beautiful photograph --- OR --- a photograph of beauty?

jd callow · Jul 22, 2009

That may not be a true comparison. There are musicians who create music using things as crude as a holga or more so. A photographer who uses a Holga does not pretend to be a 20x24 wetplate photographer.

removed account4 · Jul 22, 2009

i dunno,it seems that it is equally hard to make a beautiful photograph of something
beautiful, as it is to make a beautiful photograph of something ordinary.
beauty is something very subjective, and more often than not, things that are ordinary
are only ordinary at first glance, after that thy are anything but ordinary.

Thomas Wilson · Jul 22, 2009

jd callow said:
That may not be a true comparison. There are musicians who creat music using things as crude as a holga or more so. A photographer who uses a Holga does not pretend to be a 20x24 wetplate photographer.

All that's fine and dandy.

I simply suggested that while a pianist (not generic musician) is judged by objective standards, and therefore would not dare perform or attempt earning a living using a toy, a photographer may be judged more subjectively, and therefore has the freedom to use a toy.

I doubt, however, there are many professional photographers that can earn a living using a Holga. If you believe otherwise, please enlighten me.

keithwms · Jul 22, 2009

Thomas Wilson said:
I have yet to meet an aspiring pianist who plays a Fisher-Price Laugh & Learn Baby Grand Piano.

Actually... brace yourself... the toy piano genre has been doing quite well in recent decades. Quite a few full concertos have been written for toy piano

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bea3eTKN3nA

Now isn't that a sight!

You may know this one from Amélie Poulain better..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSTa...3C8111EE&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=18

Anyway... the point being that I see no way to set limits on art; an artist may find ways to express him/herself with anything. This is especially true of music, which is joyfully made -every day, all over the world- on instruments ranging from million dollar strads to common twigs.

Thomas Wilson · Jul 22, 2009

keithwms said:
Actually... brace yourself... the toy piano genre has been doing quite well in recent decades. Quite a few full concertos have been written for toy piano

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bea3eTKN3nA

Now isn't that a sight!

You may know this one from Amélie Poulain better..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSTa...3C8111EE&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=18

Anyway... the point being that I see no way to set limits on art; an artist may find ways to express him/herself with anything. This is especially true of music, which is joyfully made -every day, all over the world- on instruments ranging from million dollar strads to common twigs.

I guess that would help explain the popularity of the "Pet Rock."
I stand corrected.

keithwms · Jul 22, 2009

Well, you stand partially corrected What the audience does after these concertos might best be described as "claughter."

jd callow · Jul 22, 2009

Thomas Wilson said:
I doubt, however, there are many professional photographers that can earn a living using a Holga. If you believe otherwise, please enlighten me.

No Thomas I am not looking for a fight. I was only pointing out that your comparison seemed flawed.

FWIW I didn't think this was about professional photographers, but about what makes a good image. I *know* that good images can come from a holga, that people do make living in that niche both as art and commercial photographers. I'd also bet, but do not know, that that niche is about as large as the 8x10 or ulf niches

Don Wallace · Jul 28, 2009

The comparison with pianists is not a good one. The audience for a professional classical pianist expects the performance to be on a particular instrument. If that pianist played a toy piano, it would not be well-received. Trust me. Those who shoot with Holgas usually make it a part of the aesthetic, i.e., the audience knows that the photograph was taken with a Holga and understand that it is a low-budget plastic camera. This is part of what makes the photograph "work" for the audience. The same would be true of a pianist who played a toy piano.

But by and large, how a visual image is created is utterly irrelevant to the viewer. You may wish that your audience would be impressed by you lugging a 20x24 camera into the woods, but most aren't. Whether this was shot with a 4x5, 5x7, 12x20 and so on, makes absolutely no difference to the average viewer who may also have a finely tuned aesthetic sense. They are interested in the image itself and not in what you did to get it, except in very unusual and exceptional circumstances.

Thomas Bertilsson · Jul 28, 2009

I find myself cloven in all of this. If I see a person with an appearance that I appreciate for one reason or another, then I tend to want to photograph that person rather than one I don't notice for the same reasons I noticed the other. I admit to being a hypocrite about it, and should challenge myself to make meaningful photographs of anybody. They, either the photographs or persons, don't have to be beautiful to be successful.

The discussion about the Holga is interesting, because I find the camera to be the least important part of the whole chain of photography. It's like the talcum powder to a weight lifter. It's an aid.
In order of priority: 1. My head and what's in it, 2. Lighting, 3. The paper, 4. The 'software' - i.e. film and chemistry, 5. The camera.

What an interesting discussion this was, something I will definitely mull over and think about.

nick mulder · Aug 14, 2009

Might be of interest:

http://www.japanexposures.com/2009/08/08/credit-where-credit-is-undue/

wfe · Aug 14, 2009

Peter De Smidt said:
There's no reason to like something different than what you like. Tastes are personal, and no one's taste is any better than anyone else's. To show otherwise, you'd have to prove that an objective standard exists, show what it contains and be able to compare people's tastes to that standard. A brief look into such a matter would quickly show that that's not going to happen anytime soon. (This is not to say that there aren't interesting statistical analysis about what people do like.) As a result, I have no issue whatsoever in anyone's reaction to a specific print. I may like it. They may not. No problem. For example, I can't stand Eward Weston's nudes, whereas others hold them in high regard. What concerns me, though, is when people claim that what they like is somehow more valuable or better than the taste of others. This "my way is the best way" type of thinking is not only philosophically unsupported, it's caused a lot of problems historically.

Well said !!!

wfe · Aug 14, 2009

Ian Leake said:
It's far, far easier to make an ugly photograph of a beautiful subject than a beautiful photograph of a beautiful subject. When there's a beautiful subject in front of the camera the photographer tends to get carried away with the subject's beauty and forgets about the beauty of the photograph. They forget about context, they forget about composition and lighting, and they forget that a beautiful photograph requires depth and emotion over and above its subject. Perhaps it's easier to make a beautiful photograph of a mundane subject.

Well said Ian !!!

beautiful photograph --- OR --- a photograph of beauty?

jd callow

Moderator

removed account4

Thomas Wilson

keithwms

Thomas Wilson

keithwms

jd callow

Moderator

Don Wallace

Thomas Bertilsson

nick mulder

wfe

wfe

beautiful photograph --- OR --- a photograph of beauty?

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency