Regarding John Chan's photo of the red chandelier:

Jacque Henri Lartigue said (paraphrasing): I only take a picture of something because it made me happy at the time to do so.

Agreed. The rest is bullshit.

-- jeff (debontekou@yahoo.com), January 24, 2002

Answers

Yep, I think Lartigue is (was) right. When it looks good in the viewfinder I click the shutter. I've learned not to argue with my eye, it seems to have good judgement.

-- Philip Woodcock (phil@pushbar.demon.co.uk), January 24, 2002.

Photography is an art form. Whether a particular photograph is considered art depends on whether it is perceived as such by the viewer. Someone from a primitive culture could find an illustrative photograph from a text book and pin it to the wall of his mud shack because he likes the way it looks and how it makes him feel. Isn't that, in that context, art? I think the real question is whether any particular work is good art, such that it is widely recognized and perceived as such; or at least simply recognized as a work of art, whether viewers like it or not. I like some of the photographs I make. Are they art? I wouldn't claim that in public, but they may qualify? Are they good art. I doubt it. But, hey, the whole process is fun to me. While we should give an honest critique of the work of someone with the cojones to share it publicly, let's face it: 99.9% of us are wannabes who will never garner public acclaim for their photography. But that doesn't mean I'll stop shooting, because I enjoy it.

-- Dennis Couvillion (couvilaw@aol.com), January 24, 2002.

Well JHL, John and you are right. Take any picture you want if that is what you enjoy doing.

Things change when you decide to publish (show) a picture. That decision implies that you are submitting your personal piece of enjoyment to the appreciation of others.

When you do that, you are placing yourself in the gigantic 200 year flow of photographic images that are being looked at by generations of viewers. And you are asking: "hey Mr Viewer, what do you think?"

Since I do not live in a mud hut somewhere deprived of silver based or electronics based imagery, I cannot look at an image without reflecting on its relevance.

I strongly believe that the relevance of an image is not decided by the photographer: it is decided by the viewer. As a (relatively) knowledgeable viewer, I dislike the complacency implied by the act of publishing to the world an image that does not show an effort to commmunicate something new and worthwhile (emotions, information, vision, etc).

As a viewer, I have every right to state my feelings about an image submitted or imposed to me.

I shoot some pictures for money. Those who pay me consider them relevant for a particular usage (usually the illustration of editorial articles). But I know that not a single one of those paid pictures would be worth showing outside of that illustrative context.

I shoot most of my pictures for personal pleasure. Some of those I share with others, and most of the time the viewers I share them with react positively because they can relate to them: either because they know me and like to see my work, or because they find the subject relevant to their eyes (a portrait of their kid or of a friend's kid, a landscape they have seen and liked during a trip, etc), or a bit of both.

But I would not expect other viewers, living oustide of that context, to react the same way. To their eyes, most of my pictures would be irrelevant ("what, not another portrait of a big eyed girl with blurred background", "oh no, not yet another contrejour macro shot of a spider on its web", or "come on, who the h... needs yet another image trying to look abstract by showing red light fixtures hanging from a ceiling"). Only a very few pictures out of the thousands I have shot would (maybe !) deserve to be published to a wider audience.

The Internet, by lifting the pain out of publishing, encourages complacency.

Jacques Henri Lartigue's happy hobby was received with enthusiasm by generations of viewers because the results of his hobby were relevant at a certain time and place, and will maintain their relevance for ever because they became referential to that time and place.

I do not call that "bullshit", I call that "culture".

-- Jacques (jacquesbalthazar@hotmail.com), January 25, 2002.

Although I often take photographs for the same reason, I respectfully disagree w. discarding "the rest" as bullshit.
There is a potential endless number of reasons which may be just as valid: ...because I was outraged. ...because I wanted to enter into a dialogue with... and so on.


-- Niels H. S. Nielsen (nhsn@ruc.dk), January 25, 2002.

Jacques

Interesting analysis. I think your view rather chimes with mine. The displaying of images (other than family or friends) that others can see makes one step over the line and one becomes "an artist" or at least someone with pretentions to something greater than just glorified snaps. I am always unhappy about making this transition myself. I did it in my office as it is covered with color shots, and people complement me on them, but I never know whether they are just being nice. The funny thing is the more the shots hang up there the less I like them. Most of the shots I see on this forum are not really what I would consider "art" in any startling, high culture way, more simply most seem to me to be the kind of shots I take, but are sometimes presented as something of greater significance. Or perhaps people treat to them as if they are. Once one becomes "a photographer" or "an artist", then I suppose you do have to become "serious" and start talking about your "vision" and "your work" and thereby demand respect. Of course nothing changes in the images when this happens.

So I suppose I think Lartique has a very good point and John may well be right. However, I also know that being taken seriously as artist means you have to be very serious about your work too - whether "the work" actually warrants it or not.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), January 25, 2002.