Hertz van Rental
We're supposed to post photos?
I was not positing a scale of photographic success or value, only pointing out that there are four possible permutations in the photographer/viewer relationship.Archangel said:So if aesthetics....i.e a colourful landcape shot.... is passive photography because there is no other intended meaning, and the response is passive, does this make it less successful than the example of Gibson's work for instance?........ does it even make it successful art?...... this is where the aesthetic = passive rule doesn't seem to work.
In which case maybe passive simply means 'no artistic act intended'..... or recieved for that matter........ ie. not meant to be particularly 'aesthetic' or to have an intended 'message'.
This gives some base levels for critical appraisal - remembering that criticism is often non-judgmental.
You could use the four permutations as four axes on a graph and so plot the relative positions of different types of image. More in the spirit of classification than anything else.
I use the terms active and passive to describe the behaviour or approach of the photographer/viewer.
A passive viewer would be one who makes no effort to engage with an image other than at the level of eye candy. You could use the term uncritical if you wish, but I think that one too loaded.
In the 70's and 80's the favourite descriptor was informed/uninformed. I don't like that one either.
Any one who has studied Art/Art History or something similar will appreciate that one has to actually do some work when looking at an image if one is to extract the maximum information (and thus make critical judgments) from it.
A similar argument pertains for the terms passive and active as applied to the photographer.
Of course in all cases there are differing degrees of activness and passivity.
In terms of success different rules apply depending upon your criteria.
A random snap might hit lucky and catch a landscape right. The image would be nothing more than bland eye candy - but it may well appeal to a large number of people and give them pleasure. This would count as a successful picture viewed from that point.
The photographer might have been trying to achieve something else entirely and so be dissatisfied with it, so from that PoV it is unsuccessful.
An Art image panned by the critics may still be deemed a success by the photographer.
Defining an image as successful or unsuccessful is a very subjective act.
To be objective about it one has to define the intention and intended use first and then use these definitions to gauge its level of success.
It can be seen that the happy snapper who's only aim is to get a nice picture has a higher chance of success than a photographer who is trying to convey a specific and subtle message. And this is borne out by observation.