Why do I like it - one of the HARDEST questions in photography and critique!

[Vtec44]

There are no rules, only guidelines

 

[Derrel]

...."gee, I'm going to create a photo that Derrel likes by finding a model that resembles his niece and posing it in his favorite vacation setting and she'll be eating his favorite candy bar while wearing a sweater that matches one he gave his niece for Christmas")."

Joe....start here...

Lizzie_faux pencil drawing.jpg

 

[Derrel]

Lots of people like to say "there are no rules" when it comes to art. I think that's wrong. and I think that also goes to the heart of "why I like it" when it comes to a particular photo.

SNIP>>>

Composition rules don't exist b/c some ancient group of artists decided this is how it must be and the rest of us just need to accept it. They describe how humans (most humans) react to particular visual and spatial arrangements and color combinations."

People who have studied fine art at the university level know that what was said above is true. There's even a word used to describe the concept that most people actually agree upon standards and meanings and interpretations of things: intersubjectivity.

Many folks who have never taken an art class, a drawing class, or a design class are fond, very fond, of proclaiming that "Art is entirely subjective." Sorry, but NO, that is not true at all. Art is most definitely not "entirely subjective". Stating that art is "entirely subjective" shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how art, and design, and compositon actually work, and shows an unawareness of the fact that art, design, and composition have very well-understood concepts, meanings, and significances. Art is intersubjective in its nature.

intersubjective
adjective in·ter·sub·jec·tive \ˌin-tər-səb-ˈjek-tiv\
Definition of intersubjective

1. 1: involving or occurring between separate conscious minds <intersubjective communication>
   
   

 

[Vtec44]

<-- Graduated with a Bachelor of Arts. Painting, drawing, digital art, art history, and all the fundamentals. I learned most of the lines, compositions, colors, and lighting in all the painting classes. Strangely, I learned how and when to break all the fundamental guidelines in my life drawing classes. My professor encouraged us to simplify and be free, very enlightening concept.

 

[Derrel]

<-- Graduated with a Bachelor of Arts. Painting, drawing, digital art, art history, and all the fundamentals. I learned most of the lines, compositions, colors, and lighting in all the painting classes. Strangely, I learned how and when to break all the fundamental guidelines in my life drawing classes. My professor encouraged us to simplify and be free, very enlightening concept.

So that means you've got a good understanding of the elements and principles of design; you have actually STUDIED something and learned some of the many fundamentals that make up the visual arts--so that education and study and learning and practice and understanding of fine art history, theory, and fundamentals puts you ahead of 99.9% of people who call themselves photographers.

Then there are the people who just bought a camera at Best Buy two years ago, and decided to start shooting photos...and proclaiming that, "Everything in art is totally subjective."

 

[Overread]

I blame another part of the problem on a seemingly lack of artistic literature within the photographic community. Speak of exposure and sure Understanding Exposure appears as a recommendation - but so to does a slew of other publications.

Speak of art and we get a handful of suggestions; but none really push into what I'd say is the gap between beginner and intermediate - and a LOT of general photography books focus on basic understanding of concepts like leading lines and the good old rule of thirds (which is a really nice rule but tends to not always work for more complex scenes or when you've multiple focal points of interest etc..)

As a community photographers appear not to have enough drive or understanding to push artistic understanding and teaching - and I feel this is a barrier MANY bump into as they advance into intermediate and can control the tool. I think its where many get the idea that there is no science to art; no method or theory; because they find it nearly impossible to find guidance beyond the basic introductory element.

 

[pgriz]

Liking or loving something is personal emotion.

Explaining why... now that's a different kettle of fish. Edumacation (to quote Derrel) gives you the vocabulary. It doesn't mean you will understand why you are feeling what you are feeling, but it does give you a fighting chance at making it intelligible to someone else why THIS image is "great", and THAT image is a poor imitation of a masterpiece by an unskilled clod with a bad case of self-delusion.

Improving on what one likes - now we need talent, imagination, skill, and education. Although, sometimes talent and imagination is enough to overcome the deficiencies in skill and education. And then again, the question becomes "improving" for which audience? If your personal taste runs to bright colours on black velvet, or limpid-eyed puppies held by impossibly-cute little girls, there's no need to apologize, except if you're trying to convince others of your good taste and esthetic judgement. But IF you are trying to impress, say, the likes of the jury of the Salon des Arts de Paris, you might have to have a much clearer idea of convention, popular taste, and "educated" sensibilities. And for that audience, going on the significance of the shadow line in the image as being representative of Jungian crisis in the current world, will probably get you some nods.

One thing that hasn't been mentioned is "context". Why an image exists can be just as important as what the image shows. As photographers, we are encouraged to focus just on the image content, and ignore any verbiage (like title, description) that may accompany it. From a purely visual perspective, that may be fine. However, I think we lose a lot of appreciation of what that image may represent if we are not aware of the context of the image - who took it, why did they take it, who did they take it for, and so on. We humans make sense of the world by telling stories, be they real ones (how we met our spouse, for instance), or fake ones (

Spoiler: things we pretend are real

like Santa Claus, Easter bunny, honest politicians who have our best interests at heart

). While images CAN tell a story, they also can be used to mislead, and it is worth our while to dig a little and understand the background to how an image came to be.

 

[JoeW]

Pgriz, actually I disagree with the fundamental thesis of your last post. If someone really studies art and composition, then you can look at something and almost always understand why you like it or why it's appealing.

Think of it this way: someone who has studied music history, composition, and theory can listen to music in a range of genres and say "this is why I like Shostakovich, why I like this hip-hop tune but not that one, why I don't care for Dylan's original version of "The Watchtower" but I really like the cover of the same song by Jimi Hendrix." They can explain, usually in technical terms. B/c they understand how a particular tempo or key or instrumentation can create particular moods or reactions, they can judge how well the performers played.

I agree that a lot of people can say "I like this" and can't explain why (whether it's wine, music, photography, or some other kind of artistic production). But that's usually b/c they don't have the training and depth to understand within that speciality why certain things provoke particular reactions.

 

[Overread]

I would add that sometimes its not that they don't "know" why they like something, but also that they lack the language to express themselves; or have not heard the language to know that its possible to express in such a way. Language is a skill unto its own and often our thoughts and feelings can get hindered by its limitations - if we train ourselves to be more observant and gain more depth and breadth to our language we can find new ways to express ourselves and communicate with other.s

 

[Tim Tucker]

It's simple, there's a rhythm and harmony in visual art just as there is in music. And just as you have to learn to listen in music you have to learn to look in art. It's not easy, and it's something that can only be seen to be understood. It's not about quantifying it in words or applying your own logical framework of how you think it should be.
No big white gap...
I see images here that have been flattened with over-sharpening, or have had all the colour washed out with tone-mapping, contrast boosts and over saturation of the colours. I'm wondering why the photographer can't see this, all they have to do is look. But maybe it isn't that easy to see sometimes. I try to show differences, show how things could be, offer a different logic.
Even less of a white space...
I think that the biggest problem with photographers is that they cling too much to the logical and technical framework. Once you realise how fluid and relative human sight is you realise how flexible the framework is.
The ones claiming that there are no rules seem to me to be the ones who cling the most strongly to the logical framework with which they justify their actions.
Just open your eyes.

 

[Derrel]

I have often encouraged people interested in becoming better at photography to take a small amount of initiative, and to search out information on the universal, fundamental, basic, and absolutely essential underpinnings of visual communication: the elements and principles of design.

The Elements, for example: line, shape,direction,size,texture,color, value. Some people also consider mass, separate from size.

The Principles, for example: balance, gradation, repetition,contrast, dominance, harmony, unity.

Some people add other principles, like variety, and dissonance, etc.

The web is filled with information regarding the elements and principles of design. Once a person knows of the existence of these concepts, and understands what the elements and principles ARE, then it's possible to start MAKING photographs that leverage these concepts. These are the very basic-basic things. For example, in the construction field or house-building we might have site selection, foundations, framing, roofing, doors and windows, heating systems, electrical wiring, plumbing, cooling systems, interior finishing. Those are sort of the basic principles used in creating buildings, at least as I understand the building of buildings.

You'll never hear me say, "Ahhhh...building a house, it's allllll totally subjective. There are NO right ways, NO wrong ways of doing it. It's all just a matter of opinion!"

 

[pgriz]

@JoeW: There's a difference between feeling and knowing. When I saw the woman who would become my wife, my immediate feeling was "I gotta get to know her better" (actually, I'm paraphrasing a little - my feeling was somewhat more direct). That was the feeling part - the thinking part didn't kick in until much later. And so, now the thinking part of me can say that she's a great wife and partner because of her character, her sense of humor, her emotional strength, her integrity as a person, her common sense...

When I listen to music, or look at a picture, or read an enjoyable book or taste something delicious, I let the initial impression guide me. I try NOT to think about the "why" and "how". In fact, I really do try and suppress the thinking part - that will come into play later.

However, if I am going to create something, then the training and education and skill all kick in to guide me in the creative process. I am totally in sync with Derrel's thinking - some of the tools of the creative process are the design principles, when coupled with one's imagination and originality, create something of interest and value. Unless one is amazingly talented, it's difficult to come up with something truly remarkable without some grounding in the basics of whatever medium you want to express yourself in.

Returning to Overread's original point of being able to explain why something appeals, it occupies the middle ground between the sensing/feeling and the constructive creation. Having the design vocabulary certainly helps convey to someone else what it is that you're focusing on, but that description/analysis is not necessarily the gut feeling experience you have felt. There are enough images that are powerful and evocative despite having many technical faults, just as there are very well crafted images that are perfection from a technical point of view, and that have zero emotional engagement.

In my own evolution as a photographer, I have tried to master the technical side of my craft to the point that it fades away into the subconscious. I'm not there yet, but that's one of my goals. It's a quite a bit like driving - you think about the technical aspects like steering, braking and accelerating when you're learning, but these things fade into the subconscious once you've mastered them, and you focus your attention on the external world outside of your car - ie the awareness of the traffic and flow.

 

[pgriz]

I blame another part of the problem on a seemingly lack of artistic literature within the photographic community. Speak of exposure and sure Understanding Exposure appears as a recommendation - but so to does a slew of other publications.

Speak of art and we get a handful of suggestions; but none really push into what I'd say is the gap between beginner and intermediate - and a LOT of general photography books focus on basic understanding of concepts like leading lines and the good old rule of thirds (which is a really nice rule but tends to not always work for more complex scenes or when you've multiple focal points of interest etc..)

As a community photographers appear not to have enough drive or understanding to push artistic understanding and teaching - and I feel this is a barrier MANY bump into as they advance into intermediate and can control the tool. I think its where many get the idea that there is no science to art; no method or theory; because they find it nearly impossible to find guidance beyond the basic introductory element.

There is a big difference between the illustrative aspect of photography (including documentary, product, portraiture), and the open-ended forms such as street, abstract, and certain types of portraiture. In the former, the role of the photographer is to convey the essence of a scene, situation, product or person in a clear way. I call these images "finished" images in that the photographer has assembled all the pieces and elements that are needed to fully interpret the image. These contrast with "unfinished" images, where the photographer is deliberately ambiguous and thereby invites the viewer to complete the image by adding their interpretation.

I find that "unfinished" images are actually quite a bit harder to make because one has to leave open certain aspects to allow the viewer to "enter" the image and interact with it. I have to suppress my desire to tell them (the viewer) the punchline or the ending. This is something I've learned from my artist wife, who has evolved her art from the illustrative to the suggestive. It's quite a trick to look at one of her images and see all kinds of detail - which if you look closely, you find that the detail is actually NOT there, but your mind supplies it because you are expecting to see it. And then you have this mental flip-flopping between what is actually there, and what your mind insists it sees.

Street photography is an example of the art of the suggestion - whatever scene the photographer captured, it usually requires some examination of the image to figure out what's actually going on. This participation of the viewer in the interpretation of the image is something that is desirable, but not easy to do.

 

[Bartcephus]

Purely technically correct photographs can be very unappealing. Purely artistic photographs can be technologically warped and incorrect. Everyone has a different life experience by which they gauge the quality of a photograph or image, and no one opinion is entirely right, but is entirely right to that particular individual.

Picasso, Vahn Gouh, Michaelangelo each had different styles and goals. That has taught me that there are different markets for different styles. Some folks like street photography, some like journalistic styles, and others like portriats, some like landscapes, others like animals, some like humorous, some like seriousness, and sometimes it just depends on your mood. If the goal is to sell portriats, then you would desire your image to appear to the largest market if you want popularity or demand for your talents. Accordingly, seeking critique from those in that market would or should be given more consideration. If when you define your style or technique, sometimes it works well to seek advise of others on how to create the desired effect, or get technical advise. But many times, seeking C & C is an attempt to find validation or acceptance by others and relieve the insecurities and anxieties of the unknown.

What good is an image if it is not shared? Why do we share our photographs? What are we seeking to accomplish? Will this image succeed or fail in meeting our goal. Was the technical defect intentional or was it neglect? Does it add or detract from the purpose of the shot? Is our goal to please our own attitudes and perceptions, or is I to give a customer what he or she wants? Who is directing the goals of the session? Why do some very talented artists remain unemployed? Is it because they are not giving the customer what they want because they are producing their own style/twist. If you want profit, appeal to the masses. If you want self expression, do your own thing but don't fear criticism and commentary. Somewhere between these extremes you will most likely find your calling.....