I suppose it would depend upon the photo's purpose, but I think that a good picture presents a moment that would not otherwise be seen. Photos can impart a new perspective, capture emotion, movement or stillness. They can be used to document people, events and places, but to be truly good, they have to be engaging. They should convey something to the viewer that she would not necessarily see standing in the same location as the photographer.
(a moment not otherwise seen?)
When we look at photographic portraits we want to learn something about the subject's character. A photo can be aesthetically pleasing, but why would we want to look at a picture of a sunset instead of just the real thing? Maybe we want to remember a moment; maybe we want to show it to someone else so they can "experience" it too; maybe we want to fantasize ourselves in an environment that we could never actually take part in. But to be a "good" photo of a sunset it has to be more. It should consider fundamentals of art, such as composition, perspective, balance, value, quality of light, perhaps color. The difference between an art photo and a simple picture of your friends is what the photographer arranges in the frame. Photos cut out a piece of life and put it up for display for others. A good "art" photograph contemplates its composition before exhibition.
(photos of my friends that I like for reasons other than they are my friends.
"good" pictures? art?)
But that doesn't mean all other photos that are not intended for art or don't carefully deliberate upon what enters the frame are bad. Photos today are as much about documenting our lives as about expressing an artistic vision. It's just that the better of these informal everyday photographs show something other than the expected.
No comments:
Post a Comment