Mike Collins wrote:
Actually, humans have no "instincts".  We learn things by observation.  If we saw no one or was encouraged by another to walk upright, we wouldn't.  We are born with the ability to walk but we still have to observe and then learn it.  Just like everything else we do.  Besides breathing, eating and sleeping.  But those are functions and not instincts.

+1

last year i photographed devynne, and as she was on the couch i noticed a photograph. i noticed a photograph that just seemed right to me. it wasn't instinct. it was because of a photo i had seen a while back by observation.

my photo:


and the photo (by annie leibovitz) i had observed a long time ago before i had shot my photograph.



that's why i saw a good photo, because i had observed a similar one before i even picked up my camera.

think of music. great musicians aren't born with all the best chord changes/progressions/licks. they listen to a lot of music and draw their inspiration from all that they hear.

Zack Zoll wrote:
Like I said, you're clearly not interested in hearing competing opinions.  I would recommend you stick to your blogging, rather than using a forum where people might call you out.

Because I disagree? Irony...

Mike Collins wrote:

Actually, humans have no "instincts".  We learn things by observation.  If we saw no one or was encouraged by another to walk upright, we wouldn't.  We are born with the ability to walk but we still have to observe and then learn it.  Just like everything else we do.  Besides breathing, eating and sleeping.  But those are functions and not instincts.

Humans have no instincts?
We are not separate from the animal kingdom.
Yes, we have instincts.

Mike Collins wrote:

Actually, humans have no "instincts".  We learn things by observation.  If we saw no one or was encouraged by another to walk upright, we wouldn't.  We are born with the ability to walk but we still have to observe and then learn it.  Just like everything else we do.  Besides breathing, eating and sleeping.  But those are functions and not instincts.

I have to disagree to a degree.
Everything you mentioned is called inspiration and true inspiration that drives us to do certain things and affect how we think.
Instinct is our ability to perform successfully in a pinch and make it our own that defines us.

L A U B E N H E I M E R wrote:
my photo:

Not meant as a critique, but I quite like this... even if it is in color. 

Mike Collins wrote:
Actually, humans have no "instincts".  We learn things by observation.  If we saw no one or was encouraged by another to walk upright, we wouldn't.  We are born with the ability to walk but we still have to observe and then learn it.  Just like everything else we do.  Besides breathing, eating and sleeping.  But those are functions and not instincts.

I want to address this because it happens to fall into my other professional area of expertise - training.

Humans learn by 4 methods, observation is one of them. The others are experimentation (doing), cognitive (reasoning) and interaction (discussion). Different humans learn more effectively or less effectively with the methods. Observation is not actually a way of learning that generally rates all that highly or effectively for most humans (experimentation - doing something - generally rates the highest on average).

And human beings certainly have instincts.  Fight or flee, the crying instinct, the diving instinct, and a number of others. Whether some people are born with the instincts/traits that make them leaders vs. followers or whether that those traits are developed because of observation and environment is still argued, but no one seriously claims that the three I've mentioned (or a number of others) aren't human instincts.

L A U B E N H E I M E R wrote:
that's why i saw a good photo, because i had observed a similar one before i even picked up my camera.

think of music. great musicians aren't born with all the best chord changes/progressions/licks. they listen to a lot of music and draw their inspiration from all that they hear.

If what you claim was ENTIRELY true, nothing new would ever be created....

And yet, we know that isn't true..... using music as you suggest, the Beatles and Jimi Hendrix were both influenced and inspired by Chuck Berry - but they both created something beyond what Chuck Berry ever created - they did more than just observe and copy that which had come before, they built on it and created something new.

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:

Because I disagree? Irony...

Some people just can't admit that they are in the wrong ... I call it the Putin syndrome.

Al Lock Photography wrote:
If what you claim was ENTIRELY true, nothing new would ever be created....

And yet, we know that isn't true..... using music as you suggest, the Beatles and Jimi Hendrix were both influenced and inspired by Chuck Berry - but they both created something beyond what Chuck Berry ever created - they did more than just observe and copy that which had come before, they built on it and created something new.

LSD wasnt around for chuck berry either

Al Lock Photography wrote:

If what you claim was ENTIRELY true, nothing new would ever be created....

And yet, we know that isn't true..... using music as you suggest, the Beatles and Jimi Hendrix were both influenced and inspired by Chuck Berry - but they both created something beyond what Chuck Berry ever created - they did more than just observe and copy that which had come before, they built on it and created something new.

but was it instinct?

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:

Rules haven't changed since Leonardo da Vinci.

What rules you speak of?

John Hegarty, one of the world's most famous advertising creatives.. ' There are no rules'.

The Something Guy wrote:

John Hegarty, one of the world's most famous advertising creatives.. ' There are no rules'.

Funny I majored in advertising and everything is based on them

BlueMoonPics wrote:
I don't know but I feel rules are often times created after the fact.
Once somebody does something and, hey, it works, that's when others try to quantify and qualify it.

even if a rule is created after the fact...it still becomes a rule for the next person.

Art Silva wrote:

I have to disagree to a degree.
Everything you mentioned is called inspiration and true inspiration that drives us to do certain things and affect how we think.
Instinct is our ability to perform successfully in a pinch and make it our own that defines us.

I think you guys that are discussing instincts are confusing the instinct for survival and self-preservation with the ability to perform a task without instruction, or even having seen it done before.

Here's a scenario where they overlap, and maybe it will help make sure that we're all on the same page.

Let's say that you get dropped in the middle of a deserted island, Bear Grylls style, with nothing but a knife and some rope, and absolutely no survival training whatsoever.  Your instinct may encourage you to walk towards the coast, as the coastal air smells fresher than the jungle.  Your instinct may also tell you to build a shelter even if you don't know how, because you know you need to stay out of the elements.  However, your instinct will not allow you to tie a bunch of different rope knots(sorry for the inevitable pun); unless you understand how knots work, you're literally just twisting the rope around until something useful happens.  And when it does, you'll (hopefully) remember it, and use it again later.  This is how 'rules' of artwork are created:  someone experiments until something works, and other people eventually jump on the bandwagon.

L A U B E N H E I M E R wrote:
that's why i saw a good photo, because i had observed a similar one before i even picked up my camera.

think of music. great musicians aren't born with all the best chord changes/progressions/licks. they listen to a lot of music and draw their inspiration from all that they hear.

Al Lock Photography wrote:
If what you claim was ENTIRELY true, nothing new would ever be created....

And yet, we know that isn't true..... using music as you suggest, the Beatles and Jimi Hendrix were both influenced and inspired by Chuck Berry - but they both created something beyond what Chuck Berry ever created - they did more than just observe and copy that which had come before, they built on it and created something new.

Al, it can be both - you can learn AND create.  But 'instinct' implies a complete lack of prior knowledge.  If you listen to early, Hamburg-era Beatles, they sound like white Chuck Berry wannabees.  But at some point - either because of drugs, new musical influences, boredom, whatever - they started screwing around with new sounds, and some of them sounded pretty cool.  They didn't create new music magically - they tried a bunch of new stuff, and some of it was really good.

Thing is, most people only remember the stuff that was really good.  Everybody knows Helter Skelter, but not so many people remember Dig a Pony.  You  know Hendrix's Angel, but do you know 1983 ... (A Merman I Shall Turn to Be)?  It's another awesome song, but it sounds a lot more like jazz, so it didn't stick with the general public.  So it seems like these new ideas came out of nowhere, because we(the public at large) aren't aware of all the other steps that came before.

gopherlove wrote:
LSD wasnt around for chuck berry either

I remember hearing Carlos Santana say that if Buddy Guy had dropped acid, he would have out-Hendrixed Hendrix.  AND beat him to the punch by a couple years to boot.

Hendrix's distinctive style is largely based on sloppy playing - using your thumb to fret notes on the lower strings.  That's something he picked up from Robert Johnson.  It was considered 'against the rules.'  Johnson did it because, as a black man in the American South in the 1920s and 30s, nobody was going to be giving him lessons but other black bluesmen.  In Johnson's case, it was probably instinctual.  In Hendrix's case, it was not - he learned that.

