- Messages
- 104,526
- Name
- The other Chris
- Edit My Images
- Yes
It's true of all "greats" though isn't it? Why was Constable great, or the Beatles? Sometimes it's because they were the amongst the first to achieve success in a given genre; other "greats" were ahead of their time and their achievements were only recognised in later life or after death. You can't take a photograph in isolation, that might just be a one-hit-wonder but a body of work in the context of the time it was created makes for greatness. The images in those links are perhaps just the tip of the iceberg that best illustrates the photographers work.That is excellent satire but the problem is that this is the internet and we have no idea of the experience, achievements or background of the those posting.
I do agree with this which appeared somewhere in the comments section, though ......
"I wish someone would explain to me why the commonly accepted great photographs are considered to be great photographs. I think I could muster some satirical sarcasm of my own, but as far as explaining why these photographs are great, I wouldn't know where to begin. "
There is also all the peripheral stuff, "sales and marketing" for want of a better term. In isolation is Gursky's Rhein II really a great photo and worth £millions? That Gursky can produce it and sell both himself and the photograph is all part of the talents that go into being "great".
I guess in a nutshell they are great because the photographer got them to a place where they have been selected as great by a broad and knowledgeable group of people and there are not necessarily any intrinsic qualities of those specific photos that make them great, it's as much about the extrinsic qualities.