What "makes" a "great" image?

[Bertil]

Keithwms: "A great photograph reveals special insight and communicates it effectively."

I agree and it is well put.

I think it is something like this that I had in mind with "...represents a subject matter that evokes a strong interest in the very subject matter, not just the representation of it." Walker Evans "American Pictures" has this quality - he had an eye for significant things in the American society at that time (and not just poverty!), effectively revealed it to his audience and -- I would like to add -- managed to evoke an interest in American social condition/situation for many who saw his photographs, and social history for those who now see them. This is also true, I think, with Adams and the Yosemite landscape, Weston and his Point Lobos and also Sally Manns with her "Deep South" - just to take some examples from the American scene and well known by many.
//Bertil

 

[Q.G.]

It looks like an answer is being 'established', consolidated.
And it's a good one!

 

[markbau]

I'm new to APUG so have missed much of this thread but what a great question/topic!

For me one of two elements must exist in a photo, either the photo must have an interesting subject matter, I think of the photo of Jack Ruby shooting Lee Harvey Oswald or the photo of Robert Kennedy lying on the floor after being shot. Technically these photos are pretty ordinary but the subject matter overwhelms everything. If the subject matter is not that interesting I look at light or technique. For instance Weston's "Peppers" are not the most fascinating subjects but his capture of shape, form, light, tone is exquisite. In short, an ordinary subject needs extraordinary skills, a "knockout" subject doesn't need much else, its like a sliding scale. I love the craftsmanship of Howard Bond and Bruce Barnbaum, they know their stuff, but their photos leave me cold, they are brilliant prints of nothing. Salgado makes much less technically proficient prints but they sing, they are alive. If I wanted to learn to print I'd go to Bond, if I wanted to learn to photograph I'd cherish an hour with Salgado.

But what I really love is some of the work I see in the gallery on APUG, no name photographers that are producing outstanding work, easily as good, if not better than some of the contemporary "big names". Being a famous photographer just means you are good at marketing yourself, there are many photographers as good, or better, that toil away in anonymity.

 

[darinwc]

Let me attempt a different strategy in defining a great photograph... by trying to define the task of the photographer.

Fundamentally, I think that a photographer seeks to develop unique insight into the subject. That is what most distinguishes a photographer from someone who is merely documenting what they see in a literal way. In other words, a photographer is someone for whom the image is more than a literal record of the subject; the photographer seeks to see and to represent more than is commonly seen by non-photographers. A photographer sees more, literally and figuratively.

With that definition of a photographer in mind, let me propose a "see more" definition...

A great photograph is one through which the photographer reveals great insight, and expresses that insight in a way that enables others to gain similar insight into the scene.

In other words, there needs to be a resonance between the photographer's unqiue insight and the audience's ability to appreciate that insight. After all, at its most basic level, a successful photograph is a form of communication. The photographer can have a great thought that is nevertheless "greek" to the audience; conversely, it's possisble for the photographer to speak in such common terms that the result is trite and the photograph doesn't transport the audience anywhere special. A great photograph reveals special insight and communicates it effectively.

to re-quote: " A photographer sees more, literally and figuratively. "

Wow Keith I really like the way you worded this. I would not say that this is necessarily relevant to the good/great question of the OP. But I think it is something that can be easily lost in stacks of technical manuals and heaps of metal and glass.

" A great photograph reveals special insight and communicates it effectively."

I would like to propose that insight and communication are the qualities of good artists of any medium. I have used the term communication as a definition of art before, but i would not go so far as to say that a great photograph communicates better than a good photograph, or even a mundane photograph. The photograph is itself a record of reality.

As far as an answer to the OP question, I have a completely different answer to offer but its late so I will wait til tomorrow.

 

[Tom Stanworth]

A great image is any image which has a strong emotional impact or enduring draw.
A great image takes you somewhere well beyond where you are standing at the time.

 

[Q.G.]

A great image is any image which has a strong emotional impact or enduring draw.
A great image takes you somewhere well beyond where you are standing at the time.

Not only emotional.

And i think that a great picture puts you firmly where you are, reflect your current position. Make you see - not somewhere well beyond [etc.] - but your 'here and now', as it is.
Can be more powerful, since we always see our world as how we want it to be, always project our aspirations, hopes and fears (i.e. beyond where we are) in it.

 

[Bertil]

Suppose a picture, for example of Diane Arbus (cf. the recent thread about her on APUG) -- as has now been suggested -- "has a strong emotional impact or enduring draw", "takes you somewhere well beyond where you are standing at the time" or "puts you firmly where you are, reflect your current position. Make you see - not somewhere well beyond [etc.] - but your 'here and now' " FOR ME, but that her picture leaves YOU quite indifferent in all these respects.

Are we up to "Great picture FOR ME, not Great picture FOR YOU"? How to deal with this? Looks like: all pictures are Great, at least relative to the interest of the viewer. An achievement or a problem? Or, something wrong with me (who has this response to her picture), or something wrong with you (who lacks this response to her picture) ???
//Bertil

 

[Tom Stanworth]

when a person says 'you', it is a generalised term because we are talking of the principle. It goes without saying that it is a personal experience/opinion, but without lots of people individually and personally affected it would not become great in the wider sense. I assumed thats what we were talking about - images that are regarded as great by the 'art/photography world.' If not, then the only criteria would be for one person (you/me) to think it is great and there would be no need for discussion

It is also perfectly normal for people to strongly dislike or even hate work considered great by significant numbers of other people. There does not have to be a majority opinion, only a significant consensus within minority groups. Golf is a minority sport because most people don't play, but it is probably one of the most played individual sports. The vast majority of the population would probably not pay more than $50 for an Ansel Adams print if they had no idea what it was and its value to others.

 

[Shangheye]

If a great image is to be defined as great, in my opinion, it needs to be universal in it's accessibility. By that I mean, it is insufficient that some are left indifferent...it leaves an impact on all who see it. It also has to be enduring, by that I mean that it does not expire in it's greatness...no matter how many times you look at it. If an image is accessible but not enduring, it can not be great.

This ofcourse is different to the idea of uniqueness or precedent setting art...not everyone loves Picasso, but his role makes HIM great...in how he influenced art...He and his work...should not be confused. It is the fact that he was a GREAT painter that makes his work so valuable despite in some cases it not being GREAT. In my opinion, Ansel Adams was a GREAT PHOTOGRAPHER, and some of his work was GREAT....but not all of it.

Art is in the eye of the beholder...and great art requires that all are beholden.

Rgds, Kal

 

[Bertil]

I think we can agree that the answer to the question “What makes a great picture great?” can’t be totally relative to the viewer with the result: “great for me, not great for you”. Such a result would roughly be equivalent to: “nothing special in the picture, everything in the viewer”.

Perhaps there is some truth in “Art is in the eye of the beholder”. But if enduring impact on all viewers, thus strict universality as Shangheye suggests, then probably the class of great picture is rather empty (if not totally empty!).
Tom suggests that the implicit reference for this discussion is 'art/photography world'. Now, consensus this group of people doesn’t seem to be consistent over time, so we still would have to relativize to a period of time (perhaps: great picture at the now-relevant-time, relative to the 'art/photography world' at now-relevant-time (?)). In any case, if the implicit reference is to people in 'art/photography world' the proper method for answering the original question seems to be to investigate what representative persons in this group take as their criteria for judging a picture great. I’m not sure that “enduring strong emotional impact” or “puts you firmly where you are, reflect your current position” is very frequent among those critics (perhaps unfortunately?). I may be wrong, but it seems to be an object of systematic investigation in all cases. However, I think a lot of words (but not all!) used in art criticism refer, by help of metaphors, to human emotions. But to recognize sadness or joy or … in a picture (assuming this to be a virtue) doesn’t require that you, the viewer, feel sadness or joy or…when looking at the picture.
But why should we refer to people in the 'art/photography world'? A reasonable answer could be: we assume these people to fulfil some relevant condition of competence like: background knowledge (both the about the world and the world of art/photography), trained sensitivity, experience in “human conditions”, imagination, competence in thinking and reflecting about a picture, etc. Perhaps not clear exactly what these “condition of competence” are, but something along the suggested lines, I assume.

If there is some truth in: (i) “in the eye of the beholder”, (ii) a great picture makes a certain kind of response in every viewer, (iii) and a reference to the art/photography world and (iv) the suggested conditions of competence as an explanation of the relevance of the ‘art/photography world’, then the answer to the original question seems to be what characterize the response of Any Competent Viewer.
Probably a lot of different things, not easy to find a short formula to cover it! Perhaps this explains why there is a point in discussing various virtues in different pictures, everyone trying to approximate reasonable conditions of competence, without excluding anyone from the discussion (at least not without good reasons). It makes it even possible to criticise judgements from the 'art/photography world'!
//Bertil

 

[WolfTales]

Spirit