What "makes" a "great" image?

Q.G. · Apr 27, 2009

Galah said:
So, there would be no distinction in "greatness" between the Abu Grahib pics of man being savaged by guard dog and the portrait of Winston Churchill (mentioned above), between Gitmo and the Parthenon: they are all "great"?

If so, or if not so, it would not be because the "uplifting" thingy.

Why do you think that only uplifting thingies can be great?

Q.G. · Apr 27, 2009

iandavid said:
On your approach, once we remove all the qualities that my mum doesn't care about, like lighting, composition, collectability, technical mastery of any sort, etc, what are we left with?

That (reduction) is not my approach.

iandavid said:
I suspect that, when boiled down, what remains is some sort of personal relevance to you, personal emotional impact on you, or personal connection with you and your world view. Perfectly valid reasons for you to think an image is great. But, at that level of generality, they are obvious.

So list these obvious things, by name, and you will have answered the question!

Be careful with dissmissing generalities.
Unless you indeed believe that it is an entirely personal thing, greatness is a general thing. What else, right?
And do you think it is entirely personal? Something no other individual shares with you? Is agreement impossible?

So "that level of generality" is perfectly fine.
It is inter-subjectivity. No more.

The task then still is to name the thingies that impart greatness to images. To get beyond that "indefinable je ne sais quoi".

And there is no reason, except defeatism, to believe that it cannot be expressed.

iandavid said:
No doubt you can drill down further on an image by image basis - i.e. this one triggers a feeling of love, this one reminds me of the smell of seaweed in winter, etc. But all this is then wholly subjective, isn't it? To find common ground with everyone else's reasons for thinking different images are great, you have to return to the general and obvious. No?

No.
You have to return to the communicable. To the shared bits.

We are not all that different, we humans.
So "this one reminds me of the smell of seaweed" will not be wholly unique, not purely subjective.
And the fact that it is not wholly subjective does not mean that it then must be wholly general.

And what does it mean "it reminds me of the smell of seaweed" when expressed as why something is great?
It needs further investigating to know that - it is not obvious why that would make something great.

But (and this is what the above is leading up to) what's wrong with generalities?
I don't think that because we generally abhore or love something, it is not worth mentioning, or investigating why it is that we do.

"To identify in words the essence of such common feelings" may have "been tried a million times before", but it is wrong to think that it "just cannot be expressed in anything other than an obvious generalisation".

For instance because identifying one thingy as a vector of greatness and assuming that it is that for each and every one of us (generalisation) is not the same as finding what each and every one of us might find great in or about something and finding something common in that.

Q.G. · Apr 27, 2009

avantster said:
O.G. and iandavid you're both making some interesting points and the issues you are discussing have been explored and in fact resolved in a new way of thinking by Robert Pirsig in his book, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenence. Here is a small excerpt where he explores the problem. I won't spoil the beautiful Copernican revolution he discovers but it is definitely worth reading if you are interested.

I'm afraid that Pirsig, though a quite depressing read (hence not great, according to the "uplifting" criterion), does not discover anything.
He constructs a nice plot, but that's it.

Domenico Foschi · Apr 27, 2009

An image, a work of Art, whatever the subject may be, is a search for beauty.
If the photographer didn't think that what is in front of him/her would be worthy to be frozen because of its inherent beauty then the shutter wouldn't be clicked.
Even in the best images of violence, you can see that the "beauty" aspect of the photograph overwhelms the violent aspect of the scene, leaving room to obvious spiritual discussions.
In classic religious iconography there are many images of violence, but what it is always recognized it's its beauty.
SO, yes, I agree, that a good image, will stimulate an uplifting emotional response, provided we define the fact that the response will always be about the beauty contained, or for lack of better words transpiring from the image.

Then there are some images that "hit us in the guts".
What is that feeling, I always wondered?
My conclusion is that this kind of reactions happen when a work of art opens a door in ourselves, and we get this kind of shock, mixed to awe, sprinkled with the right dose of mystery.
These are the images that renovates the passion to the medium and at the same time open us to a better understanding of ourselves and the world around us.
This is why Art not also isn't useless but it's necessary.

