Drew Smith Photography wrote:
A great photographer is somebody that takes great photographs.

Great photographs are images that provoke great emotion.

Great emotional responses to an image are subjective and personal.

Science disagrees

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:

Science disagrees

+1

Mikey McMichaels wrote:
It doesn't matter if his is better than anyone else's it's that he believes a student who sees that as something to aspire to needs to be guided to additional photographers.

MMDesign wrote:
That doesn't make it right does it?

Of course it does, that's why he's the teacher.  The student can surely think whatever he wants, but it's not the teachers job to simple respect "every special little snowflake".  It's his job to educate.

Just one more reason why it all went to shit with the decline of the French Academy.

Giacomo Cirrincioni wrote:
Of course it does, that's why he's the teacher.  The student can surely think whatever he wants, but it's not the teachers job to simple respect "every special little snowflake".  It's his job to educate.

Just one more reason why it all went to shit with the decline of the French Academy.

Are you inferring that I'm not right!!? I'm always right!! I'm a special old snowflake!!

MMDesign wrote:
While I'm not around herds of younger people like you are, the ones I am around are only familiar with the names that make the pop culture bits and bites. It's not just photographers either, it's like they have no history past 5 years.

This is true.  I find that they tend to only know recent material, or stuff that's old enough to be 'classic.'  I think the Internet is largely to blame for that, as they're able to access any information asap.  That means that they can just google TR or whomever, while in the past we would have been forced(forced!) to go buy a Vogue or an Art in America, and read the whole thing.  Or heaven forbid, go to the library and request a book.

But on the flip side, once they know how much stuff is out there ... hey, Internet

MMDesign wrote:
Next time toss Boris Smelov into the mix. I really like his work and would like to know more about him so if you'd just send along their paper...

I'll see if I can track down a book or two to photograph and add to my collection.  It's too late for me to assign something this semester, but I can at least send you a PDF.

MMDesign wrote:
And sorry, I do disagree with one point... it really does have to be black & white. 

Bah, even as a near-total BW shooter I know that isn't true

Zack Zoll wrote:
I'll see if I can track down a book or two to photograph and add to my collection.  It's too late for me to assign something this semester, but I can at least send you a PDF.

http://www.amazon.com/Boris-Smelov-Retr … ris+Smelov

Keep trying to talk myself into this one but when faced with explaining yet another book purchase to my wife, I always balk.

MMDesign wrote:
And sorry, I do disagree with one point... it really does have to be black & white. 

Zack Zoll wrote:
Bah, even as a near-total BW shooter I know that isn't true

We'll just agree to disagree. 

MMDesign wrote:
http://www.amazon.com/Boris-Smelov-Retr … ris+Smelov

Keep trying to talk myself into this one but when faced with explaining yet another book purchase to my wife, I always balk.

Well hey, that's a few bucks   I can see why you'd balk ... I have plenty of books that are worth that, but none of them that were that expensive new.  But then again, I don't normally buy retrospectives.

It looks like it's still in print, so I don't think it will be a problem to track one down.  But it will be a while, since I have a lot of grading to do.  Midterms are due

Zack Zoll wrote:

Well hey, that's a few bucks   I can see why you'd balk ... I have plenty of books that are worth that, but none of them that were that expensive new.  But then again, I don't normally buy retrospectives.

It looks like it's still in print, so I don't think it will be a problem to track one down.  But it will be a while, since I have a lot of grading to do.  Midterms are due

I have a few that cost double that when I bought them new. I also have a fair number that have appreciated ridiculously but I'll never sell them so it doesn't really matter... well, until I die and my daughter sells them. 

Drew Smith Photography wrote:
A great photographer is somebody that takes great photographs.

Great photographs are images that provoke great emotion.

Great emotional responses to an image are subjective and personal.

I've just been to the National Portrait Gallery to see the Bailey exhibition and it wasn't all that.
The images didn't evoke any great emotions.

The Something Guy wrote:

I've just been to the National Portrait Gallery to see the Bailey exhibition and it wasn't all that.
The images didn't evoke any great emotions.

then you and drew are in agreement.

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:

Science disagrees

Science??!  What does science have to do with a discussion of great photography?  Now we're really going off track.

As for the quoted comments by Drew Smith, I might agree that great photographs inspire ("provoke" is a loaded and limited verb here) strong emotions, and that's part of the definition I already gave above.  But to say such emotional responses are subjective and personal is at best a half-truth and at worst is bunk.  If this were entirely subjective, there would be no reason to attach a term like "great photography" to something.  It has to achieve some degree of consensus about its greatness or it isn't really great.  It just moves you and doesn't move me, or that kind of thing.  Read my earlier definition and note about this notion of subjectivity.

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:
Science disagrees

But... science isn't qualified to offer expertise on everything, certainly not art. Mystery is, to me, the defining element of creative acts and science is the practice of removing mystery. The two have overlaps but I wouldn't go to science for trusted expertise in art any more than I'd commission an artist to engineer a jet engine.

p.s. haven't grown out of posting things in your classic provocative format I see   

TJ Photo wrote:

Science??!  What does science have to do with a discussion of great photography?  Now we're really going off track.

Oh for fucks sake....

TJ Photo wrote:
Science??!  What does science have to do with a discussion of great photography?  Now we're really going off track.

If I may make another analogy ...

One doesn't need to be a scientist to be a good cook, or a good baker.  Science dictates that certain sugary foods like onions will caramelize when cooked, or certain cuts of meat will become more or less tender as they are cooked longer.  A biologist may know which cuts of meat to cook for how long based on fat content, tendons, bones, etc. without having ever cooked them before.  But a chef does not need to be a biologist; he draws on experience, and uses knowledge of similar ingredients. Bison is leaner than beef, so don't cook it so long.  Leeks are like onions but more leafy, so they won't caramelize as much.

Any form of cooking with heat is science.  One doesn't need to understand all of it though - just the end result.

Similarly, photography is very much science, although you don't need to understand the whole of it; just the end results.

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

Oh for fucks sake....

And you mean exactly what by that vulgar rejoinder?

Zack Zoll wrote:

If I may make another analogy ...

One doesn't need to be a scientist to be a good cook, or a good baker.  Science dictates that certain sugary foods like onions will caramelize when cooked, or certain cuts of meat will become more or less tender as they are cooked longer.  A biologist may know which cuts of meat to cook for how long based on fat content, tendons, bones, etc. without having ever cooked them before.  But a chef does not need to be a biologist; he draws on experience, and uses knowledge of similar ingredients. Bison is leaner than beef, so don't cook it so long.  Leeks are like onions but more leafy, so they won't caramelize as much.

Any form of cooking with heat is science.  One doesn't need to understand all of it though - just the end result.

Similarly, photography is very much science, although you don't need to understand the whole of it; just the end results.

That's an extremely loose definition of science, and a fairly loose analogy between cooking and photography.  I don't need to know how light is converted to dots on film or pixels on a sensor to make great photography. I DO have to be able to see, imagine and be creative with the tools I use to express myself. I may be taking advantage of discoveries about how to capture objects described by light in a mechanism someone invented or retooled, but that says nothing about the actual image I create.  This reference to science is another way of arguing that great photography is about technical skill or the application of technical principles, which is just what I've been arguing is not the case.

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

then you and drew are in agreement.

Yep, in comparison Baileys portraits compared to Arnold Newman then Bailey ain't all that.

TJ Photo wrote:

That's an extremely loose definition of science, and a fairly loose analogy between cooking and photography.  I don't need to know how light is converted to dots on film or pixels on a sensor to make great photography. I DO have to be able to see, imagine and be creative with the tools I use to express myself. I may be taking advantage of discoveries about how to capture objects described by light in a mechanism someone invented or retooled, but that says nothing about the actual image I create.  This reference to science is another way of arguing that great photography is about technical skill or the application of technical principles, which is just what I've been arguing is not the case.

