Bad Photography?

[bakuretsu]

I waxed philosophical about this in my blog a little while ago after witnessing a similar debate to this one occur on Usenet. Fundamentally, whether a particular photograph is "good" or "bad," and whether any purported piece of art is or isn't art is completely up to the viewer to decide.

There are famous works of art that some people may see absolutely no value in, and likewise there are "flat," "sooty" prints that others may value greatly. The most wonderful thing about art, and hence photography, is its ability to accommodate everyone.

http://www.singleservingphoto.com/2007/06/26/photography-whats-the-point

 

[Hertz van Rental]

that is probably still one of the most narrowminded things i've ever read. ...and quite snobbish too.

Apparently you do not understand the concept of humour.

 

[JC1220]

There is a big disconnect between great photography and artistic photography. True, almost anyone can show some artistic talent, but are they Artists? No. Are they photographers, almost always, No. Owning a camera is not a priori to being a photographer or an artist. Just because one can golf, or drive a car only makes you someone who golfs or drives in the most simplest of terms. Unless you consider photography your most important life concern, you are not a photographer, same goes for being an Artist.



The "art" world and general public has been so dumbed down to accept anyone who picks up the tools of certain medium, makes one a painter, photographer, sculptor, etc. It is more than just "in the eye of the beholder" there are higher standards to uphold and answer too, curators, greats of the past, great contemporaries, history. Understanding how to view art is critical, your experience in doing so and maturity level in viewing is critical in understanding what you are viewing, that is a big reason why you may consider something that is junk, good and others will dismiss it. Perhaps in your world everyone craps happy puppies and barfs rainbows, sorry, that does not make one an artists in a particular medium, and perhaps why one would think this a pointless arguement. A true artist is never concerned about making art.

"So why bother about art - a word so abused it is almost obsolete."
Edward Weston, 1930

 

[Alex_B]

Unless you consider photography your most important life concern, you are not a photographer, same goes for being an Artist.

I totally disagree here, I know counterexamples ... great artists, who value other things in life higher than what they produce on the field of arts, and I know people who are obsessed by what they or others consider arts, but still they are no great artists ... they lead unhealthy lives though.

I agree with some of your other points though.

 

[TheLostPhotographer]

What happened? A thread about 'Bad Photography?' becomes a thread about Art.

Are you all inferring that lots of bad photography masquerades as 'good' art?

 

[JC1220]

Sorry about that:greenpbl:

and, yes I'll agree with that last statment!

 

[Mike_E]

Here we go with the soup cans again!

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

 

[sabbath999]

What is bad photography and why?

I guess I must be a bad person or something, but I guess I just don't care what it is and/or why.

IMHO you take an image. It works, or it doesn't. It is what it is.

I know what I like when I see it, and I am sure y'all do too. What works for me may not work for you, but that is OK.

 

[Chronicle]

I think not, for one most of his prints are not soot and chaulk, second he was part of the pictorial movement late in his life, although some would debate this, pictorial photography lead to more bad art. Third, his intent was to document for educational purposes which he did for many years, but I would say he did not grow as a photographer, his recognition as a "photographer" was a relitively short period of time. To be considered among the greats they must expand ones world over a long and sustained period, more than just a decade, and that growth must be evident in thier work.

Well, I think you are right, I disregarded the sooty and focused on the flat and unemotional comments. The primary reason I mentioned him is that his intent was not to create art, yet for me at least, he created art. Illustrating that the intent of the creator is of secondary importance when weighed against the opinion of the viewer (probably cause they are the folks with the money )........ And the hallways leading to the wealthy bathrooms lived happily ever after, as did the people who sold the pictures that hung there.

But if you care to actually read what it says you will see that the images are photogravure prints and not photographs.

I can't help but get this feeling that you have spent an inordinate amount of time with college students.;