocal description of what my eyes, brain and if you can say it, heart tells me.

I find it fascinating to read peoples comments and think they are wrong, but truthfully, IS ANYONE WRONG?

What maybe one persons masterpiece is another persons standard photo album picture.

So, given your uniqueness, your eyesight, your interpretation & what you perceive to be good, bad or indifferent are there bad photos??

Remember, someone thought a row of bricks in a museum was art!

Discuss

I'm sure that there are bad photos from a technical point of view but sometimes the image just works.

I'm sure that I've taken many photos that others think are bad or ordinary. I don't care. I take pictures mainly for myself.

What we appreciate is such a personal thing and each is entitled to their own view and despite what others may think of the validity or worth of my view I'm entitled to it and my view is what matters to ME!

 

[ancient_mariner]

In a very real sense, art is in the eye and especially mind of the beholder. On one level it's simply a marketing job to convince people of the worth of the piece, regardless of whether the presenter/artist is convinced or not. In a way, it's much less about the article itself and far more about how the viewer is persuaded to view it. A pickled sheep only becomes art when viewers have been convinced it is. A drawing is only graphite on paper until you are convinced it's a portrait and a photo is only another way of making a pattern of photons reach your eye until you believe it's something of value. Society and experience may have trained you to believe what you see is a portrait, but any artistic value is in how you've been guided to view the object.

Just my opinion, but the idea that good art is something that creates a reaction or makes someone have an opinion has devalued art and made the art world ridiculous and a parody. It then becomes just another vehicle for argument. That's not taking a pop at you, Charlotte, I've had this discussion with others at various times, with the suggestion that a fart is art because it causes an opinion and reaction.

 

[Phil V]

I may be the only one who thinks that comparisons to aircraft design and cancer treatment are ludicrous in this thread.

I'm sure we've all spoken to someone who knew what they were talking about, after all they're the expert, but in reality they were talking utter BS. In physical things like aircraft design and cancer treatment it's difficult to get away with talking BS because these things are physical arts and things can be proved and disproved.

I'm sure there's an awful lot of BS in the art world as art is different because it's about more than producing a thing, it's also about how we feel about the thing.

You can present an unmade bed and talk it into a great piece of contemporary art but does that mean it should be universally and unquestionably accepted as art? Never mind great art. How about a painting done by an elephant? If the experts say it's art, is it? Maybe it's art because the experts say it's art? Of course not. I reserve my right to call it BS or bad or good or great or anything along the line and if I'm a lone voice shouted down by experts I'll not care because which view is more valid is a personal opinion and that's not because I live in a dumbed down society, it's because I have a brain in my head and my own views and opinions and I refuse to be a sheep.

You may well be the only one? And it might be because you somehow feel that I believe I'm an 'expert', which for the record is ridiculous!

The point is that someone with experience and training has actual quantifiable knowledge and has an opinion worth more than me, is easy for me to understand. I acknowledge that my knowledge of government it systems is greater than average, but my knowledge of sofa design is less than average. Quid pro quo.

This modern idea that all opinions are of equal value is just ridiculous. As I said, it's a cornerstone of dumbing down. When a thousand scientists can fathom global warming but are outweighed by a handful of journalists with political backing, we've reached a dangerous place. And part of that is this modern phenomenon of 'all opinions are valid'.

Of course everyone is entitled to their opinion, that doesn't mean my opinion is worth anything, but then it depends what you're asking about. And absolutely, your opinion holds a value too, whether you like it or not, it's not worth a bunch just because you feel it ought to be.

 

[Jin]

You probably don't think this is a valid comnparison, but I do, so it must be (since my opinion as good as anyone else's) .

You are correct.

I believe visuals are the same as mathematics in that it doesn't matter your language it's always the same. I am not saying that everyone must like an image even if you stuck to pleasing a target audience you will find people within that group that don't agree.

Advertising is the same, you need to create visuals for maximum impact but you need to settle that not everyone will like your advert.

To me I imagine my photo being in a 300 page photo book with someone sat there flipping from page to page. I want to be taking the photo that most people will stop to stare and study that is what I try to aim for.

Another way I like to consider it stems from subject enthusiasts. If you are a plane spotter and you take a standard photo of a Boeing 747 then upload it to flickr, the likely chances is most people will see a photo of a plane and will gloss over it. The other plane spotters will see a Boeing 747 and will probably check it out. But what if you were to take a photo that made the plane spotters go "wow this is a good photo of a Boeing 747" and everyone else go "Wow look how awesome this plane looks in this photo".

Yes you still get people that will gloss over it but I try to make things appeal to the wider audience.

