Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/07/09
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]My gutfeeling and some literature experience (in a non-academical setting) gave me this set of parameters to determine the quality of one's work: For me there a 3 factors determining the quality of a photograph ( also painting/sculpture/...) From less important to most important): 1) technical: use of color or not, color schemes, image composition, exposure, etc. Lots of literature about those subjects, since it's pretty objective matter. Even about color- and image composition. 2) originality: has it been done before? Ifo subject, or the interpretation of it. A difficult one, since the appreciation of originality depends largely on the viewer's knowledge about existing work. Thus leading to different appreciations by different people. And ongoing debates about "Yes, but it makes me think of the work of ..." 3) signature: is the photographer's look on the above a genuine one, and does it differ in all his work from other's signatures. It's about honesty and personality. There are different combinations possible, which lead to a qualification system for artwork: top: it has a signature, it's original, and it's technically perfect it has a signature, it's original, but not technically perfect grey zone: it has a signature, it's not original, it's technically perfect it has no signature, it's original, it's technically perfect it has a signature, it's not original, it's not technically perfect it has no signature, it's original, it's not technically perfect then into the lower parts of appreciation: no signature, not original, technically perfect no signature, not original, not technically perfect It might be a simplistic way of looking at things, but for me it works and helps. Philippe Op 8-jul-06, om 21:38 heeft Scott McLoughlin het volgende geschreven: > Subject line pretty much says it all. > > I surmise that most people have visceral pos/neg reactions > to different styles of photograph. So one may well like > HCB and Diane Arbus and Helmut Newton, but not like, > say, Brassai and Eggleston. Just examples, but visceral > reactions between individuals are obviously not identical. > > While visceral reactions are often good guides, most have > the experience that there are tastes that take, and are perhaps > worth, a bit of acquiring. Think Scotch, or raw oysters or > even the operas of Benjamin Britten - whatever, pick your > poison. And of course, no guarantee that one will aquire any > such taste in particular. > > So, should one wish to, how to go about aquiring a taste for, > or at least appreciating the aesthetic merits of, a new style > of photography, or an individual's work? > A friend recommended Adam's "Beauty in Photography." > While the essays are lovely, though, I didn't find that they > addressed this issue head on. > > Any pointers to a good work on "photography appreciation?" > > Music appreciation seems pretty mature. I have a few books > on Jazz music that, say, might help me better appreciate the > World Saxaphone Quartet or Coltrane's later recordings. How > about photographs? > > Scott > > -- > Pics @ http://www.adrenaline.com/snaps > Leica M6TTL, Bessa R, Nikon FM3a, Nikon D70, Rollei AFM35 > (Jihad Sigint NSA FBI Patriot Act) > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >