1 reply

  1. It’s a great question, and the video had some thoughtful answers.

    I think it ties in with the whole postmodern stance of “yeesh, can we know if any art is ‘objectively good’ anymore”?

    For me it seems doubly weird, because I’m increasingly aware that I’m less sensitive to many kinds of nuance than people I’d like to think of as my intellectual and aesthetic peers. (But I may be fooling myself putting myself on their level) For me, good art comes forth with an interesting idea. It breaks new space in an non-trivial, qualitatively distinctive way… in a way that can generally be readily appreciated, that doesn’t demand close attention or nuanced, gourmet-lifestyle to be generally appreciated as worthy.

    (And I think it ties into how I read and generally absorb information: fast. Relying on a process that’s largely subconscious to absorb the gist, and then bringing the whole mental works back to take back in any tricky parts. )

    Bringing it back to photography: yeah, show me something new and cool and interesting. If you’re using sophisticated photographers method’s (the “rule of thirds” probably being the most simplistic and well-known), great. If you’re winging it, that’s fine too -or if it’s just a lucky from the hip shot or whatever. But make it INTERESTING. I’d much rather see something crudely photographed but cool than finely photographed but boring. (Of course this all just begs the question of us being able to tell what’s interesting, and what’s cool…)

Leave a Reply to kirkjerk Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s