Or maybe it WAS instinctual.  Maybe he was too messed up on drugs to fret his guitar properly, and the Robert Johnson explanation was just used as an excuse.

But even today, using your thumb is STILL against the rules, unless you're trying to sound like Johnson or Hendrix.

BlueMoonPics wrote:
I don't know but I feel rules are often times created after the fact.
Once somebody does something and, hey, it works, that's when others try to quantify and qualify it.

Rules are almost always created after the fact.  It's not a rule until we know it works

And the 'rules of composition' weren't rules either, until people started teaching them.  Before then, it was just stuff that happened to be common in a lot of really good paintings.  But with the explosion of art in the Renaissance, and more importantly the explosion of art schools, suddenly people hard to go around naming all this stuff, so that it could be explained to students.  Before then, most artists learned by apprenticeship, and copying their masters.  Their "rules" were what their master's did, and their master's master's, and so on.

This is why there are relatively few well-known Western artists before the Renaissance, despite the fact that artists had been documented in the West since Grecian times.  They were almost all interchangeable by era, because they all followed strict rules and guidelines.

But outside of Jackson Pollack, I can't think of a single "world-renown" artist offhand that worked purely on instinct.  Even Picasso was heavily influenced by African and Muslim art(Spain, remember), and had a group of other Cubists and proto-Cubists to bounce stuff off of.

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:
Trends have changed, the rules for creating great imagery.

Painting / photography / Video

Are all the same. Timeless and universal

I posted a reply earlier questioning the quote in your original post, the OP that started this whole discussion, but you don't seem to be interested in dissenting opinions or challenges to your basic belief system.  As far as I've seen, you still haven't bothered to define what is "great" in an image or a photographer. You've simply offered a few elements of a technical sort that don't by themselves make anything great.  So you're being a kind of reductionist and using circular reasoning within a flawed definition you want to believe is timeless and universal.  Great art is probably timeless and universal, though you're really locked into Western cultural ways of viewing, but your way of describing what great art must have is narrow and superficial.

Your insistence on "rules" is wrong-headed and really of little consequence in a discussion of greatness.  If you mean principles or objective standards, that's another matter.  I would agree that there are some objective standards loosely, and they can be described, but great art is NOT about rules, period.  Maybe it's just your inexact choice of words, but your fixation on rules suggests a limited and technical way of viewing design and illustration, not art.   There are no rules for great art, only intrinsic properties and attributes that together define the work as being "great".  Those properties involve intellectual, emotional and spiritual qualities of its content, not imposed rules.  The rule of thirds, for example, is an imposed way of viewing one aspect of the organizational structure of a work of art, not a vital property of great art. 

As for the other replies mixed in here--those digressing into garbled philosophy and tangents about paradigms, Barthe and whatever--they strike me as abstruse and off the point, not to mention annoying pedantry.  I've read my share of interesting philosophers, and there must be another forum where we could blather about that.  Back to "great photographers," who is being nominated as great and what makes them so?

Al Lock Photography wrote:

I want to address this because it happens to fall into my other professional area of expertise - training.

Humans learn by 4 methods, observation is one of them. The others are experimentation (doing), cognitive (reasoning) and interaction (discussion). Different humans learn more effectively or less effectively with the methods. Observation is not actually a way of learning that generally rates all that highly or effectively for most humans (experimentation - doing something - generally rates the highest on average).

And human beings certainly have instincts.  Fight or flee, the crying instinct, the diving instinct, and a number of others. Whether some people are born with the instincts/traits that make them leaders vs. followers or whether that those traits are developed because of observation and environment is still argued, but no one seriously claims that the three I've mentioned (or a number of others) aren't human instincts.

Not to get OT but...Those things you mentioned are not instincts.  Fleeing is certainly learned.  If you never learned what harm was, you would stand right there and let whatever harm you.   Crying is a human function.  So is sneezing.  Or coughing.  They are not instincts.  Instincts or those things in animals that they just know when, what and how to do something without "learning"  in.  Take for instance birds flying south.  Or turtles knowing to return to the sea.  Or salmon returning to the same place every year to spawn.  They don't learn these things.  They are, well, instincts. 

