Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2010/12/17
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]2010-12-17-18:26:20 George Lottermoser:
> Great photograph
> Beautiful photograph
> Fine photograph
> Classic photograph
> Powerful photograph
> Strong photograph
> and/or a
> Snapshot photograph
> Weak photograph
> Average photograph
> Below average photograph
Yeah, that's a very interesting question.
Old, but still interesting.
It's a matter of opinion, influenced by people's personal aesthetics,
which are in turn influenced to some extent by the environment
in which they grew up,
but individuals add their own special sauce.
Yet sometimes there's a lot of agreement about a photo being,
say,
great.
Is it more interesting why people agree, or why they disagree?
I think the latter was the most interesting aspect of our recent
extended discussion.
Although if I had it to do over, I'd have tried harder to make sure
nothing I wrote felt like an ad hominem attack.
But anyway, one very interesting epithet
(is it always an epithet?)
is "snapshot".
And one thing it makes me think of is
many of William Eggleston's exteriors,
which have a certain "snapshot" quality
but which I think
(and obviously I'm not alone in this)
transcend the snapshot ghetto.
But I have a hard time putting in words exactly why.
And there are those who disagree.
Strongly.
An edge case like that might help
when trying to tease out an answer to this thing you ask.
Or maybe smack-dab in the middle is better.
Can we identify a photo *everyone* thinks is great?
> Yet we through these terms around willy nilly
> often leaving me tilting my head like puppy
I'd like to see a photo of that.
-Jeff