UNPOPULAR OPINION | Photography Isn't Subjective

Lounge
38

So please judge the two “artworks” below on a scale from 0…100. The second one is a drawing, so do not judge the reproduction quality but the original. Please also explain, why you judged this way.

I would like to see, if different forum users agree on the quality of the images, when ask to quantify their personal impression. Please, do not search for background information on the internet and try to judge independently from other votes.

In this forum we are a relatively homogeneous group of photography-interested enthusiasts. So, the differences should be rather small.

Image 1

no_art_1
no_art_11375×1080 566 KB

Image 2

no_art_2
no_art_2826×1080 134 KB

2 Likes
39

You do understand that this exercise makes no sense. Particularly for the photo. Photography is generally serial. Even when sold or displayed as single images their relevance most often come from the rest of the images in the series or other pieces by the artist. This isn’t a problem either, it could be a problem for a commercial photographer but they do craft not art. (unless they are both)

The photograph in itself is unremarkable, even so bad it looks intentional. As part of a series or as a documentation of a performance it could be part of a great thing. On it’s own its nothing.

The sketch is very skillfully done. If it has some age it’s probably great. If it’s recent just good because some of the moves are so well understood now.

1 Like
40

Personally I cant believe she chose that purse to go with that outfit… :slight_smile:

3 Likes
41

I’m glad more of us are appaled :slight_smile:

42

The original thesis was that photography is not subjective, but can be judged by general quantitative standards. Yes, the photo is difficult, technically and artistically. That is why I chose it. But now to demand seriality in order to judge a single work, I feel as evasion.
Your statement to include the age of the drawing only confirms how dependent the classification of art is on the prevailing culture.
Your assessment summarized, the picture is bad, but could be part of a good series. The drawing is mediocre but could be great if it is old. These are not the judging criteria @zerosapte was originally concerned with. I think my practical example puts some of the theoretical statements to the test.

1 Like
43

My theoretical statements were exactly that art is judged in a context and that this isn’t in any way a problem. I also said, in a few more words, that it’s a shitty photo but that fact doesn’t influence whether it’s good or not.

No one has stated that the judgement should/can be done without any context. It’s pretty obvious that a single image can be shit but the series it’s part of great. Same goes for not judging paintings from the 800’s the same as paintings from 2022. They are cultural artefacts.

44

Sorry, I don’t get that.

1 Like
45

just quickly it’s not a typo

I mean it.

Gotta go though so will come back at other time.

46

I got that :wink:. But I think discussion about art is often as discussion about politics. The discussion first goes in circles, then it drifts off and in the end it becomes an unproductive argument. This refers to parts of the discussion in this thread in general, not specifically to our posts.

1 Like
47

I would give #1 an 85/100. It beautifully captures the restrained grace and nuance you find in movies such as The Fast and the Furious

1 Like
48

Actually it’s what I already said. The context makes the meaning. That photo could be absolutely amazing next to something (text, another photo) that transforms what you see in it.

This isn’t very out there or strange. In fact photography itself works by a similar mechanic. What is inside the frame and how they relate on all levels compositional, social, emotional, material makes the photo. Similarly what you place around the photograph or before/after it can matter just as much.

Family snapshots can become art when curated and placed next to other things. For real they become something else. Anyone open to looking and thinking should be able to feel it.

You can also make a photograph that’s supposed to work only in itself regardless of how it is shown. I have said the photograph is crap from this point of view.

49

Thank you @nosle for the explanation. I see that you put a lot of emphasis on “context” when judging photography. An opinion I share in parts, by the way.
But the original question was about measurability and quantification. Expressions like “shitty” and “crap” are qualitative and also strongly pejorative. That doesn’t help us with the issue. I’d like a reasoned critique of the two images. Technically and regarding the artistic value. Especially also regarding the second picture. I included this because I wanted to avoid discussions about sharpness, focus and exposure. Nevertheless, even with a drawing, motive, composition and implementation, etc. should be assessable. I think my experiment here demonstrated that a well-founded objective and quantitative evaluation is difficult. Nevertheless, I would like to ask @zerosapte to evaluate the images according to his criteria. I have chosen street photography for the first picture, because you are particularly familiar with this genre.

1 Like
50

I know you’re asking for @zerosapte to critique the images but you failed to see that my comments were only to show that we need more info to be able to critique the images. Explaining the value of context was only to point out missing parameters for the discussion.

If that means your intention is for the critique to be only about the images as seen here it needs to be said. Their value as context less digital images shown in a forum.

If they are intended for other media/situation/context our critique won’t be valid.

My argument in contrast to @zerosapte is that a critique shouldn’t be objective. There are however some subjective critiques that are very good. Good enough to take seriously and stop worrying about objective.

So my quick critique of the images as floating in cyberspace

Photo
The photograph of the car and the woman give the viewer extremely little. The long lens and tight crop suggests a shot of an spy view of an interesting moment but the frame is empty of human or object interaction. Formally the image shows nothing visually interesting, the objects in the frame have no meaningful internal relation. Only backs of heads and this is not used as a device to tell us something. The placement of the figure at approx golden ratio adds no interest to the frame. The jumble of shapes colours and harshly lit textures are not composed to create a visually interesting image. The cropping of feet and car, as well as the hats proximity to the top further fragments the impression. The image is blurry in a way that doesn’t add to the photograph. The chaotic harshness of the image is paired well with content that shows a sort of super tacky failed glamour, but ultimately it doesn’t tell us anything.

Sketch
Very skillful capture of the horses. The tiny moves to make the legs look horsey are excellent. The juxtapositioning of black, white,black,white makes for a striking image even if the move is a bit overused. It’s a sketch and a fragment and as such works very well.

3 Likes
51

Hi, Sorry I’m late with a reply, (work commitments, decorating for the missus). The photograph I don’t find pleasing, the foreshortening distorts the scale, the out of focus vehicle which has crept in at the top of the picture is distracting & the cropping is severe. to be honest the only attractive part of the image is the girl.

The drawing. I like the minimalist quality but not the framing, it also needs balance; something else in the frame. I suspect it’s hung in a gallery somewhere. Having said that, it doesn’t stir any emotions. If I had to choose I would choose the drawing for it’s abstract quality. Maybe if I knew the story of the drawing I would like it more.

2 Likes
52

I find this picture brilliant. It could be titled “the only man’s interests in a nutshell”: tight-assed woman and expensive car. Bonus on the fact that the guy is sitting in the car and the woman seems to be abandoned to the asphalt. There is something humorous here, enhanced by the black hat/white hat and driver/pedestrian oppositions. The technical flaws exhibited are contingencies of the nature of street photography…

The only thing I’m thinking here is: where is the real painting ? Also: who are the trolls on the horses ?

I laughed and cringed on any attempt made here to link the rule of thirds with anything artistic. That’s a cheap cheat known only because Kodak guides for amateurs provided with consumer cameras use to present it as a go-to.

2 Likes
53

My experience is people find “good” pictures that look like their already-made idea of what the depicted object should look like. Universality is a fallacy in this (also, good luck finding something truly universal). But what’s pretty sure is you won’t get the “good” grade if you shake people prejudices and expectations too much. Which is kinda the only use for art, really.

1 Like
54

Firstly, I want to thank you for the envolvment. This is is exactly what I wanted to achieve in the firts place - debate, to provoke discussion. I have deliberately chosen a provocative title in order to achieve just that, to stir up things a little, to get people talking.

Since you already asked twice, I will offer MY OPINION regarding the photo and the painting, but this whole thing isn’t about MY OPINION, contrary to what the series title would suggest, but rather an attempt to push people to make their own judgements.

Now, I think the photo is bad. It lacks context, mainly due to the long lense it was shot with. The frame is too tight, showing nothing of the environment and messy. As far as colours go, it is well know that the color red attracts the viewer’s attention like nothing else, and usually, if you have red in your frame, you want it to be on your subject. Now I doubt the subject is the car. Furthermore, the composition is really bad. The long lens compresses everything into a mess of shapes and color. Then there is the bottom of that oher car in the top of the image. Everything about how this was framed is sloppy, careless and unintentional. It looks like a pictures someone who knows nothing about photography.

Technicalities aside this image says nothing. There is no story here. It’s devoid of any soul and meaning, it’s instantly forgettable.

Lastly, it is another UNPOPULAR OPINON of mine, and the subject of a future video, that shooting people from behind is extremely rarely conducing to a good picture. Most often than not it’s lazy, it’s boring and cowardly.

I do somewhat like the fact that they both have hats. It’s the only thing I find interesting here.

Now as far as the drawing goes, while I know nothing about drawing, I will say I think it’s… OK. It looks decently pleasing graphically, but to me it looks unfinished. It looks like a sketch, like the foundation for a more serious and finished piece.

Wrapping things up, I do notice a lot of you appear to have missed a second point I was making in my video, and possibly the most important one. While I do stress the importance of rules, guidelines, measurables I finish by saying that these alone don’t make a good picture. They are NECESSARRY but no SUFFICIENT.

What I think is most important is the ability to speak through one’s photography. To tell a story, to move the viewer, to stir some emotion. And that is ENTIRELY SUBJECTIVE.

1 Like
55

How can the “most important” thing in photography be “entirely subjective”, yet “photography is not subjective”? Isn’t that a contradiction?

56

Hi, I believe we are pre-programmed to prefer particular images, for example, in the west we read and write from the left; which means we naturally like to wander our way into an image from the left. If there is a path which leads us in, so much the better. Being human, our ancient history of working and hunting in the wild has become part of our DNA, If the image is of countryside or the elements (weather), as well; then we are attracted even more to follow any route into an image. Add into the mix our social nature and ability to read mood, friendliness, anger & every other emotion from just a persons demeanour, it’s not surprising we react to images of people, particularly people we find attractive, or for example images of infants who we are pre-programmed to protect. it gets even more complicated when you consider our amazing mental abilities such as inferring speed from blur in an image or drawing or more importantly life, such as something or someone approaching fast in our peripheral vision. We are intelligent beings with brains which are able to read much from a little information. I don’t understand why the rule of thirds works, but it does. An image or piece of art has the potential to contain many and sometimes all the elements that we humans are drawn to, even if we do not know it.

1 Like
57

Hi Aurelien. This seems true but I think there can be an unintended consequence of this kind of argument. So, for instance, John Berger’s Ways of Seeing became extremely influential in fine art institutions in the U.K. and elsewhere as a critique of tweedy art historian mystifications of objects of power, money and subjugation. Yet, the crude version of this, throwing out traditional scholarship, evaluation and the canon because it’s all just elite power games, leaves a void that conspicuous consumption is happy to fill. Put simply, if we can’t evaluate this thing as better or worse than this other thing based on some agreed judgement, taste if you like, then monetary value will rush in to fill the void. Of course there probably has always been an element of this in elite art. But if you’re not careful, that’s all you have and art becomes spectacle, controversy, monetary value = aesthetic value, and Damien Hirst’s diamond skull.