 

[Deleted member 67219]

I may be the only one who thinks that comparisons to aircraft design and cancer treatment are ludicrous in this thread.

I'm sure we've all spoken to someone who knew what they were talking about, after all they're the expert, but in reality they were talking utter BS. In physical things like aircraft design and cancer treatment it's difficult to get away with talking BS because these things are physical arts and things can be proved and disproved.

I'm sure there's an awful lot of BS in the art world as art is different because it's about more than producing a thing, it's also about how we feel about the thing.

I think that the problem is that (respectfully) you don't understand the more academic aspects of art. Art is an academic subject, even though most people wish it wasn't. That is why we have professional art historians and art critics - they aren't just writing down a random opinion about something (well, obviously critics lean further that way) but rather their thoughts, assertions and opinions are based on evidence and research.

Postmodern art is hard to understand if you do not spend time investigating it and actually investigating the very specific circumstances that have led up to the point where art became modern and then postmodern. And I assert here that 'understand' is completely separate to 'liking' something. People get all upset because they do not 'understand' modern art, when they have spent no time learning the language that it uses.

I do not understand many things in this world, but I do not rubbish them because it's my fault that I've not spent time studying them so that I understand them.

Modern and Postmodern art, which most people seem to be referring to in this thread, is not usually about creating feelings and so forth. It's about producing and thing and saying a thing. Actually much modern art is about the pure study of form and aesthetics, which most people don't seem to be able to grip either.

 

[Cap'n Bill]

When it comes to photography I think there's often 2 categories; shots that some like and some don't - those numbers can vary on each side and shots that are almost unambiguously 'great'.

The first category is an image that people like but is much like what you describe. Some people will think it's great and some will think it's average and for some it wouldn't make it past the Lightroom cull. When I first started out photography I took a shot with my 550D, kit lens and a macro filter:

I was beyond pleased with it. I didn't really know how to PP very well, my kit was ridiculously light and the shot had taken nearly an hour to compose correctly. To this day I still love the shot. However, nobody likes it! It never really got any attention any where and that was that.

I do like this shot. I might crop it somewhat but I love the way the veins of the leaf lead the eye into the centre of the picture and the general way that attention is so focused. Wherever you look the eye is brought back. The colours work and there is that 'what's going on' element which makes for a photographs which holds the attention past the initial inspection.

 

[donut]

wow you must have a really tall soapbox to be able to talk down to us heathens that dont understand or get it

 

[Deleted member 67219]

wow you must have a really tall soapbox to be able to talk down to us heathens that dont understand or get it

Who's that aimed at donut?

No one in this thread is talking down to 'heathens'. Just explaining that it's an academic subject that you have to study before you can understand it. Like any other subject. Since you're a junior member which I think means under 18 I'm going to assume that there's an awful lot of subjects you don't understand because you've not had time to study them - but I doubt you would think people in other subjects were 'talking down' to you if they said similar things?

The big problem is that there's an inverse snobbery when it comes to art. People assume that art should be able to be universally understood. Could you imagine if we applied the same theory to lots of other subject? We'd all be stuck in the dark ages.

 

[RobbieB]

I do like this shot. I might crop it somewhat but I love the way the veins of the leaf lead the eye into the centre of the picture and the general way that attention is so focused. Wherever you look the eye is brought back. The colours work and there is that 'what's going on' element which makes for a photographs which holds the attention past the initial inspection.

Thanks Bill. Welcome to the 'I think this shot works' club, you've just doubled the member count. It's nice to have some company if I'm honest.

 

[PMN]

I would join in the pointless arguing but I'm on my way to take some photos...

 

[r1flyguy]

I would join in the pointless arguing but I'm on my way to take some photos...

Thats like me saying, go and take your pointless photos

 

[r1flyguy]

I wish you hadn't said that last sentence, because it really does sum up my 'would I put this on my wall' point very well. 'Good' art is not the same as 'pictures I would hang on my wall'. 'Good' art is something that says something or moves someone or expresses an opinion, a statement, a fact. Something that provokes you to look at the world differently or consider a thought process different to what you have considered before.

Can I not say what I like???

Your interpretation of 'good art' may be different to others and who's to say the interpretation isn't based on sitting in a classroom for years or reading books being brainwashed into thinking what you read or have been lectured about is gospel! its just a point of view

Good Art does not move everyone, as like the basis of this discussion and a point you missed, what someones 'eyes' sees maybe entirely different to another's.

Don't get me wrong I'm not saying your wrong but your comments seem a little 'text book' and yes, to me it was a row of bricks, nothing more and would never move me to think I want to change my outlook on life because its just a pile of bricks and brainwashing me to thinks otherwise is futile.

My outlook on life only changed the day I held my son for the first time and when he smiled and every time he calls me daddy but thats off topic but is an example of what I hold dear in life.

There are some very good points raised on here and yes it helps to formulate an opinion and I'll take onboard what has been stated as its a steep learning curve this photography lark and its great to see such a diverse amount of photographic interests and level headed people on here, not unlike some argumentative forums I am a member of

 

[Deleted member 67219]

Can I not say what I like???

Yes of course. And like I said, liking the way something looks is different to thinking it's 'good art'. Because art in todays society means something more more than being a pretty picture. We really should be clear with definitions because photographs posted on sites like this are generally not 'art' and I think this is where misunderstanding creeps in.

Your interpretation of 'good art' may be different to others and who's to say the interpretation isn't based on sitting in a classroom for years or reading books being brainwashed into thinking what you read or have been lectured about is gospel! its just a point of view

You know, it's actually quite insulting to say that people who understand, work with and generally make art their life are brainwashed. Scrub that, it's highly offensive and shows utter ignorance.

It's clear you have a point of view that good art is based on what looks nice to the individual, but you're writing off any viewpoint that differs to that without thoughtful debate (the use of the word brainwashing is hardly thoughtful debate... like I said it's just insulting...). I'm not sure why you posed the question to be honest because you clearly don't want to try and see the world through a different viewpoint.

 

[ancient_mariner]

It seems that in current thinking, art and philosophy have become intertwined Maybe it has always been so, with social mores and preferences in earlier ages restricting what could and could not be done in art, or maybe this is a relatively recent - say post enlightenment - development?

As for soapboxes, I appreciate you're putting forward the 'how it is' situation, rather than using it as a platform to mock the ignorant, Charlotte. I wonder if at some stage postmodern art or its derivative will cause a backlash to reclaim 'art' for ordinary people?

 

[Deleted member 67219]

It seems that in current thinking, art and philosophy have become intertwined Maybe it has always been so, with social mores and preferences in earlier ages restricting what could and could not be done in art, or maybe this is a relatively recent - say post enlightenment - development?

As for soapboxes, I appreciate you're putting forward the 'how it is' situation, rather than using it as a platform to mock the ignorant, Charlotte. I wonder if at some stage postmodern art or its derivative will cause a backlash to reclaim 'art' for ordinary people?

Reclaim for the ordinary people? There have only been brief periods when art was 'for the people'. The Netherlands was one example with artists producing cheap works that the merchant class count afford to buy - still life of flowers, twee landscapes etc (it was widely established that the merchant class had little taste - an equivalent of buying an Ikea print for your wall). London was another when engraving and printing became very popular - see people like William Hogarth who made engravings available to the middle class via subscription.

Art is more 'for the people' now that it ever has been. We have access to it in galleries and museums that are open and accessible to all and it's taught in schools, a very rudimentary entry to art history and fine art. We've never known it so good to be honest. Even women are allowed to go in the galleries now!

Art has always been for a purpose in Europe. The 12th/13thC focussed primarily on religious art, it was produced by churches and religious organisations to instruct the people how they should behave - visual literacy in this respect is a skill we have lost, how many people can 'read' a medieval altarpiece these days? Then it became fashionable for the upper class to own it. Pieces would have generally have been moral or produced to tell a story, they would be discussed by men in their private chambers as they debated ethics, morality and so forth. It was not about what the piece looked like but the messages it held. Courtly patronage was big around this time too, fine things as extravagant displays of wealth and propaganda. This carried right on through to the Victorian period - relatively recently!

There was a brief period where British art in particular focussed on representing the world around us - we've always had a strong landscape tradition. However make no mistake there were still moralistic interpretations that were designed to educate the plebs that would see the works in the newly opened museums and galleries.

In some ways it all changed when photography was introduced. With the advent of the photograph many artists could no longer see any point in producing images that looked like the things in front of them. Why bother when you can produce a photograph? This led artists to begin experimenting with pure form and composition - see the modernists. People like Mondian were experimenting with creating the purest application of colour, composition, form etc. Again this wasn't art 'for the people', this was high level, experimental and almost scientific work.

Then roughly we had the World Wars which caused great despair amongst the art community and postmodernism grew out of this. No longer were people preoccupied with the way things looked visually, but it was more important to make a statement with art. This is the most it has ever been 'for the people'. Around the time of modernism/post-modernism we saw a shift towards more liberal people producing art. Up until perhaps even the turn of the last century it had been mostly upper or middle class, conservative, white guys producing art, there were very few people outside that box going all the way back to the 12thC. You simply couldn't afford to be an artist if you didn't have money. That's changed now, in the 20thC liberals have been producing art for the first time. Speaking on behalf of the people, producing work that forms from political campaign and the world around the every day person. Artist is now a career choice for anyone with talent rather than anyone with money.

We're in the age of the people. The problem is that the people just don't realise it and won't learn the skills they need to understand it.

 

[PMN]

Thats like me saying, go and take your pointless photos

They were indeed ultimately pointless in photographic terms, but I spent time away from a computer screen with a friend and with a camera rather than sitting on the net arguing the toss about something that's so personal it's pointless arguing about. I know which I'd rather be doing.

 

[simon ess]

They were indeed ultimately pointless in photographic terms, but I spent time away from a computer screen with a friend and with a camera rather than sitting on the net arguing the toss about something that's so personal it's pointless arguing about. I know which I'd rather be doing.

Same story here.

However.....here I am, a reasonably intelligent, reasonably educated, rather more experienced than I like to think about bloke, with an appreciation and admiration of art in all its forms.

I still don't fully understand a fair amount of art but, because I'm interested enough to read and explore, I understand a little more each day.

I have come to the conclusion that anyone is perfectly entitled to dismiss, disparage or even mock art they don't understand and anyone who tries to help them through that barrier.

I have also concluded that it is utterly pointless to even attempt to discuss art with that person. That's not a bad thing, and that person is not a bad person - it's just the way it is - we'll talk about something else instead.

Oh, and I don't think I'll ever get contemporary dance, but I'm working on it.

 

[StephenM]

I believe visuals are the same as mathematics in that it doesn't matter your language it's always the same.

I hate to say this, but the second half of your statement isn't actually true. Mathematics involves symbolism, and understanding even something as basic as "2 + 2 = 4" depends on your knowing what the symbols "2", "4", "+" and "=" mean. It's not even the case that these haven't changed. We swapped Roman numberals for Arabic ones (and other cultures, highly mathematically sophisticated ones, used neither). In more recent times, Newton and Liebnitz used different notations for calculus. Meanings may be unchanging (even this is debateable) but symbolism isn't. Mathematics requires you to know the symbolism employed; and so does art.

If a "visual" is meaningless, then it doesn't matter. But if it has a meaning, then you need to be able to understand it. I could write down a beautiful piece of mathematical symbolism (well, I could if I were a skilled graphic designer) but that would not be sufficient to make a statement that was anything other than gibberish to a mathematician.

If visuals are the same as mathematics, then there is a visual language that needs to be understood if they are to have meaning.

 

[Deleted member 67219]

They were indeed ultimately pointless in photographic terms, but I spent time away from a computer screen with a friend and with a camera rather than sitting on the net arguing the toss about something that's so personal it's pointless arguing about. I know which I'd rather be doing.

Well I spent at least part of this day revising my studies by discussing variations in taste on an internet forum. Having been doing 'Modern British Art' today, I've scheduled in 'Museums and Society' for tomorrow... who fancies it? ;-)

 

[StephenM]

I have also concluded that it is utterly pointless to even attempt to discuss art with that person.

That's a difficult one. You might think that some things are so inherently worthwhile and life enhancing that you don't like to see anyone missing out on them. You might also think that if people are continually dismissing a viewpoint that you believe is the correct one, then if you remain silent you are conceding the point. And eventually every "just knows" that the viewpoint is wrong, because no one ever defends it.

I certainly don't believe that anyone is entitled to mock something that they neither understamd, nor have made any attempt to understand.

 

[simon ess]

Haha - excellent use of a forum. And I did enjoy your piece on the liberalisation of art.

You might want to work on the spiky responses to be really convincing.

 

[simon ess]

That's a difficult one. You might think that some things are so inherently worthwhile and life enhancing that you don't like to see anyone missing out on them. You might also think that if people are continually dismissing a viewpoint that you believe is the correct one, then if you remain silent you are conceding the point. And eventually every "just knows" that the viewpoint is wrong, because no one ever defends it.

I certainly don't believe that anyone is entitled to mock something that they neither understamd, nor have made any attempt to understand.

Yes, that is the dilemma.

I do believe art to be inherently worthwhile and anyone who dismisses it is doing themselves a disservice. But that is their choice and I can no more persuade them otherwise than they can convince me of the existence of the tooth fairy.

Similarly, if people wish to dismiss my point of view, that is entirely their prerogative. Dismissing anything out of hand inevitably says more about the dismisser than that being dismissed.