There is no checklist for good photography (if there were it'd be too easy) but I do have a list of things that will probably ruin your chances of calling your photo good art.
- uninteresting/uninspired use of clichéd images
- anything else (NSFW) that might make your photos ugly
- sloppy composition (without getting lucky)
- unskilled use of photoshop
- obnoxious use of photoshop
- obnoxious vignetting
- not caring or feeling passionately about anything, particularly the subject matter
I think the strongest way to develop an aesthetic is to understand the limitations of the medium. A camera is a machine that captures light and records it, almost removing the human element entirely. The creative power of a photograph comes from the act of choosing. Choosing a subject matter, choosing the composition, choosing the f/ stop and shutter speed, choosing how to print the image. The only active creation comes with darkroom techniques and photoshop. But most of the process is about choice. When photographs are part of a series, their power exponentially increases because an other layer of choices gives meaning to the photographs by association. Only then can they begin to compete with the more noble art-forms (painting, etc.). It is difficult to compare a photograph to a painting because a photograph is a chemical representation. It's like comparing sample based music to music that was recorded live. One sample=lame. 15 samples=profound. It's the killer bee effect.
Taking a photograph of something is the equivalent of saying, "This is important!" or, "Look at this!" Sometimes it's talking about the physical object in the photo, sometimes about their cultural significance, sometimes it's just about the composition and the juxtaposition, sometime it's about past and future events, sometimes it's about something completely foreign. First and foremost, a photograph has to be important. Most are. But if you find yourself disagreeing with the photographer's first statement, then it is probably a bad photograph or it just doesn't relate to you, most often it is the latter because of the former. An inability to articulate a photograph's significance is far different from not knowing if a photograph has any significance. If you don't know, it is probably significant. This is probably true for all art, but it has particular importance for photography. This is a fairly simple criterion but if we continue to sharpen it, we may be able to hack off some good chunks.
Even a photograph of yours truly smiling in front of the Eiffel Tower could be important to upwards of 15 people. Someone could look at is and say, "Oh look at Matt having fun in Paris, I miss him so much how will I ever survive without him." If the person doesn't know me they wouldn't care, the importance would be outside their frame of reference. Sometimes art can be esoteric but there had better be some real value if you expect me to do the research. No matter how much research you did, it would not make this imaginary photograph any more interesting. (Unless some terrible or wonderful thing hung in the balance of me visiting the Eiffel Tower and even then it would only be as interesting as a B movie that you only watch for the fighting, attractive people, and/or sex scenes.)
Because this is a book worthy topic, I'm going to touch quickly on a bunch of different types of photography and elaborate more a little later:
Portraits
An important subject does not make an important photograph. Portraits are very difficult to weigh as art. Portraiture is essentially PR. Portrait photographers are great at taking a small element of person and turning it into something photo-ready. It tries to show who someone is, when a photograph alone is incapable of doing that. A single portrait of a single person can only be expressive up to a certain point. It can guide you to assume a few things about that person and what little there is to assume may or may not be accurate. Photo portraits can only make you think you know who someone is, which is why press photos and publicity photos are so important in one's public image, but the actual person is impossibly complex (and more interesting). No photographer can capture the essence of a person, even with a million photos. Rebel! Say it with me: "I am not a composite of the photos of me on facebook!"
The best photographs don't pretend to make their subjects into an object. Great poems are similar, they come not from understanding but wonder and confusion. They are not the answers but the beginnings of questions.
Documentary Photographs
Documentary photographs are often just a more convincing way of saying what can be said in a single sentence, it just offers what is understood to be physical proof. Good documentary photographs can be powerful as hell, but even if they are well composed, the power comes almost entirely from the subject matter, instead of from the photographer. So while I think documentary photography is great, and necessary, it's is not really the type of art I'm looking for.
My favorite photographs baffle me so much that I ask, "why?" Not in a, "why are you showing me this?" way but in a "I'm fascinated, go on," way.
Snapshots
I love the chance involved in random photos, but when the creativity isn't in your hands it's hard to take credit for it. Also when it's up to chance, there is no human element or creativity or expression, but it can be pretty...
Abstractions
I will answer your question with a question:
New York City. 1969.
Maria Friedlander. Southwestern United States. 1969.
Nashville, Tennessee. 1963.
I've recently realized how much I love Lee Friedlander. He has a very distinct style and fascinating vision. The link that I gave you four times is a huge collection of his photos at MoMA. It's pretty rad.
I love how self conscious this photo is. It's great.
New York City. 1966.
So this song is not really related to my relationship with photography (you have to be cruel to be kind) but it sounds kinda similar, and I was listening to it today, and it's great.
No comments:
Post a Comment