MattKing · Apr 27, 2009

Domenico Foschi said:
..."when a work of art opens a door in ourselves"...

To answer the original question posed, I'd be willing to go with this.

Matt

Q.G. · Apr 27, 2009

Domenico Foschi said:
An image, a work of Art, whatever the subject may be, is a search for beauty.
If the photographer didn't think that what is in front of him/her would be worthy to be frozen because of its inherent beauty then the shutter wouldn't be clicked.

That is describing only one tiny part of art, being fine art.
The "we aim to please" bit.

These are the images that [...] open us to a better understanding of ourselves and the world around us.

That is art.

Hence the 'not restricted to uplifting' thing.
Art is a 'wake up and smell the roses' moment.
A 'this is you, whether you like it or not' thing. And sometimes you do, but sometimes you don't. Such is life.

The gruesome things are powerful, because they are gruesome. Not because they contain some beauty.
On the contrary: they remind us of how gruesome and unbeautiful we and our world so often are.
That is "worthy to be frozen". Something to be reminded of and to contemplate at leisure.

Beauty?
Often no more but succor for the feeble. A crutch to lean on when the reality gets too hard to swallow.
But also often a thing in itself, found on its own. Yet certainly not exclusively.

This is why Art not also isn't useless but it's necessary.

Indeed.

(By the way, art no more deserves a capital "A" than conversation deserves a capital "C".)

Ian David · Apr 27, 2009

Q.G. said:
So list these obvious things, by name, and you will have answered the question!

I think I already have listed such things, several times: personal relevance to the viewer, personal emotional impact on the viewer, personal connection with the viewer and his/her experience and world view... (Note that, even though I use the word "personal", these are generalities.)

Q.G. said:
Unless you indeed believe that it is an entirely personal thing, greatness is a general thing.

I agree. You can certainly think of greatness as a general thing. But beyond a certain point, the analysis of greatness necessarily becomes personal. And unless you start talking about specific images, that certain point comes quite early.

Q.G. said:
You have to return to the communicable. To the shared bits.

So start sharing. I invited you above to choose an image that you think is "great". You don't have to tell us what it is. But do tell us all the reasons why you think it is great. I will then do the same, if you like, and you can then tell me what the common elements are that go beyond the sorts of generalities listed above.

Q.G. said:
But (and this is what the above is leading up to) what's wrong with generalities?

Nothing. But you can only talk about them for so long.

Q.G. · Apr 27, 2009

iandavid said:
I think I already have listed such things, several times: personal relevance to the viewer, personal emotional impact on the viewer, personal connection with the viewer and his/her experience and world view... (Note that, even though I use the word "personal", these are generalities.)

I have no issue with that.

iandavid said:
I agree. You can certainly think of greatness as a general thing. But beyond a certain point, the analysis of greatness necessarily becomes personal. And unless you start talking about specific images, that certain point comes quite early.

You can't take the person out of greatness. We wouldn't want to.
But that does not mean that an analysis of greatness must flounder and get bogged down in individual and incommunicable, unshareable opinions or feelings.

So what if it becomes personal? We are all persons, with our personal opinions and feelings. Doesn't mean that we can't or don't agree on things.

And, perhaps more important, so what if the thing(s) that make(s) something
great are generalities?
Generalities do not suffer from a lower degree of pertinence or 'reality'.
They are just as good as particulars. Better even, when the thing they are about is a general, perhaps even an universal thing.

So start sharing. I invited you above to choose an image that you think is "great". You don't have to tell us what it is. But do tell us all the reasons why you think it is great. I will then do the same, if you like, and you can then tell me what the common elements are that go beyond the sorts of generalities listed above.

common elements = generalities.

I already explained that i think that would be a bad, perhaps even the least promising approach.
And have already given my answer to what i think that it is that (among other things) makes great images great.

Nothing. But you can only talk about them for so long.

Thousands of years have passed, millions of pages have been filled with all sorts of complicated and profound analysis. And still there remains much to be figured out, much to be said.
Looks like we haven't talked about them for long enough yet.

Domenico Foschi · Apr 27, 2009

I completely disagree with you.

What makes famous gruesome images immortal is their Beauty, with the capital B.
If it was differently then it would be a contest on "who takes the most gruesome image wins".

Reading your post it seems as if you take Beauty in very poor consideration, and the very response you expressed leads me to understand that we have a different understanding of the concept.

Beauty is not aimed to please others, although there is a small component of that in every artwork, but it is a form of prayer, of contemplation and teaching of the expansiveness of its significance.
Beauty in all cultures is a synonym for truth, and God.

When I wrote :"These are the images that [...] open us to a better understanding of ourselves and the world around us." you misunderstood me.

To me these are the images who challenge us to be more elastic in our understanding and interpretation of the world. Many images of Bresson have done that to me, because his photography was mainly abstract, if you understand his incredible gift.
SO, it is not a "wake up and smell the coffee, stupid and violent human being" kind of thing but a far deeper and effective way to bring awareness.
A real artist doesn't portray a perpetrator with anger but with compassion. Look at the work of August Sander, WeeGee, Diane Arbus....

Art is not an angry fingerpointing act, but a compassionate act.
Anger only creates negativity, compassion allows for understanding and change

Cheryl Jacobs · Apr 27, 2009

keithwms said:
Galah, I don't agree with what you're saying at all; there is a huge library of great photography that leaves people feeling anything but uplifted. The wartime work of Brady and later of Capa... the migrant mother of Lange that I just mentioned... there are so many great photographs that flood to mind that definitely do not lift me up. To be blunt, I am afraid that your definition just throws photojournalism right out the window.

I'm really very surprised that you'd write that, Cheryl. It seems to me that someone like yourself ...with your repertory of interesting portrait subjects... would value the expressiveness of the human face even more than those of us who don't do portraiture. Now, those individual expressions that you capture are highly original.... aren't they? If not then why not just shoot mannikins? I mean, aren't human expressions just about as original as.... humanly possible?!

Don't get me wrong: I'd not advocate different just for its own sake. But you do give a damn about originality, and it shows.

Not the same thing. The human face and its range expression are inherently individual, and I do value individuality in all its forms. I think, though, that that is very different than originality, which implies something that has not been done / thought of / expressed before. I think when the goal becomes "originality" rather than expressing one's individuality, the result becomes contrived.

Ian David · Apr 27, 2009

Q.G. said:
Thousands of years have passed, millions of pages have been filled with all sorts of complicated and profound analysis. And still there remains much to be figured out, much to be said.
Looks like we haven't talked about them for long enough yet.

In fact, maybe it means that there is not much worthwhile left to say... I would rather look at a collection of great images without words, than read 100 pages trying to explain to me why those images are great.

The question of greatness, and the possible answers to it, are not really very complicated IMHO. They only become so when one tries to come up with some kind of universal formula. Keeps philosophers employed though, which is probably useful in these hard times...

Ian David · Apr 27, 2009

Domenico Foschi said:
Beauty in all cultures is a synonym for truth, and God.

Not sure that all would agree. Yours is a very particular use of the word beauty. And God is such a personal concept that it doesn't necessarily help a wide audience understand what you are saying. But the concept of "truth" makes more sense to me in the context of what you said.

Domenico Foschi said:
Art is not an angry fingerpointing act, but a compassionate act.
Anger only creates negativity, compassion allows for understanding and change

You see art as a compassionate act. But that is your perception, rather than the obvious nature of art. I think art can be an angry fingerpointing act, but that is not necessarily a negative thing and can lead to understanding and change.

Q.G. · Apr 27, 2009

iandavid said:
In fact, maybe it means that there is not much worthwhile left to say... The question of greatness, and the possible answers to it, are not really very complicated IMHO. They only become so when one tries to come up with some kind of universal formula.

Well, no (the possible answers are complicated) and yes (they, not "become" but are complicated when you try to come up with a universal answer).
But that must be.

Not many of us dislike, say, to be hugged now and again (conditionally: by the right person, at the proper time, and all that).
There we have a generality already. A very real one.
The question is why we like to get hugged.

It is easy to concentrate on the conditionals. We just all make lists of the persons we like to be hugged by, for instance.
And then what? Find huggers that appear on more than one list?
What does that tell us about why we like to get hugged?
(What if we find two people who have no shared huggers on their lists? Is hugging a different thing for either of them? And different from what it is for the rest of us? Many more such difficult questions arise, that bring us not much closer to the desired answer).
Yet everybody capable of making a list of huggers enjoys hugging. It is a generality, an 'universal' if you so wish.

So better skip that, and go for the real question: what is the thing that makes hugging enjoyable.

But is it really difficult?
Does the fact that the greatness of images must have an universal nature make it realy dificult to answer?
It is more work than just saying "i like Camembert". But is it difficult?

Giving an universal answer is not difficult. The real difficulty lies in understanding what that entails. What (for instance) relevance is, and how it works.
And mostly in agreeing about any and all of it.

A big part of the difficulty is in getting people to agree that, for instance, it is quite o.k. to have answers that are general. In getting people to discuss the possible answers already given (there is enough to be asked and answered right there, with plenty of difficulty already), instead of looking for other ones, etc.

That is also why so many years have gone by with so many words said and so books written.

iandavid said:
Keeps philosophers employed though, which is probably useful in these hard times...

It would be. If you could find employers who would employ philosophers to begin with.

How did that Charles M. Schulz 'Peanuts' cartoon go again? What's-her-name writing an essay for kindergarten (pretty advanced!):
"The ancient greeks did not have television. But they had many philosophers. I think i'd rather watch television".

Now who wouldn't?

Q.G. · Apr 27, 2009

Domenico Foschi said:
I completely disagree with you.

What makes famous gruesome images immortal is their Beauty, with the capital B.
If it was differently then it would be a contest on "who takes the most gruesome image wins".

And you think it isn't???

Domenico Foschi said:
Reading your post it seems as if you take Beauty in very poor consideration, and the very response you expressed leads me to understand that we have a different understanding of the concept.

Beauty is not aimed to please others, although there is a small component of that in every artwork, but it is a form of prayer, of contemplation and teaching of the expansiveness of its significance.
Beauty in all cultures is a synonym for truth, and God.

You are right: we do indeed have a very different understanding.

removed account4 · Apr 27, 2009

SNIP SNIP AND SNIP

Cheryl Jacobs said:
Originality is overrated, and I do mean that after much consideration.

Cheryl Jacobs said:
I suppose I will just go ahead and say that I don't believe true originality is possible -- and I don't think that is a big deal.

Cheryl Jacobs said:
I think, though, that that is very different than originality, which implies something that has not been done / thought of / expressed before.

it has ALL been done before in one way or another.
nothing is original, it is all just ... a copy of something else.
it has been like that for a long time ...

Ecclesiastes 1:9

9 What has been is what will be,
and what has been done is what will be done,
and there is nothing new under the sun.

you can hear someone say it too

keithwms · Apr 27, 2009

Well... they didn't have photography in the days of Ecclesiastes

But seriously, I believe that every moment is something new. And time has been running in one forward direction since the Big Bang. If I really believed that there isn't anything original left to be done in photography then I'd take up Pollock-style splatter painting just to console myself.

Domenico Foschi · Apr 27, 2009

keithwms said:
Well... they didn't have photography in the days of Ecclesiastes

But seriously, I believe that every moment is something new. And time has been running in one forward direction since the Big Bang. If I really believed that there isn't anything original left to be done in photography then I'd take up Pollock-style splatter painting just to console myself.

Exactly! There is always something new to take pictures of!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8y6Ib7w17Q&feature=related

avantster · Apr 28, 2009

Q.G. said:
I'm afraid that Pirsig, though a quite depressing read (hence not great, according to the "uplifting" criterion), does not discover anything.
He constructs a nice plot, but that's it.

