Am I Supposed to "Like" Photographs Because Many Others Do?

[Berkeley Mike]

Something has to make one stop and look, and then something has to keep you there. If one is not attracted...

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Photos are like women. You know immediately if they're attractive.

There are women who are physically attractive and many people will find her attractive instantly. However, over time one may find that her beauty is superficial and then not like her so much. Likewise, a woman who most people might not find instantly attractive, might become beautiful once one gets to know her. All this is common knowledge, of course.

So is this true of photographs as well? I think it's very likely that a photograph one didn't like or think much about initially may become liked over time

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Nope. I don't understand Cindy Sherman's work nor Martin Parr's work. But that doesn't mean anything. It's only my opinion for whatever that is worth. Probably not much.

 

[faberryman]

There is a difference between liking and appreciating. Anyone can like something or not. It takes time and effort to appreciate something you may not like. It broadens horizons.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Reminds me when I was in Japan at a book store. I was looking at a book of 20th Century Art. One image was a repro of a Picasso lithograph. I showed my sister-in-law. She said, yuck... (in Japanese). Did a kid paint that? I said no, it's by Picasso. Instantly, she loved it.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Attraction is transitory and unless supplemented with much, much more, essentially unimportant.
The photographs (and people) that matter to me reveal themselves over time.
And as I posted above, while whether or not a photograph is liked by others doesn't matter to me, what other people see in a photograph is of interest to me.

I agree when you're speaking of a wife. But, you don;t marry a picture. You look at it for about three seconds then move on. Either you like it or don't.

 

[removed account4]

Reminds me when I was in Japan at a book store. I was looking at a book of 20th Century Art. One image was a repro of a Picasso lithograph. I showed my sister-in-law. She said, yuck... (in Japanese). Did a kid paint that? I said no, it's by Picasso. Instantly, she loved it.

when i worked the coffee schlep job i used to sell this indonesian and aged indonesian coffee around the holidays
i half remember this conversation and it went like this
this guy came in with his wife and she picked up a lb of the coffee
he said " that coffee tastes like DIRT"
she said " im getting it its good"
he said " yeah i stil like it"

i only like stuff other people like even if it is puppies and rainbows and grand landscapes i get all warm and fuzzy
especially when i am listening to "africa" by toto

 

[MattKing]

I agree when you're speaking of a wife. But, you don;t marry a picture. You look at it for about three seconds then move on. Either you like it or don't.

If I'm only going to alot three seconds to a photograph, I'm not going to make any evaluation of it - I certainly won't make a decision on whether I like it.

 

[Michael Firstlight]

I only have 48 years since I began my serious photographic journey, and I always felt the same - there are images that are supposed to be "great" that other like, but I think are rubbish, I often felt a bit insecure afterwards as to what I am missing that others like. Now I realize those images were really rubbish. I did the art school thing, undergrad in photography back in the 70's, open minded, but I came to realize that images are simply a form of communication, and any good image needs to first and foremost - communicate effectively. The communication is between the viewer and the creator, though the creation. If an image fails to communicate effectively - and some so-called great images fail to communicate effectively with me, then the work has failed - well failed for me at least. I don't have to like what an image communicates, it can be great whether I like or dislike the message, but it must move me, the viewer.

To be great image, an image must move the viewer, greatly.

Personally, I am most moved most by the human condition and nature. I recall the first time I was truly moved when I met a new, young photographer who came to lecture in my college photography class at Bard College in the Fall of 1977. Her name is Mary Ellen Mark. Ms. Mark checked in to a woman's mental institution to document the patients there while living among them. The images, which we got to see in person and up close, were both disturbing, beautiful, and deeply moving. She truly captured the human condition, and her images communicated more than words could ever communicate - powerfully. Several months later I received the very first issue of American Photographer - featuring Ms. Mark and a subset of that series (and still have a bound copy signed by the entire staff).

You shouldn't have to struggle to communicate in any art form, and after giving any and every image a fair shake, I no longer feel compelled to agree whether I like and image that others do or feel bad if I don't like what others like. It's a personal relationship we have with the image creator through their images. I ended up with a degree in Communications where the main principle of communication is simple.

You cannot not communicate.

So, if an image communicates poorly, or leaves me confused, then what has been communicated is of little of no value to me.

That, at least, is my own personal philosophy on the matter.

Michael

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I like Yousuf Karsh photo of Picaso. It is not primitive photo. It is photo with opinion.
He placed Picaso with big ( . ) on the background. As it is known what Picaso was an ( . ).

I like photos with messages, but primitives and those are many can't read them. Photos liked by many are often primitive.

 

[Dan Pavel]

The relation between the "story" and what a work of art, any form of art, communicates is very interesting. Is the story really important? And to what extent?
Music, the most abstract but the most "pure" of all the arts, often relies on no "story" to communicate (the instrumental music). What does it communicate? It moves the listener, it makes him feel a certain mood, a certain state of mind intended by the author.
I think the classical Italian opera is the most relevant in this regard, as it has both music and a "story" to tell. If I think closely at the story in an opera it very often follows a pattern, you can deduce the final from the first act. Kind of boring... If you read the libretto without music often the lyrics are kind of childish (to me, at least). But when viewing the performance and listening to the opera I get deeply, deeply moved. So, is the "story" really important? IMO it is only a pretext, a background used by the author to expresses and communicate his deep feelings.
I think in photography is the same situation. The "story" by itself is only a vehicle used by the author to transmit (communicate) his feelings, to make us resonate the same way he did when making the image. Makes an interesting story an image great? No, I think not. Take the landscape photography - the story is almost absent but, if well done, it still makes us feel the mood.

 

[removed account4]

I agree when you're speaking of a wife. But, you don;t marry a picture. You look at it for about three seconds then move on. Either you like it or don't.

yup
art directors/creative directors gallery directors do thesame thing,
look at the images for like 2 seconds each ... next

i always mark my faves when they are rainbows, sunsets,
i has a lots o' huggin teddy bear with some happy-spray right next to me
i think i just saw a hummingbird !

 

[faberryman]

You look at it for about three seconds then move on. Either you like it or don't.

If you only look at it for three seconds, your opinion about an image is at best superficial. Even if you initially like it, you are shortchanging both the image and yourself. Besides, some images don't wear well.

 

[removed account4]

If you only look at it for three seconds, your opinion about an image is at best superficial. Even if you initially like it, you are shortchanging both the image and yourself. Besides, some images don't wear well.

but if you look for 3 seconds and squint its a longer lasting impression ...

 

[FujiLove]

Your tastes are entirely your own and shouldn't be forced upon you by the opinions of others. You like what you like, period.
For example, it seems most people love the work of Ansel Adam's, but I find a lot of it boring. Whereas I love Bill Eggleston's stuff, which a lot of people dismiss as badly composed snapshots.
Having said that, I strongly agree with the comments above regarding how a lot of art needs time to be appreciated and understood. Not just time to look at the work over a long period, but time also to study the theory of the artist: what they are trying to say, how the piece fits into their body of work, where it fits within the genre etc.

 

[Dan Pavel]

If you only look at it for three seconds, your opinion about an image is at best superficial. Even if you initially like it, you are shortchanging both the image and yourself. Besides, some images don't wear well.

An educated eye can spot instantly the composition and technical flaws, the imperfections or inadequate elements in an image. That's what the Italians called during Renaissance "giudizio dell'occhio" (the judgment of the eye).
IMO in a few seconds one can certainly decide what images he doesn't like for sure from a set of images. To decide which images he really likes from the remaining ones usually takes longer.

 

[FujiLove]

So is this true of photographs as well? I think it's very likely that a photograph one didn't like or think much about initially may become liked over time

I went on that 'journey' with William Egglestone. I didn't really appreciate his photos until I bought a couple of books and spent serious time looking at the photos. Now I find a lot of them mesmerising, fascinating and often sinister. Some of them cause quite strong emotional responses, and I've no clear idea why. I go back to them frequently, trying to work out why I feel a certain way about them, and trying to figure out what I could do with my camera to create something that will generate the same response.

 

[faberryman]

An educated eye can spot instantly the composition and technical flaws, the imperfections or inadequate elements in an image. That's what the Italians called during Renaissance "giudizio dell'occhio" (the judgment of the eye).
IMO in a few seconds one can certainly decide what images he doesn't like for sure from a set of images. To decide which images he really likes from the remaining ones usually takes longer.

Again the prevalence of "likes" imposed by the Facebook paradigm. Nothing about appreciation for what you don't like. Superficial.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

There are so many pictures that you could like to spend research time on, why would you research photos and photographers work that you don't like? Life is too short.

 

[OptiKen]

How do you feel about the Emperor's new clothes?

 

[faberryman]

There are so many pictures that you could like to spend research time on, why would you research photos and photographers work that you don't like? Life is too short.

Because you might learn something? Ever studied the history of photography? You might not like every image you see, but you would broaden your horizons. If you are not too narrow minded, you might even change your opinion of some images.

 

[Helinophoto]

I have been looking at photographs "critically" for 69 years. Over the years I have seen many that I liked and many that I didn't like. Some of those that I did not like were praised by others. I can usually tell whether I like it or not in the first few moments that I see the picture. I am only talking about Black and White and I can usually tell you why I like or don't like it. What is your reaction when viewing a picture for the first time?

I think that Ansel Adam had a mathematical approach to picture-making and that his "art" is nothing more than process. Why did he spend 2 days on a print, if his metering, developing and processing skills were so great?

End results still static and boring. I have difficulty understanding that the man was also a pianist, but perhaps he was a classical one, that is also completely DEAD music, played by individuals that read and play, instead of actually performing a piece. (Never thought I would get trough the classic-rock covers era in the 90's, people actually bought and played that dreadful. soulless piece of tripe )

I think most of HCB's photos are interesting (because they are from a different era) to boring, because I don't see the genius "decisive moments" people are referring to, apart from the guy jumping over the puddle, which was pure luck (HCB didn't even see what he was photographing)

I find Annie Leibovitz'es work to be overrated and she was able to get a career out of some mediocre shots of Lennon, thanks to family money and connections.

Most stuff I do like, are from people nobody have ever heard of, of will hear of.

I don't spend my time looking at other people's work too much, because it is often a bore-fest, I can decide within 2 seconds if a photo is worth my time or not, if it doesn't catch my attention by then, t's not for me.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

I went on that 'journey' with William Egglestone. ...

Excellent example. I've been on that very same journey. Once you "see it", you just want to see more.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

...the man was also a pianist, but perhaps he was a classical one, that is also completely DEAD music, played by individuals that read and play, instead of actually performing a piece.
...

Completely disagree with that. Buy if that's how you perceive it, so be it.

 

[removed account4]

I think that Ansel Adam had a mathematical approach to picture-making and that his "art" is nothing more than process. Why did he spend 2 days on a print, if his metering, developing and processing skills were so great?

didn't he say the negative was the score and the print was the performance? he probably spent 2 days printing it because
1/ photo papers probably weren't 1/2 as good as they are today and
B/ he was trying to figure out how he wanted to print the negative.
i've gone through 2 boxes of paper before when i was trying to make a print, and im a hack compared to the maestro..

End results still static and boring.

maybe it was static and boring to you ... but his static and boring prints resonate with a lot of people.
doesn't resonate with me but then again what i like and dislike has nothing to do with why or how he made his prints.

I have difficulty understanding that the man was also a pianist, but perhaps he was a classical one, that is also completely DEAD music, played by individuals that read and play, instead of actually performing a piece. (Never thought I would get trough the classic-rock covers era in the 90's, people actually bought and played that dreadful. soulless piece of tripe )

a friend's wife is a classically trained pianist and whenever i hear her
play it blows my mind. and i don't really enjoy classical music but i can appreciate how she plays and somehow
is able to do what she does. i can barely play the first part of chopsticks...

I find Annie Leibovitz'es work to be overrated and she was able to get a career out of some mediocre shots of Lennon, thanks to family money and connections.

that's what it's all about .. often times skill and mastery has nothing to do with anything, its all who you know
... and its always has been and will be like that ...