What Makes a Shot Exceptional?
jsedlak
Registered Users Posts: 487 Major grins
This is a serious question that I would like responses to so please bare with me.
I have been taking a History of Photography course this semester (just the final exam left) and it has been really helpful. We covered famous photographs and photographers from the 1830s all the way up to the 1980s and some current work.
After seeing so many photographs both new and old I have a much larger appreciation for each shot. If you were to take many of the earlier shots in our current context, most people would hate them. I can see many people writing them off as poorly lit shots, boring backgrounds; snapshots that should never be shown again. At least this is an exaggerated version of what goes on in the many subforums here.
And I understand why now. I constantly am asking myself if everything has been done, what is left to do? What makes a shot so exceptional? What makes a shot stand out? The standard replies of a person having a certain past and the shot reminding them of it is understandable. The real question is there some objectional way to say why a particular photo is better than others?
You have to realize that I am asking this after seeing every type of shot be made famous. Blurry shots of The Flatiron done by Steichen were important because of the pictorialist movement, where photos were done to look like paintings. Nowadays some of these shots would just be called OOF. What about documentation based work? Photos of presidents, of culture like Dorothea Lange and Jacob Riis who photographed the poor side of society. Were these otherwise standardized shots beautiful? What about Cindy Sherman's work? Here was a woman who dressed up and took shots of herself. Or Egelston, who essentially made color photography accepted as art.
Putting each photograph or photographer in the context of their time makes it clear why they or their work is famous. They innovated, brought about change, revolutionized, et cetera. But in this day and age, all of this has been done. We have seen everything, or at least it is easy to assume we have. We have been through documentation, pictorialism, postmodernism, surrealism, and on and on. The question remains, what makes a photograph exceptional? What makes it stand out above the rest? What in a photograph can you point to and say that is why it is better than the rest? What do you look for?
Thoughts? Comments? (This is not homework, just something that has been in my mind as my classmates have regarded most of the work as boring snapshots)
---
Not to corrupt answers but for me it really doesn't matter. There are shots that turn me off definately, but I find that it is due to personal tastes. For instance I find much of the work to come out of the 1980's to be way over the top.
In general, it doesn't matter how a shot is composed, how out of focus it is or how poorly lit the scene is. There is a reason the photographer chose to keep the photo and a reason he or she is showing it. Thus I look at each photo as if it has some purpose for existing. I suppose it is a postmodernist way of looking at art despite me disagreeing with the movement's notion that placing art in its own context is not a new concept.
I suppose it is why I enjoy Friedlander's and Eggleston's work so much. To many they seem like snapshots at best but to me their is always something more. I feel as though the shots are begging for me to peel away the layers to find something.
I have been taking a History of Photography course this semester (just the final exam left) and it has been really helpful. We covered famous photographs and photographers from the 1830s all the way up to the 1980s and some current work.
After seeing so many photographs both new and old I have a much larger appreciation for each shot. If you were to take many of the earlier shots in our current context, most people would hate them. I can see many people writing them off as poorly lit shots, boring backgrounds; snapshots that should never be shown again. At least this is an exaggerated version of what goes on in the many subforums here.
And I understand why now. I constantly am asking myself if everything has been done, what is left to do? What makes a shot so exceptional? What makes a shot stand out? The standard replies of a person having a certain past and the shot reminding them of it is understandable. The real question is there some objectional way to say why a particular photo is better than others?
You have to realize that I am asking this after seeing every type of shot be made famous. Blurry shots of The Flatiron done by Steichen were important because of the pictorialist movement, where photos were done to look like paintings. Nowadays some of these shots would just be called OOF. What about documentation based work? Photos of presidents, of culture like Dorothea Lange and Jacob Riis who photographed the poor side of society. Were these otherwise standardized shots beautiful? What about Cindy Sherman's work? Here was a woman who dressed up and took shots of herself. Or Egelston, who essentially made color photography accepted as art.
Putting each photograph or photographer in the context of their time makes it clear why they or their work is famous. They innovated, brought about change, revolutionized, et cetera. But in this day and age, all of this has been done. We have seen everything, or at least it is easy to assume we have. We have been through documentation, pictorialism, postmodernism, surrealism, and on and on. The question remains, what makes a photograph exceptional? What makes it stand out above the rest? What in a photograph can you point to and say that is why it is better than the rest? What do you look for?
Thoughts? Comments? (This is not homework, just something that has been in my mind as my classmates have regarded most of the work as boring snapshots)
---
Not to corrupt answers but for me it really doesn't matter. There are shots that turn me off definately, but I find that it is due to personal tastes. For instance I find much of the work to come out of the 1980's to be way over the top.
In general, it doesn't matter how a shot is composed, how out of focus it is or how poorly lit the scene is. There is a reason the photographer chose to keep the photo and a reason he or she is showing it. Thus I look at each photo as if it has some purpose for existing. I suppose it is a postmodernist way of looking at art despite me disagreeing with the movement's notion that placing art in its own context is not a new concept.
I suppose it is why I enjoy Friedlander's and Eggleston's work so much. To many they seem like snapshots at best but to me their is always something more. I feel as though the shots are begging for me to peel away the layers to find something.
0
Comments
For me art is anything that causes a reaction within me. That could be a piece of fruit, a picture, a fly reel, a sculpture, a song or a slam dunk. Art is a personal experience that you create yourself. Which is why I don't value art critic's opinions much. I have to have the experience myself.
For most of your classmates the photography wasn't art. Just the drudgery of another class. But it sounds like that for you it was. (Good for you!) In fact it sounds like you may have discovered a whole new place to play and explore.
One more... I was wandering through Barnes & Noble and I picked up a copy of "The Photography Book" by Phaidon press and leafed through it. Then went back to the beginning and looked again. And then again... By the time I walked away from the book I was shaking. The images were that intense.
The Photography Book is a short bio and representative picture from 500 different photographers. It seems like a straight forward book. Nothing special. But it was almost too much to take all at once.
Having said all that I haven't answered your question. It's hard to tell what will make an exceptional picture, but you know it when you see it.
Any art involves three things:
1. Intention
2. How effectively that intention comes across (does it hit you in the face, or do you have to look at it for a while to figure out what's going on)
3. The technical proficiency of the work
The greatest art seems to capture all three. Good art can be widely recognized with just the first two. With photography, intention can be extended to include "capture of the intended moment" since there is a timing component.
Beginners can create striking work with just the first two, but they may not be clear on how to make that magic happen over and over. Once you reach #3, you can repeat the magic. But if you put #3 first, it will be all technical and no emotion.
one word: perception
you didn't ask about art but art is also completely subjective.
back to perception: if a photo contains elements or people one finds interesting or if the image captures an event of some significance and of importance to an individual or to society (think war correspondent PJ work) then you have the makings of exceptionalism.
my $.02
Moderator of: Location, Location, Location , Mind Your Own Business & Other Cool Shots
Comments and constructive criticism always welcome.
www.mikejulianaphotography.com
Facebook
I think it depends on person who is looking at a picture. Some of my friends praised the newly framed Black and white picture hanging in my living room some just ignored it as a pathetic joke. I usually love photos that force me to think about something with strong meaning in it.
My Gallery