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

[Tim Gray]

Cheryl, I was really impressed by your gallery as well.

 

[Ian Leake]

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.

 

[cowanw]

Once you get over the granny porn, it's not a bad photo.

http://www.artnet.com/artwork/424706910/imogen-cunningham-and-twinka.html

On a more pratical note, I think it is easier to luck out getting a nice photo of a beautiful subject, than a ugly subject.
So if you do not have the skill, use the beauty.
Further, I think all skilled portraitists have some subjects with which they totally fail to get a good image.
Perhaps the photographer has to think the subject has some beauty (or redeeming feature).
So at the end of the day, I think beauty comes first, make of it what photo we will.
And it's not so far off society. Sadly, beautiful people always get a more favorable response on first impressions than ugly people.

 

[Domenico Foschi]

What is we start to think that there are no ugly people?

 

[Thomas Wilson]

Once you get over the granny porn, it's not a bad photo.

http://www.artnet.com/artwork/424706910/imogen-cunningham-and-twinka.html


I forgot about that one... Sure would like to meet her in the woods.

 

[jd callow]

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.

There is no reason to like what you don't like, but there is every reason to understand why you like something and to try to grow your mind so that you can enjoy or understand more. For someone to say what they like is more valuable than what another may like is on the face of it wrong, but it assumes that all things are equal. If you stopped growing intellectually at 16 or if you allow yourself to be driven by popular culture/your basic needs or desires without critical thought than there is every likelihood that what you like is, in fact quantifiably, of lesser value than the likes of someone who has made it their concern to learn and grow. This assumes a neutral measure as what I like will always have more value to me than what someone else likes even though I have the aesthetic maturity of a Jack Russel.

There are ways to look at all things that compartmentalize the subjective and allow for critical analysis. This is not only true of photography and art, but often necessary if a better understanding is desired. To simply say that all likes are are equivalent is no better or more supportable than to say "my way is the best way"

 

[Peter De Smidt]

Certainly a person's tastes can evolve over time, just as their belief system and understanding of the world evolves. And a person may refine their aesthetic sense, such as for instance a wine lover who with experience can distinguish more flavors in her wine than she could when she was younger. Moreover, it's true that any activity we do changes our brain, and as we do the activity more we generally become better at it. But these are separate matters from an evaluation of a person's taste. As I said before, to do an objective evaluation of taste we'd have to have an objective standard of what constitutes goodness and badness in matters of taste, and we don't have that. If you think we do, then say what these standards are. Note that we can make objective evaluations of things like how influential and artist has been, how serious critics view a persons work, what a good investment a piece of art is, how difficult it was to produce ... but those are different things.

"There are ways to look at all things that compartmentalize the subjective and allow for critical analysis." No. Not when what we are analyzing is inherently subjective, such as with a person's taste. Any reductive account that leaves out the subjectivity of an essentially subjective thing inherently analyzes something else.

For example, some people think that the experience of seeing a rose can be completely explained without reference to mental states, such that if we know all of the physical processes that go on with the perception of a rose, then we've completely captured what it is to see a rose. Thus this is an account that attempts to reduce mental states to physical states. But let's suppose that we have an excellent neuroscientist that's been blind since birth, and that she does understand all of the physical processes that go with seeing a rose. Imagine now that she has an operation that allows her to see, and one of the first things she does is to pick up a rose and look at it. Isn't it obvious that she now has a better understanding of what it means to see a rose, and hence it follows that the physical explanations left something out. In particular they left out what it's like to have the mental state of seeing the rose. Leaving the subjective out of an evaluation of taste is lacking in an analogous way.

 

[jd callow]

Peter,
Comic book art may be what moves a 15 year old most and the reasons are subjective and easily identifiable. As we grow in sophistication what moves us becomes more complex, but it is still understandable. The mental states created from a piece of work is not completely unique for each person otherwise the work would fail. Art always has concrete aspects as well as and subjective aspects. It is not all subjective. Photography is, by its very nature, the least subjective of the visual arts. There is a huge library of commonality within the human being, filter that by culture and the library grows. It is this commonality that gives the artist access to his/her audience and allows those who study art to understand what makes art work.

It is a nice thought that each is moved differently, but the truth is that the difference is generally by small degrees and based upon experience.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

There is only one real picture of a nude in the woods (Wynn Bullock)

As to whether it's harder to take a beautiful picture of a beautiful woman, or a beautiful picture of a not-so-beautiful woman, my only argument is Donigan Cummings's portraits of Nettie Harris in the book Pretty Ribbons

 

[Peter De Smidt]

Michel,

My favorite nude is Wynn Bullock's "Nude at Sandy's Window", but I absolutely can't stand the dead child in the forest picture. Isn't that funny?

 

[Peter De Smidt]

JD, I didn't say that an individual's mental states produced by contemplating a photograph have nothing in common with the mental states such contemplation produces in others. (The answer to that question would depend on one's theory of identity, and I'm too stupid to understand that stuff.) Nor did I deny that art always has concrete elements, depending on what you mean by that. My claims are that the experience of viewing a photograph is inherently subjective, there is no objective standard that tells us what our subjective reaction to a piece of art should be, and one person's subjective reaction to viewing a print is not any more valid than another person's reaction.

For example, my gut reaction to the dead child in the forest picture is one of distaste and revulsion. Michel's reaction is the opposite. What possible justification is there for holding that one of our subjective reactions to the image is somehow "better" than the other's? We simply like different things

 

[smieglitz]

Dead child??? What an idyllic and peaceful scene. It's an awakening like the Birth of Venus or Adam in Eden to me.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

http://www.artnet.com/artwork/424706910/imogen-cunningham-and-twinka.html Sure would like to meet her in the woods.

Imogen, you bet!

 

[jd callow]

The woods should be fertile ground for the creative, it is in painting and lit (especially fantasy, folklore and fairy tales). It can have a strong sexual aspect as well, but many with a nekkid model and a camera still seem to screw it up.

I see the image much like you do joe. I like how the figure is at the bottom and the richness, and vitality is poured over the top.

 

[Ian Leake]

My claims are that the experience of viewing a photograph is inherently subjective, there is no objective standard that tells us what our subjective reaction to a piece of art should be, and one person's subjective reaction to viewing a print is not any more valid than another person's reaction.

Yes... and no at the same time. Everyone carries in their head a private map of the world made up of the sum of their life experience coupled with whatever genetic influences they may have inherited. This map filters, translates and explains what is going on around them. When someone views a photograph their emotional reaction is strongly influenced by their map of the world (Dead Child or Birth of Venus for example). That is entirely subjective.

But is one person's subjective reaction more valid than another? I'd suggest that it can be. Take an extreme example: some people get pleasure from looking at child porn. According to their map of the world their subjective reaction is an entirely legitimate thing; but for most people their subjective reaction is beyond the pale. Clearly therefore some subjective reactions are less valid than others. Similarly, on finding a drunk in the street one person may see an opportunity to steal their wallet, another may see an opportunity to help them. Both are acting in accordance with their subjective reactions based on their personal maps of the world. Most people would say that one subjective reaction was 'better' than the other.

Back to photographs. A person whose map of the world is largely blank when it comes to art (i.e. they have little knowledge or experience of art) will still react to a photograph based on their map of the world, but it will be a reaction based on ignorance. A person who has had the opportunity or has taken the trouble to study art (and thereby expand their map of the world in that area) will most likely have a different subjective reaction. Both reactions are valid according to their personal maps of the world, but I'd suggest that the reaction based on knowledge is more useful to other people than the one based on ignorance.

Relevance is as important as validity, though. A work needs to be relevant to the widest audience as well as being valid when placed in the context of the art which has preceded it. A work which requires the viewer to be knowledgeable about art will most likely fail to engage most of its viewers, and will therefore be irrelevant to most of its viewers. And that's where beauty comes in. As Bill pointed out earlier, people tend to prefer the beautiful to the ugly. People will engage with a beautiful work even if they are unaware of its finer implications. The work is therefore relevant to more people.

Most people can judge the beauty of a photograph. Rightly or wrongly, a beautiful picture of a beautiful subject is more accessible than a beautiful picture of an ugly subject (which is why nudes and flowers will always sell more than factories and coal mines). The challenge for photographers who want to make photographs of ugly things is to find a way to make their work beautiful so it can engage and hence be relevant to the widest audience. Photographers who want to work with beautiful subjects must avoid getting so lost in the beauty of their subject that they forget about the beauty of their photograph.

Fewer people can judge the validity of a photograph because fewer people understand (or care about) its place within the context of art history, contemporary society and human psychology. It's always worthwhile listening to these people because that's the fastest way to expand our map of the world.

 

[Early Riser]

An exceptional photo of the ordinary, or an ordinary photo of the exceptional, or an ordinary photo of the ordinary. In the first place unless you were present at the time and location of the capture of the photo you can't know for a fact if the scene was exceptional or ordinary. The only reference you have is the photograph which can be highly interpretative of the existing scene.

In my nearly 30 years as an editorial and advertising photographer in NYC I have been a participant or witness to everything from Vogue magazine and Victoria's Secret shoots, album and magazine cover shoots, food and beverage shoots, and nearly every genre of still life and photography as well as more journalistic photography. I can agree that photographing a beautiful model in an interesting environment is not that hard. All you need is to know lighting, which is in itself not a minor thing as the vast majority of photographers do not know how to light. The real heavy lifting on those shoots is the makeup artists who really are artists as they paint a face on someone. Believe me when the models arrive in the morning and are "hair and make up ready", that is no makeup on and plain hair, the first reaction a photographer may have is panic.

As for shooting celebrities, actors, singers, athletes, etc. These people are very accustomed to being photographed and performing in front of a camera. So unless they are difficult people, they are usually easy photographically. And shooting people on the street is also easy photographically. People inherently are made to relate to other people on some level. So when you see a photo of a person in distress, you sympathize. You can far more easily equate emotions and sense the context of the situation that the subject is in. The human face has many muscles in it, solely for the purpose of expression. It's very easy for a photograph of a person to elicit an emotional response in a viewer. If you really want a challenge try to consistently produce a human emotional response from an inanimate object or a natural scene.

Still life is far harder. The main purpose of which is to make ordinary objects look special, even attractive and to elicit an emotional response in the viewer. And that is not easy. And to do it well one has to really know lighting and design. Still life lighting is by far the hardest lighting to master. If you think that is an inaccurate statement try lighting a scene with glass, a round polished reflective surface like a Christmas ball, and black suede or very dark fabric that requires it's texture to be visible and have detail, and do all of that in the same scene. AND make it beautiful too. It's not just technical, you have to make it beautiful.

That's what I had to do every day for nearly 30 years. But I can tell you that what I do now, landscape photography is vastly harder. And many of the scenes that appear spectacular or special on a finished print, were in fact quite ordinary. So don't rush to a conclusion that a beautiful landscape photo is merely a capture of a beautiful scene. While it's true that many are, those photographers that consistently produce beautiful landscapes are very often making those ordinary scenes beautiful.

 

[cowanw]

Back to photographs. A person whose map of the world is largely blank when it comes to art (i.e. they have little knowledge or experience of art) will still react to a photograph based on their map of the world, but it will be a reaction based on ignorance. A person who has had the opportunity or has taken the trouble to study art (and thereby expand their map of the world in that area) will most likely have a different subjective reaction. Both reactions are valid according to their personal maps of the world, but I'd suggest that the reaction based on knowledge is more useful to other people than the one based on ignorance.

Since you have used rather extreme examples to make your points in your post, I will also.( and then come back to the middle).

The extreme of considering the educated as having the more useful opinion usually leads to the evolution of the expert (or the priesthood of the particular religion in question).
And so we have critics and museum directors of photography departments telling us what is important and desirable. Their language is often symbolic and hidden to the non initiate, so that access to the secrets of understanding are contolled, and the priesthood is elevated by comparison.
They know better than us and will tell us so. (When trying to understand this aspect of human behavior think money and power.)
While I think that education will lead to a deeper understanding and a deeper appreciation of a particular photograph, I do think that there are common features of seeing (experts and non experts alike) that allow a non expert to see what is a successful (beautiful) photograph. And their very non educated (ie nondogmatic) opinion is quite possibly more valid than that of the art critic's.
Back to the middle now.
When you talk about relevance, you acknowledge the uneducated and apportion their importance to them. and I agree that knowledge and context can only improve enjoyment.
But beware of the priesthood.
Regards
Bill

 

[Ian Leake]

But beware of the priesthood.

This I completely agree with. Professionals in many fields have jargon and secret code words. Sometimes they use these in order to communicate a specific specialist meaning; but sometimes it's to confuse others and boost their position. It's sort what I was trying to say about art which requires a viewer to be knowledgeable about art before they can engage with it. A lot of conceptual work falls into this space and, in my opinion, is weaker for it.

(Note that I wrote, "It's always worthwhile listening to these people..." not, "It's always worthwhile agreeing with these people...")

... many of the scenes that appear spectacular or special on a finished print, were in fact quite ordinary. So don't rush to a conclusion that a beautiful landscape photo is merely a capture of a beautiful scene. While it's true that many are, those photographers that consistently produce beautiful landscapes are very often making those ordinary scenes beautiful.

The same goes for portraits... and photo-journalism... and nudes... and... ;-) Any skilled photographer can make a technically successful copy of their subject with a camera. But to elevate their work above making copies requires much more than technical skill. And if nudes are so easy (as some have suggested) why are there so many bad ones out there, and so few good ones?

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

The child in the WB picture is peacefully sleeping, not dying...

 

[Peter De Smidt]

Really? How can you tell? I know that I wouldn't want to sleep on the forest floor like that, especially in the nude.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

Wynn Bullock did not kill a child to make this picture.

 

[Peter De Smidt]

That's not what I meant at all. Moving on.

 

[Early Riser]

........ And if nudes are so easy (as some have suggested) why are there so many bad ones out there, and so few good ones?[/QUOTE]

For the same reason why can't everyone sit down at a piano and play like a pianist. Some have talent and training, and others do not.

 

[keithwms]

Is it impossible to make a "good photo" of the ordinary?

I'd say of course it is possible.

 

[Thomas Wilson]

........ And if nudes are so easy (as some have suggested) why are there so many bad ones out there, and so few good ones?

For the same reason why not everyone can sit down at a piano and play like a pianist. Some have talent and training, and others do not.[/QUOTE]

Very good point.

I might add that the criteria by which a pianist are judged, are much less subjective than those of the photographer, "Fine Art" or otherwise.

Many self proclaimed photographic artists are boastful of the technical qualities, or lack there of, of their Holgas or Dianas.

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