The plot of the novel is primary, but a skeleton of philosophy is clearly laid out in the book. A philosophy that answers what is Quality. Or worth, or merit, or value, or betterness or any of the other synonyms for good, which is exactly the question raised by the OP.

I will be more than happy to expand on how his framework of thinking is relevant to the current discussion but I suspect you may be too dismissive of that framework to make further discussion productive. By all means correct me if I'm wrong.

Q.G. · Apr 28, 2009

avantster said:
The plot of the novel is primary, but a skeleton of philosophy is clearly laid out in the book. A philosophy that answers what is Quality. Or worth, or merit, or value, or betterness or any of the other synonyms for good, which is exactly the question raised by the OP.

Yes.
But it is not discovered by Pirsig.
And is it more than a device, a suggestion of something deep used for effect? Will it withstand scrutiny? I wonder.

avantster said:
I will be more than happy to expand on how his framework of thinking is relevant to the current discussion but I suspect you may be too dismissive of that framework to make further discussion productive. By all means correct me if I'm wrong.

You are wrong.
(Seriously).

Domenico Foschi · Apr 30, 2009

keithwms said:
Well... they didn't have photography in the days of Ecclesiastes

But seriously, I believe that every moment is something new. And time has been running in one forward direction since the Big Bang.

Has it?

keithwms · Apr 30, 2009

Domenico Foschi said:
Has it?

Indeed it has! (politics notwithstanding ) Let me recommend this brief article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_of_time

(you might skip to the psychological/perceptual part)

Anyway, my point RE: photography was this:

Only isolated events are fully repeatable. I.e. one can say that there is 'nothing new under the sun' only if one considers isolated events. But if one includes full [historical] context, then that statement is utterly false.

I'd argue that this has clear implications for great photography.

Many great photographs have a context that led to their recognition as great photographs. E.g. Migrant Mother, or the many others mentioned.

So if you try to apply a recipe for greatness: well, you need not only the ingredients of that recipe... but also a time machine.

Bertil · May 5, 2009

Richard Eldridge in his book “An Introduction to the Philosophy of Art” (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003) argues that “…works of art presents a subject matter as a focus for thought and emotional attitude, distinctively fused to the imaginative exploration of material”. With this “formula” he adds “…works of art typically have representational, expressive and formal dimensions,…” (p.259)

It was suggested quite correctly, I think, by iandavid, that the discussion should focus on some icons from our history of photography. Eldridge’s formula may shed some light on the issue. Perhaps it will explain why Adam’s Moonrise is more interesting than Weston’s Pepper (have more Quality). Both have nice formal features, but Moonrise, with this landscape, moon and the last sunlight on the graveyard, evokes thoughts as well as emotion, it’s sublime! “Pepper” is nice but simple in comparison - evokes emotions (perhaps even sexual desire) but really no thoughts.

Galah, who started this thread, suggested that a great photography has the same Quality as a Great person. Few agreed on this “singularity view”. Dorothea Lange’s “Migrant mother” is a great photograph (has Quality); it has a subject matter. Persons may be good or bad, have Quality, but they are not about something (a good picture or a good novel may be about Obama or Churchill, and thus have Quality, but it’s quite another thing). Galah suggested Quality = provoke an uplifting emotional response in the viewer/audience. Obviously not enough: lots of things have this feature (drugs, a check showing that you won a million dollars etc) without having Quality.

Personally I think that a great Photograph represents a subject matter that evokes a strong interest in the very subject matter, not just the representation of it. A lot of nice photographs are nice Pictures, but not interesting Photographs.
//Bertil

nicefor88 · May 6, 2009

I don't think there's such a thing as a single quality.
There's always something wrong that can be found in "the best picture".
The technique must be there.
The subject must be there.
The light must be there.
The right moment must be there.
The luck must be there.

But, if they are all missing, can't you still have a good picture you'll like?
:confused:

Q.G. · May 6, 2009

Yes.
The 'connection' needs to be there. Nothing else.
You must have something to relate to in the picture.

keithwms · May 6, 2009

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.

What "makes" a "great" image?

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency