Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/06/03
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Jeff Moore wrote: > > At 02 Jun 1998 14:12:34 -0400, Paul Chefurka <pchefurk@Newbridge.COM> wrote: > > > And of course St. Ansel proved that landscapes can be powerful, > > although I must admit I still can't say why. How did his pictures > > of Half-Dome and El Capitan transcend the merely spectacular (which > > they would have been in a lesser photographer's hands) and become > > powerful (which they indisputably are)? > > Indisputably? > > -Jeff Moore <jbm@instinet.com> I realized that was a bad choice of thoughts after I posted it. Of course it's disputable. To me they're powerful, others may have different criteria. This leads to a related question that occurred to me as I read some of the other responses on this thread. My interpretation of the word "powerful" is that a photo has a stong emotional or philosophical impact on the individual viewing it. In other words, it is possible for me to consider a photograph to be powerful even though very few others may feel that. Other responses have emphasized the universal impact of a picture's message. So, is it legitimate to call a picture powerful if its power is limited to a small audience? If not, why not? Paul Chefurka