I never said you need to know science to make pictures.

Read the post I was disagreeing with.

"Beautiful" creates a reaction in the brain - several parts of the brain. Some relate to objective some relate to the subjective.

It's not all emotions and personal.

This is not my opinion is a fact.

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:

I never said you need to know science to make pictures.

Read the post I was disagreeing with.

"Beautiful" creates a reaction in the brain - several parts of the brain. Some relate to objective some relate to the subjective.

It's not all emotions and personal.

This is not my opinion is a fact.

' "Beautiful" creates a reaction in the brain ' would you say Don Mccullin's images are beautiful ?

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:
"Beautiful" creates a reaction in the brain - several parts of the brain. Some relate to objective some relate to the subjective.

This is not my opinion is a fact.

Yes, but your standards of what qualifies as "Beautiful" ARE opinions, not facts.

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:
I never said you need to know science to make pictures.

Read the post I was disagreeing with.

"Beautiful" creates a reaction in the brain - several parts of the brain. Some relate to objective some relate to the subjective.

It's not all emotions and personal.

This is not my opinion is a fact.

On some level everything is a chemical reaction in the brain.

Falling in love. Chemical reaction. Desire to stay with your partner for at least 18-24 months. Chemical reaction in the brain. Programmed to ensure stability in the relationship until fertilisation, incubation and early months or raising offspring. Fact.

The expectation of the dopamine and desire for serotonin and oxytocin are powerful motivators. Fact.

But surely you do not want to boil love, sex, and art down to the predicable secretion of certain chemicals in the body, do you?

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:
"Beautiful" creates a reaction in the brain - several parts of the brain. Some relate to objective some relate to the subjective.

This is not my opinion is a fact.

4 R D wrote:
Yes, but your standards of what qualifies as "Beautiful" ARE opinions, not facts.

Natalia's point, if I may be so bold as to speak for her, I'm sure she'll correct me if I'm wrong, is that when we aggregate "beauty" we find that the foundations for it are fairly basic, and not too dissimilar across cultures or time.  The superficialities laid upon that basic structure can vary quite a bit due to both forces (for example, the body image of what a beautiful woman looks like) but the basis remains the same.  This has tremendous application in the commercial world where subconscious perceptions by the masses are extremely important. We see this played out everyday in magazine, television, films - we even see how it effects average people when it comes to hiring, dating, financial compensation, school admissions, etc.

Bobby C wrote:
Note: Post-modern photography "breaks" or does not adhere to all the rules of ' a great photographer" of the OP.

Natalia is talking about that which is "beautiful."  Granted, in a modern (or better stated post-modern) sense, that is a somewhat limited view.  I agree that beauty is not a function of post-modernism, which is just one of the myriad of reasons I am not a post-modernist, although I do have an appreciation for quite a bit of it.  Having sat on more than one panel with post-modernist artists, I can tell you that conventional forms of beauty are not only discouraged, they are often vilified. 

This is fine for the academic circles in which post-modern art is celebrated.  It is also why, to further make Natalia's case, it is quite often rejected by the masses.

Giacomo Cirrincioni wrote:

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:
"Beautiful" creates a reaction in the brain - several parts of the brain. Some relate to objective some relate to the subjective.

This is not my opinion is a fact.

4 R D wrote:
Yes, but your standards of what qualifies as "Beautiful" ARE opinions, not facts.

Natalia's point, if I may be so bold as to speak for her, I'm sure she'll correct me if I'm wrong, is that when we aggregate "beauty" we find that the foundations for it are fairly basic, and not too dissimilar across cultures or time.  The superficialities laid upon that basic structure can vary quite a bit due to both forces (for example, the body image of what a beautiful woman looks like) but the basis remains the same.  This has tremendous application in the commercial world where subconscious perceptions by the masses are extremely important. We see this played out everyday in magazine, television, films - we even see how it effects average people when it comes to hiring, dating, financial compensation, school admissions, etc.