We as human throw the term "instinct" around very loosely, as with many other words.  Like genius. 

You can disagree and I respect that.  But I bet just about everything you know how to do  (or anyone for that matter) was learned in some fashion, mainly observation.

L A U B E N H E I M E R wrote:

but was it instinct?

No one can really say for sure - are their musical instincts - maybe...

But it certainly wasn't just observation - the Beatles (and Hendrix) clearly incorporated experimentation, reasoning and discussion into how they created music.

Mike Collins wrote:
Not to get OT but...Those things you mentioned are not instincts.  Fleeing is certainly learned.  If you never learned what harm was, you would stand right there and let whatever harm you.   Crying is a human function.  So is sneezing.  Or coughing.  They are not instincts.  Instincts or those things in animals that they just know when, what and how to do something without "learning"  in.  Take for instance birds flying south.  Or turtles knowing to return to the sea.  Or salmon returning to the same place every year to spawn.  They don't learn these things.  They are, well, instincts. 

We as human throw the term "instinct" around very loosely, as with many other words.  Like genius. 

You can disagree and I respect that.  But I bet just about everything you know how to do  (or anyone for that matter) was learned in some fashion, mainly observation.

Fight or flight is certainly an instinct - speak to any psychologist - it is not learned behavior - it is embedded in the human mind from birth. Crying when needing attention is not just a function, it is, by definition, an instinct. Same for the diving instinct (do you even know what that is?).

In general, humans learn very poorly by observation. As a race, we are not very observant and certainly don't learn well from it. If we did, why is it that MOST humans make the same mistakes as other humans? Over and over?

MOST humans learn PRIMARILY by experimentation and doing - repetition -

Try learning to play golf by observation or to run a business by observation, or even to take photos by observation....

Doesn't work for most people.

If you actually want to pursue understanding how people learn, I recommend you look at the texts published by:

Pfeiffer
ASTD (American Society for Training and Development)
AMA (American Management Association)

and specifically the work of Mel Silberman, PhD.

Zack Zoll wrote:
Al, it can be both - you can learn AND create.  But 'instinct' implies a complete lack of prior knowledge.

I didn't claim that the Beatles or Hendrix did so instinctively (although they may have). Just pointing out that learning is not exclusively by observation (in fact, observation is a very poor learning method for most humans) - and because we can learn things on our own - via experimentation, by cognitive reasoning  - we do create and invent - and instinct may or may not be involved (some musicians have taught themselves to play instruments without instruction and very, very quickly - far more quickly than would be expected - is that a mix of experimentation and cognitive reasoning? Or is it instinct? To date, we don't really know.).

Certainly some people seem to be born with an innate understanding of composition and color, just as some people seem born with an innate understanding of rhythm and melody  - they may need to learn the tools for the rest of us to appreciate that talent - but that doesn't mean they didn't have instincts.

MDWM wrote:
Greatness is subjective....what's great to me may not be great to you.

True!... to me... photographic greatness is being able to obtain fantastic results in a variety of environments... NOT being just a 'one trick pony'...

TJ Photo wrote:
Maybe it's just your inexact choice of words

Since english is not my native language≥, I went back for the basic definition of "rules" and it seems it has a much more authoritative connotation than "reglas" (same word in spanish) in Latin rēgula is ruler, pattern a lot more similar in meaning to the word "Guideline" in english.

So, thanks.
That was actually very useful.

I also went back for your first post, since I've been quite busy with work and I only had time for really short answers (the ones that sound cocky)

TJ Photo wrote:
The original definition is mostly circular, irrelevant or inadequate.  It says a great photographer is one who "can create a great image", but the statements never define greatness.

That was the point tho... I was being funny.

Greatness:  Better than most, timeless.

We won't know who is great till years have passed and they remain in the collective memory. With few exceptions.

TJ Photo wrote:
Your weak definition then lists some of the technical qualities we might look for in an appealing photograph but by themselves they don't make it "great".

I don't just mention technical qualities.
You don't say what is missing from the definition.

TJ Photo wrote:
Then, even more vague, it says the photographer has "something to convey" and does this "intentionally".  Almost everyone taking photos here or in the wide world intends to convey something, and has "something to say", which could be banal or profound.

In my opinion, if what you have to say is banal then you don't really have something to say.
"Having the general culture needed to have something to convey" implies something else, more profound, deeper, more intelligent.

TJ Photo wrote:
Tell us who you think is "great" and specifically why they're great, then the debate might get more exact and meaningful.

Then the debate would shift to personal taste, and fights.

People rarely divide the good from their taste.

I hate Claude Monet, personally.
Claude Monet was a great paintor.

I can objectively say he was great, but personally I find his paintings boring and dull.

Great photographers? Very different from each other in style:

Bresson

Steven Meisel

Helmut Newton

TJ Photo wrote:
If we say that a great photograph expresses the deepest or most profound human emotions and ideas in a unique way that far surpasses any common visual expression on the same theme, that might get close.

If surpasses implies "better in quality" - we agree

TJ Photo wrote:
we could say that a great photograph, like a great work of art, is inexhaustible in the way it expresses more ideas and feelings each time we come back to it, that adds even more to the definition.  But your original definition tells us virtually nothing to explain what constitutes a truly great photograph, much less a great photographer who makes such images.

We can disagree, but you haven't explained why

Or better yet, show me a GREAT photograph that doesn't fit within "the rules" I spoke of

Al Lock Photography wrote:
Certainly some people seem to be born with an innate understanding of composition and color, just as some people seem born with an innate understanding of rhythm and melody  - they may need to learn the tools for the rest of us to appreciate that talent - but that doesn't mean they didn't have instincts.

Whom? Give me ONE example

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:

Funny I majored in advertising and everything is based on them

Who are the other two Bartle, Bogle.

Never ever heard the word 'great' used in a creative circle be it photographers, college lectures (photo) or art dir conversations, agency use the words 'great photographer' always been ' good photographer '.

The Something Guy wrote:

Who are the other two Bartle, Bogle.

Never ever heard the word 'great' used in a creative circle be it photographers, college lectures (photo) or art dir conversations, agency use the words 'great photographer' always been ' good photographer '.

And now we would be arguing semantics.

But yes, I have heard it, I use it, people use it. It's a word, get over it

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:

Whom? Give me ONE example

John Lennon, Paul McCartney, Freddie Mercury, The Artist Formerly Known as Prince, Onofrio Paccione...

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:

Funny I majored in advertising and everything is based on them

Paul Rand and George Lois changed the rules - so is everything based on the rules from before them? Or after them?

Even the most fundamental rule in advertising - make sure the customer remembers the product - is broken all the time.

The Something Guy wrote:
Who are the other two Bartle, Bogle.

Never ever heard the word 'great' used in a creative circle be it photographers, college lectures (photo) or art dir conversations, agency use the words 'great photographer' always been ' good photographer '.

I don't know about that....

I spent my entire life, in one way or another, being educated in or working in, the arts, including as an educator myself.  I have heard great used all the time, be it in relation to musicians, painters, sculptors actors, directors or photographers - and I include in this references made in academic settings.

Regarding the notion of "talent", I think it is unquestionable that it exists, anyone who has educated children in music will see that.  But I will agree that as far as becoming successful goes, it plays a small, if somewhat important, role.

TJ Photo wrote:
Maybe it's just your inexact choice of words

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:
Since english is not my native language≥, I went back for the basic definition of "rules" and it seems it has a much more authoritative connotation than "reglas" (same word in spanish) in Latin rēgula is ruler, pattern a lot more similar in meaning to the word "Guideline" in english.

So, thanks.
That was actually very useful.

Based on your very fluent English writing, and understanding of terms like, "authoritative connotation," I had assumed we were all on the same page.  But we're clearly not, so let me take a step back for a moment, and take back all the negative things I said in this thread - clearly we just weren't on the same page.  But I reserve the right to say them again

English is a stupid language.  I've said it a million times, and I'll take that to my grave.  I was recently helping a Brazilian friend write an artist statement, and there were several times where we had to change the wording to go against the rules of 'proper' English in order to make the sentence say what he really meant.  He had a bit where he wanted to say, "Now the birds sing free."  As in, not caged.  But since 'free' is an adverb, it should have said, "Now the birds sing freely."  Which is dumb, because it means that the birds are still in the cage - they just don't have a singing schedule anymore.

English is stupid.

In English, 'great' doesn't just mean extra-good.  It can also mean powerful or influential.  The example every English teacher uses is that Hitler was one of the greatest men of the 20th century, since everyone knows who he was, and he had an impact on countless lives and economies.

If you're asking what makes a great photographer(extra-good), then what you wrote is correct.  Following all the rules of photography will generally insure that your photos are considered to be very good by the people looking at them at the time they are made.

But most people reading this will think that 'great' means influential and important.  Most artists that were 'great' in this sense did not follow rules, which is why they stand out and why we remember them.  We know Ansel Adams because he was highly skilled and technical at a time when very few other photographers were.  We know Terry Richardson because he isn't highly skilled and technical, and right now most other photographers are.

When Duchamp created Nude Descending a Staircase and Fountain, people thought he was nuts.  Absolutely no 'extra-good' in that work - at least not to the general public of that time.  Huge controversy, even at the Armory Show, which was supposed to be all about supporting new and interesting work.

But by the second definition - influence - Duchamp was absolutely a great artist.  We can see now how important and influential his works were.

And I think that's part of the confusion.

If it helps any, 'great' usually means 'good' when it is used casually, as in 'Hitler was a great guy.'  It usually means 'influential' when used formally, as in 'Hitler was a great man.'

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:
[img]https://scontent-a-lga.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/l/t1/1601000_10152116959181107_1287915071_n.jpg[img]

What's a Great Photographer for you?

I know them when I see their work.  Can't explain otherwise.

I know, cop out.

Al Lock Photography wrote:

No one can really say for sure - are their musical instincts - maybe...

But it certainly wasn't just observation - the Beatles (and Hendrix) clearly incorporated experimentation, reasoning and discussion into how they created music.

perhaps they observed others and also observed themselves....

Zack Zoll wrote:
Based on your very fluent English writing, and understanding of terms like, "authoritative connotation," I had assumed we were all on the same page.  But we're clearly not, so let me take a step back for a moment, and take back all the negative things I said in this thread - clearly we just weren't on the same page.  But I reserve the right to say them again

English is a stupid language.  I've said it a million times, and I'll take that to my grave.  I was recently helping a Brazilian friend write an artist statement, and there were several times where we had to change the wording to go against the rules of 'proper' English in order to make the sentence say what he really meant.  He had a bit where he wanted to say, "Now the birds sing free."  As in, not caged.  But since 'free' is an adverb, it should have said, "Now the birds sing freely."  Which is dumb, because it means that the birds are still in the cage - they just don't have a singing schedule anymore.

English is stupid.

In English, 'great' doesn't just mean extra-good.  It can also mean powerful or influential.  The example every English teacher uses is that Hitler was one of the greatest men of the 20th century, since everyone knows who he was, and he had an impact on countless lives and economies.

If you're asking what makes a great photographer(extra-good), then what you wrote is correct.  Following all the rules of photography will generally insure that your photos are considered to be very good by the people looking at them at the time they are made.

But most people reading this will think that 'great' means influential and important.  Most artists that were 'great' in this sense did not follow rules, which is why they stand out and why we remember them.  We know Ansel Adams because he was highly skilled and technical at a time when very few other photographers were.  We know Terry Richardson because he isn't highly skilled and technical, and right now most other photographers are.

When Duchamp created Nude Descending a Staircase and Fountain, people thought he was nuts.  Absolutely no 'extra-good' in that work - at least not to the general public of that time.  Huge controversy, even at the Armory Show, which was supposed to be all about supporting new and interesting work.

But by the second definition - influence - Duchamp was absolutely a great artist.  We can see now how important and influential his works were.

And I think that's part of the confusion.

I'm glad you posted this.  It's what I alluded to, in part at least, when I said we first need to define great. 

I think it's also a difficult conversation to have because unless you're familiar with the canon, what are you going to refer to?  By this I don't mean "great = extra good" but great as in, your great grandchildren will be seeing his worked exhibited at MoMA.

And of course even there, educated observers can have wildly differing opinions.  For example, Bob Randall and I have divergent views when it comes to Gregory Crewdson.  There is no question that he is "great=extra good".  His work is exquisitely produced, both the large scale work that he uses huge teams to produce, as well as his more intimate work.  But is he Great?  I think he is; Bob thinks he sucks.  Only time will tell, but if I were a betting man, and I am, I'd put a few scheckles on Great. 

But if the majority of responders don't know who even the more famous producers of the canon are, how do you have that conversation?  And then, you have divergent backgrounds based on interest.  The academic will have a very different view than, say, a fashion photo editor.  I saw a list of the "100 Most Influential Photographers of All Time" compiled by a magazine editor.  It was largely quite good, but as he was predominately interested in fashion photography, people like Steichen and Stieglitz were not mentioned, which is simply inconceivable when discussing the transformation of photography from a method of mechanically reproducing an image into an actual art form. 

And then you have those who dismiss any form of valuation.  The "we're all special snowflakes crowd".  Most of the time, they suck - and yes, that's my opinion, but it's a relatively educated one.  The fact is that if we're talking about Great, then there are tastemakers involved, there are conventions involved, there is a history to be considered.  If we're just talking about great=really good.  Then it becomes far more subjective, I suppose.

And lastly, that works as a nice transition to "Rules" or, as evidenced by many here "OMG RULZZZZ!!@`1 I HAZ NONE!!!"...

I don't think Natalia is so wrong; rather, I think those who continually think that the "rules" are emphasized as something that must always be adhered to (a common thought among those who never went through an arts education).

Rules are how we learn.  Limiting someone so that they can master a particular skill is not only common, it is a preferred form of pedagogy.  That doesn't mean you never grow past that...  It's just a tool.  Invariably whenever I see some special snowflake rally against traditional methods of learning an art form (and this applies to most any, really) I go and look at their work and eight out of ten times it sucks.  The other two times I laugh because, whether they know it or not, they have applied them.  It is simply a learning tool, like practicing scales or arpeggios on an instrument.

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:

Giacomo Cirrincioni wrote:
I find, as I get older, that even when the "rules" are broken, it is only on the most fundamental levels, and usually they are simply applying a more sophisticated vocabulary and grammar

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:
Pretty much

I could not disagree more.

Apart from the fact that that sentence has very little logic and even less meaning.

First of all if something is broken and the most fundamental level it is pretty much thrown out.
So the rule is simply broken. That can be done to produce crap and to produce something the opposite of crap.

As far as using a more sophisticated vocabulary and grammar... that is just playing with words.
While there is the expression that a Photograph is worth a thousand words and photograph is not made up of words or grammar. It needs neither.

Riles are for those that are ruled, rules either by choice or oblivious to the fact that they are simply submitting to rules.

I have always taught that the "rule of thirds" is not a rule, but an easy way to obtain a "comfortable composition". I actually asked my students to not even refer to it as a rule, but simply a quick and easy technique.

Rather than teaching or enforcing rules I thought my students to use their head, instinct and above all their eyes..... the most important camera of them all. I taught them to absorb fine work they liked form their predecessors rather than to dissect them into assumed rules.

The Something Guy wrote:
Art dir can come up with a brilliant yet simple idea award winning and any number of photographers could answer the brief is this still a great photographer.

Personally?  I wouldn't really think of any commercial photography as "GREAT WORKS".  Perhaps some editorial work if it was the photographers vision.

So, a beauty shot by Avedon, no matter how well crafted, would not make the cut (for me).  However, the work he did on "The American West", would.

Now, as far as great meaning really good goes, sure...