what makes/constitutes a good photographer?

TheFlyingCamera said:

If he were a photographer, I'd say Thomas Kinkade would qualify.

Click to expand...

Qualify for which side? - `Good' or 'bad'?

I think the reason we have a hard time finding real examples of "Bad" photographers according to my proposed definition is that almost by definition, they are unmemorable. Their work, however technically perfect, is so emotionally void that we intentionally forget them. If I were to be barbarically cruel, I could probably name a few classmates from various photography seminars and courses who would fit that definition in my book. However, it would take an excess effort of memory, because they were so banal.

Click to expand...

I agree. I contemplated, "What is an example of a 'bad' photograph/er" and I recognized the difficulty for that very fact - it leaves no impression - has no effect on .. my "me-ness". It is apparent that what does 'impress" me may NOT have the same effect on others .. therefore there really is no set standard of "goodness" to judge a photograph.

The process where we stand a chance of affecting someone else -- I can only say that over many moons in photography and art - I've found it happens as a result of passion.

Apparently passion is contagious - work done with it will have a greater probability of evoking passion in another than work done without passion.
That "contagion" is NOT 100% efficient ... many times it does work done with burning flames of passion will have no effect on some particular person. Such are the fortunes of art. That is not to say that it is not a successful (`good') photograph - it only illustrates that we are all different in the way we perceive art.

What makes a "good" photographer? ... It all starts with, and the basic, most important ingredient - the 'base' of it all is PASSION. With it, as long as we still have it, we can do nothing other than succeed; without it we are doomed to inevitable failure.

I have read here that simply answering "passion" is too simple. I'll take exception to that. It is easy to type the word, it is supremely difficult to grasp its meaning and to apply it to its intended use. It is probably the most complex answer possible.

So - what doe we do when we assume the role of "Critic"? Do we - should we, try to nurture and support the passion of those seeking our help; or do we waste the opportunity to truly HELP our fellow beings in this arena by squelching their core passion by carping over "defects" in their work? - Defects that will, along with the work itself, be soon forgotten?

philldresser said:

Michael
I would say the ability to put passion in ones images is more true than passion alone. Passion and no skill amounts to luck
Phill

Click to expand...

Or .. when it works is it MAGIC?

To tell the truth, either way, with or without "skill", it is still Magic.

Ed Sukach said:

Qualify for which side? - `Good' or 'bad'?

Click to expand...

That should be obvious- BAD. His work is trite, assembly-line, cookie-cutter, and exploitative (of his audience). It is incapable of evoking an emotionally rich or diverse response, or engaging the intellect. Gee, d'ya think I don't like Thomas Kinkade? I see him as an example of commercially successful "art" that is devoid of meaning, kind of like poster prints of cars that teenage boys put up in their bedrooms to indicate that they're "grown-up".

Ed Sukach said:

So - what doe we do when we assume the role of "Critic"? Do we - should we, try to nurture and support the passion of those seeking our help; or do we waste the opportunity to truly HELP our fellow beings in this arena by squelching their core passion by carping over "defects" in their work? - Defects that will, along with the work itself, be soon forgotten?

Click to expand...

Being a critic is always a challenge. I say there's no harm in bringing up "defects" in someone's work if it is done in a positive manner. If someone comes to you for advice about their work and you fail to offer it, I'd say you are doing them a greater disservice than if you tell them about everything you find problematic with their work.

There's diplomacy and then there's brutality -you can tell someone they need to improve xyz about their photography, and here's how, or you can tell them that they suck and should sell their camera and take up chess as there's a better chance of them beating Kasparov than of taking a competent photo. I'd always opt for the diplomatic solution unless you're really itching to burn a bridge or two.

To be quite honest, if you are playing the role of an educator, sometimes there's even a place for the "sell your camera" comment(although not in such harsh language), if the person is obviously struggling repeatedly to grasp basic concepts, and finding frustration at their lack of progress without understanding WHY they lack progress. You might encourage them to find another creative outlet at which they will be happier and more successful.

TheFlyingCamera said:

. . . kind of like poster prints of cars that teenage boys put up in their bedrooms to indicate that they're "grown-up".

Click to expand...

Umm, if I still have those posters on my wall, er, what does THAT mean!??
:confused:

rhphoto said:

Umm, if I still have those posters on my wall, er, what does THAT mean!??
:confused:

Click to expand...

Assuming you're over 21, that you have a car fetish

TheFlyingCamera said:

Assuming you're over 21, that you have a car fetish

Click to expand...

And the poster of Maria Carey??

This might be an "aside", but I can't resist:

"The fact is that in painting, as in other arts (emphasis mine), there is no single procedure small enough to be stated in a formula. Look, I have wanted to measure out the oil to be put in my colour once and for all. Well. I couldn't do it. I had to judge it afresh every time. I believe I knew a long time before the "scientifics" that it is the opposition of yellow and blue which provokes violet shadows, but when you know that, you are still in ignorance of everything. There is much in painting which can't be explained and which is essential. You arrive before nature with theories, and nature throws them to the ground."

I'll keep everyone in suspense, by not revealing the source of that quote. Hint: It was said by a Master of color.

Damn! I'm searching my library for a certain passage, where a highly regarded critic admonished one of the Great Lights in art: "Someone should tell (him) that he has NO talent, and that he should give up painting for good"! If that advice was followed, art - and humanity wouldl have never enjoyed a wonderful, marvellous, MAGICAL body of work.

This machine will time out soon. and I'll lose what I've entered here. I'll find the specific passage and quote it here, later.

I'll will NEVER advise anyone to "give up". In "learning" photography, or any other art, the only logical course of action is to keep going. Stillman Clarke: "Shoot, shoot, and shoot some more. It will come. It WILL."

Ed, I like this:

Ed Sukach said:

There is much in (photography) which can't be explained and which is essential. You arrive before nature with theories, and nature throws them to the ground."

Click to expand...

At some point, whether painting, photography, playing the violin, or even ice skating, you are alone with the great mystery.

This is from another forum: Communityzoe.com. I probably identify with this more than anything else I've read.


"David", in Group: RE: How do we define good art from bad art:

Some comments from Diane Arbus:

"The thing that is important to know is that you never know. You're always sort of feeling your way."

"One thing that struck me very early is that you don't put into a photograph what's going to come out. Or, vice versa, what comes out is not what you put in."

"I never have taken a picture I've intended. They're always better or worse."

"Invention is mostly this kind of subtle, inevitable thing. People get closer to the beauty of their invention. They get narrower and more particular in it. Invention has a lot to do with a certain kind of light some people have and with print quality and the choice of subject. It's a million choices you make. It's luck in a sense, or even ill luck. Some people hate a certain kind of complexity. Others only want that complexity. But none of that is really intentional. I mean it comes from your nature, your identity. We've all got an identity. You can't avoid it. It is what is left when you take everything else away. I think the most beautiful inventions are the ones you don't think of."

"I hate the idea of composition. I don't know what good composition is. I mean I guess I must know something about it from doing it a lot and feeling my way into it and into what I like. Sometimes for me composition has to do with a certain brightness or a certain coming to restness and other times it has to do with funny mistakes. There is a kind of rightness and wrongness and sometimes I like rightness and sometimes I like wrongness. Composition is like that."


An interesting read, probably transcribed from a conversation with her. Undoubtedly someone skilled in writing could 'polish' this ... but I think it communicates her thoughts with an unmistakeable clarity just as it is.

I once read a story about "The Last Primitive Person" on the American Continent, a Yaqui Native American, who had been brought out of the wilderness and introduced into American Society in the early part of the twentieth century. After some months of exposure to the wondrous technology of the Indudstrial Revolution, he was asked which invention seemed to be the most impressive. Those asking the question were astounded by his answer: "The fountain pen." He couldn't imagine how it would be possible to get all those words into that "small stick" - and how they could flow out onto the paper, so effortlessly.

I think, really, that one of my important goals: to eventually have my work "flow out", at least relatively effortlessly, - and MOST important, with a sense of FREEDOM, onto the paper.

Ed Sukach said:

I think, really, that one of my important goals: to eventually have my work "flow out", at least relatively effortlessly, - and MOST important, with a sense of FREEDOM, onto the paper.

Click to expand...

That strikes a chord. I'm not much of a photographer, but I do consider myself a competent musician. I consider the greatest rock guitarist to be Eddie Van Halen - from the momment his first album came out rock guitar changed (something that can only really be attributed to him and Hendrix).

Anyway the point is that millions copied him, hundreds maybe even got "better" - that is faster, more intricate, heavier, lounder etc they never SOUNDED like him. The reason was that they copied it and learnt it note for note, but for him (and other GREAT musicians) it was just the way he played. The notes aren't dictated by physical limitations (though it certainly explioted them), but rather the sound in his head came out of the speakers effortlessly.

To prove the point he also played a bit of keyboard. You can take the keyboard parts, and play them on guitar, and they sound like EVH guitar parts - about as conclusive proof as you can get that the music was in his head, and it just came out through the instrument, rather than being created on the instrument.

You can make similar examples in other forms of music, and other forms of art. That freedom to have something in your head, and make it real is the genius.

Ian

Someone who takes at least 1 good picture. Dumb luck is as capable as skill but far less likely.

Ed Sukach said:

I'll keep everyone in suspense, by not revealing the source of that quote. Hint: It was said by a Master of color.

Click to expand...

Kinkade?

bjorke said:

Kinkade?

Click to expand...

No. Pierre Auguste Renoir.

Interesting critique from one of the eminent critics of the day, writing in the Figaro, about Renoir's Torse au soliel:

"Could someone please try to explain to M. Renoir that the torso of a woman is not a mass of decomposing flesh, with green and purple spots, that describe the state of decomposition of a body ..." The other paintings exhibited by, among others, Caillebote, Degas, Monet, Berthe Morisot, Pissaro and Sisley, encountered the same incomprehension and contempt.

- From Philipe August Renoir, by Michel Ferloni and Dominique Spiess


Would anyone say that that was "useful" criticism? - necessary in some mysterious way - to enable Renoir to "improve"?
What a terrible loss to Art it would have been if Renoir - and everyone else, had actually listened to, and reacted to, this "top-notch" critic.

Flipped

billschwab said:

Not as much as that damn dancing little banana!

Click to expand...

Thank God someone else saw it as well !, I thought The men in white coats would be here soon to take me to a rubber room on the funnyfarm !.

Oh! You mean this one???



Dead Link Removed



Dave

Ed Sukach said:

No. Pierre Auguste Renoir.

Click to expand...

not to worry Ed, I wasn't really confusing Mr "Painter of Light" -- though you have to admit that he does put on a pretty thorough "look at me, I'm a plein air guy too!" parade. Essentially stripping the guts out of Monet & Renoir and stuffing the carcasses with treacle.

From The Photo Collectors Bible, Chapter 1 on what makes a good photographer for you to consider when investing in images you hope will increase in value.

"The only good photographer is a dead photographer".

I previously stated that only good photographers are living, and that to be considered a great photographer, you have to die.

Apparently, to say that the only good photographer, is a dead photographer, goes hand in hand with some ethnic minorities, based on prejudices of the ignorant.

Not trying to start an argument here, nothing personal intended. Just an observation that has been carried on through history, based more on the main reason why many buy art, to make money on the financial appreciation of dead artists works. Compared to buying the works of a living unknown, whose work you personally really like.

Maybe good living photographers are a minority.