Natalia is talking about that which is "beautiful."  Granted, in a modern (or better stated post-modern) sense, that is a somewhat limited view.  I agree that beauty is not a function of post-modernism, which is just one of the myriad of reasons I am not a post-modernist, although I do have an appreciation for quite a bit of it.  Having sat on more than one panel with post-modernist artists, I can tell you that conventional forms of beauty are not only discouraged, they are often vilified. 

This is fine for the academic circles in which post-modern art is celebrated.  It is also why, to further make Natalia's case, it is quite often rejected by the masses.

There is no direct correlation between "Beautiful" -whatever that means for any of us- and a "Great image" or a "Great photographer" -whatever that means for any us-. Some great photographers create beautiful images, but a beautiful image does not make a great photo, let alone a great photographer.

Natalia is talking about principles that are often associated with "great photographers", but in doing so she is establishing a fallacious correlation between them. Cum hoc ergo propter hoc, they call it.

Furthermore, her post suggests that in order to achieve "greatness", one has to meet certain standards. I would say that "great photography" raises, breaks or creates new standards.

MMDesign wrote:

Explain to me how Bresson "created" all of those photographs.

He spent lots of time waiting for the image he knew would happen. The creation is not a literal building of everything in front of the camera, but finding a framing and watching/adjusting angles or even photographing it on more than one occasion refining his perspective until the result was right.

Zack Zoll wrote:

MMDesign wrote:
My list of "great" photographers contains very, very few who shoot color.

Agreed, and most of the ones that do are contemporary - at least on my list.


'Getting used to something' means that once it wasn't there, and then it was.  Can you explain to me how one can 'get used to the rule of thirds' if it was never a 'new' rule?

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.

The term "rule of thirds" should be banned. It's the Golden Ratio and for photography shouldn't be expressed as a number, but as a description between two lines.

_____|_______


The ratio of the shorter line to the longer line is the same ratio as the longer line to the whole. That's what makes it special.


1/3 is 1/2 of 2/3, and of course 2/3 is 2/3 of the whole. It's a really specific nudge to get that spot between 1/2 and 1/3.

Giacomo Cirrincioni wrote:
Natalia's point, if I may be so bold as to speak for her, I'm sure she'll correct me if I'm wrong, is that when we aggregate "beauty" we find that the foundations for it are fairly basic, and not too dissimilar across cultures or time.  The superficialities laid upon that basic structure can vary quite a bit due to both forces (for example, the body image of what a beautiful woman looks like) but the basis remains the same.

Define those basics, because my experience has been that even the basics can vary DRAMATICALLY across cultures....

Zack Zoll wrote:
If I may make another analogy ...

One doesn't need to be a scientist to be a good cook, or a good baker.  Science dictates that certain sugary foods like onions will caramelize when cooked, or certain cuts of meat will become more or less tender as they are cooked longer.  A biologist may know which cuts of meat to cook for how long based on fat content, tendons, bones, etc. without having ever cooked them before.  But a chef does not need to be a biologist; he draws on experience, and uses knowledge of similar ingredients. Bison is leaner than beef, so don't cook it so long.  Leeks are like onions but more leafy, so they won't caramelize as much.

Any form of cooking with heat is science.  One doesn't need to understand all of it though - just the end result.

Similarly, photography is very much science, although you don't need to understand the whole of it; just the end results.

TJ Photo wrote:
That's an extremely loose definition of science, and a fairly loose analogy between cooking and photography.  I don't need to know how light is converted to dots on film or pixels on a sensor to make great photography.

It's not a loose definition of science at all.  It's a loose analogy, granted; but biology is about understanding what makes tissue and various body parts work.  A biologist would know that the liver filters toxins, so it should be soaked in a weak acid to leech out uric acid before cooking.  A chef is trained to soak it in milk.  The chef may not know that he's doing it because milk is slightly acidic; just that that's how liver is prepared.  As you say, he doesn't need to know all of the science in
order to properly apply it.

TJ Photo wrote:
This reference to science is another way of arguing that great photography is about technical skill or the application of technical principles, which is just what I've been arguing is not the case.

If you've read some of my other posts on this board, you would know that is absolutely not my opinion.  Please refrain from making assumptions about my beliefs and preferences.

My point is that photography is an inherently technical and scientific medium.  Many photographers chose to instead use it to produce art, but that does not mean that it does not have a scientific base.  As I say, the chef is not a scientist; but there is science going on his his kitchen, and he is unknowingly applying scientific principles for a non-scientific purpose.

Zack Zoll wrote:
'Getting used to something' means that once it wasn't there, and then it was.  Can you explain to me how one can 'get used to the rule of thirds' if it was never a 'new' rule?

Mikey McMichaels wrote:
The term "rule of thirds" should be banned. It's the Golden Ratio and for photography shouldn't be expressed as a number, but as a description between two lines.

Regardless of which one is better, the fact is that the art-creating world used to ascribe to one 'absolute' rule, and now they ascribe to another.

Times change, and the old rules get swept under the rug as if they had never existed.

Al Lock Photography wrote:

Define those basics, because my experience has been that even the basics can vary DRAMATICALLY across cultures....

Depends on how broad you want to go.

"A beautiful woman" is attractive to every culture.  Not every culture will agree on which women are beautiful, but there's nobody that doesn't like "a beautiful woman."

Zack Zoll wrote:

Depends on how broad you want to go.

"A beautiful woman" is attractive to every culture.  Not every culture will agree on which women are beautiful, but there's nobody that doesn't like "a beautiful woman."

That doesn't really make sense....

A woman who may be considered "beautiful" to you or I may not be considered beautiful in another culture - even her own culture. As an example, there are a couple of women who show in my portfolio who I think (I expect most of the people on MM think) are very beautiful who are not considered beautiful at all in their own nation.

Al Lock Photography wrote:

Define those basics, because my experience has been that even the basics can vary DRAMATICALLY across cultures....

Color theory
Leading lines, lines of convergence and divergence
Symmetry and asymmetry and the relationship between the two
How we view the use of negative space
Basic rules of composition, such as the Golden ratio or the rule of thirds

To get back to the example of beauty and a woman, it would be foolish to say that throughout societies, cultures or the ages everybody thinks the same type of woman is beautiful. I would never argue that. Hell, I can't even agree with my friends on what makes a woman beautiful or a man for that matter.  But symmetry (in so far as a person can actually be symmetrical) is valued by almost all cultures everywhere on the planet and always has been.

Again, the greatest problem with this thread is that we have many people talking at cross purposes.  What Natalia is referring to has to do with definitions of classical beauty, this seems quite natural given her background in perspective.

Zack Zoll wrote:
Depends on how broad you want to go.

"A beautiful woman" is attractive to every culture.  Not every culture will agree on which women are beautiful, but there's nobody that doesn't like "a beautiful woman."

Al Lock Photography wrote:
That doesn't really make sense....

A woman who may be considered "beautiful" to you or I may not be considered beautiful in another culture - even her own culture. As an example, there are a couple of women who show in my portfolio who I think (I expect most of the people on MM think) are very beautiful who are not considered beautiful at all in their own nation.

Al, you're reading too deeply into it, and getting way too specific.  Do you like beautiful women?  I'm not asking you to define one ... I'm just asking if you do.

I'm guessing you do.  I'm also guessing that if you ask that question across cultures, almost everyone will say yes.

So beautiful women are a "universal" idea.  Reubens was painting beautiful women.  We may not think they were now, but back then - hubba hubba.

Like I said ... if you go broad enough, almost every idea of beauty becomes universal.  Ruin porn becomes synonymous with memory and nostalgia, etc.

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:

Science disagrees

What science?

Fred Greissing wrote:

What science?

Neuroscience

Giacomo Cirrincioni wrote:

Color theory
Leading lines, lines of convergence and divergence
Symmetry and asymmetry and the relationship between the two
How we view the use of negative space
Basic rules of composition, such as the Golden ratio or the rule of thirds

To get back to the example of beauty and a woman, it would be foolish to say that throughout societies, cultures or the ages everybody thinks the same type of woman is beautiful. I would never argue that. Hell, I can't even agree with my friends on what makes a woman beautiful or a man for that matter.  But symmetry (in so far as a person can actually be symmetrical) is valued by almost all cultures everywhere on the planet and always has been.

Again, the greatest problem with this thread is that we have many people talking at cross purposes.  What Natalia is referring to has to do with definitions of classical beauty, this seems quite natural given her background in perspective.

Pretty much, yes

But it's not beautiful, or beauty - I used the word beauty because its commonly accepted and I referenced Kant.

Positive/negative creating reaction images would be maybe more accurate?

But maybe is better if I just said something related to magic and the soul of a picture then every idiot failed photographer would agree

Giacomo Cirrincioni wrote:
Color theory
Leading lines, lines of convergence and divergence
Symmetry and asymmetry and the relationship between the two
How we view the use of negative space
Basic rules of composition, such as the Golden ratio or the rule of thirds

To get back to the example of beauty and a woman, it would be foolish to say that throughout societies, cultures or the ages everybody thinks the same type of woman is beautiful. I would never argue that. Hell, I can't even agree with my friends on what makes a woman beautiful or a man for that matter.  But symmetry (in so far as a person can actually be symmetrical) is valued by almost all cultures everywhere on the planet and always has been.

Again, the greatest problem with this thread is that we have many people talking at cross purposes.  What Natalia is referring to has to do with definitions of classical beauty, this seems quite natural given her background in perspective.

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:
Pretty much, yes

But it's not beautiful, or beauty - I used the word beauty because its commonly accepted and I referenced Kant.

Positive/negative creating reaction images would be maybe more accurate?

But maybe is better if I just said something related to magic and the soul of a picture then every idiot failed photographer would agree

No, here they would still argue.  Then Don would chime in and say that if you couldn't quantify it on a chart, it doesn't exist...  lol

I spoke on a panel about "Beauty" at Art Chicago a few years back. It was all about the Kant concept (essentially) and how I know you to be considering it, not about "pretty".  Again, it was largely framed in a post-modern paradigm, but there was still a lot we could agree on.

Myself, I love the juxtaposition of beauty and controversy.  Andres Serrano's "Piss Christ" is a good example of this.  He takes a subject matter that is completely and utterly offensive on the most basic of levels to many, many people; yet he creates an image that is, aesthetically, strikingly beautiful.  It's like a car wreck that you can't turn away from.  A "Black Dahlia" if you will. 

Another good example, in a different vein is Mapplethorpe.  I bring him up because so much of the discussion panels, including the one I was on, was galleristas and curators, bemoaning the fact that so many new artists simply have lost the plot when it comes to print making.  Anyway, while some of his work may have been radically controversial at the time, his technique was flawless and his prints were, and are, spectacular.  In fact, they are well made, that even if a viewer is repulsed by the subject matter, they are still drawn into the print. 

This juxtaposition, by both artists, creates a situation where the viewer is almost forced to consider the work, even if they would rather dismiss it. 

Beauty, I argued, should exist in all works of art; however, we should not be so limiting in our understanding of it.  Something can be what we traditionally think of beautiful, but something can also be beautifully morbid, beautifully horrific, beautifully sad, beautifully surreal, beautifully morose...