Recently, while perusing the forums, I saw a post of a couple of photographs by someone I do not know. Upon my first viewing, I must say, I was a little puzzled. The photos seemed quite ordinary, which made me wonder: What's the point? Why are you sharing these images? I revisited the thread a few days later, and found the responses from other members were in two extreme camps. Some did not get the images at all like me, and had nearly insulted the photographer; and yet, others seems to get them, and showered the photographer with praises. As it turns out, the person who took them was a practicing fine art photographer, who took those two photos with intent and for specific reasons.
This seems to spawn off several other conversations related to the viewing and interpreting images. Some argued that since Photography is a visual art, the #1 requirement for an image is to be visually compelling ("it must grab you"). I think a visually compelling image makes a great photo, but I'm not yet ready to agree 100% with the reverse. I'm still somewhat salvageable in this regard because I did not completely write-off the images simply because I didn't find them visually compelling. After someone was gracious enough to explain the intent and the composition of the photos, I was able to appreciate the photos a lot more. Actually, it gave me a new way to look at photos in general, and a new way to appreciate well-composed images.
So, in a way, these photos have indeed become visually compelling to my eyes, so some may argue that it only proves the original hypothesis that an image must be visually compelling. However, I think the lesson here is that just because the image doesn't visually grab you right now, it does not make it a bad photo. Because through education and change of taste, it may become a great photo to you. Perhaps it's because I have the mentality of a beginner or a student, I'm more receptive to new ideas and more willing to accept that I'm not the best judge of someone else's photo. If it means I'm more likely to enjoy life, all the better.
This seems to spawn off several other conversations related to the viewing and interpreting images. Some argued that since Photography is a visual art, the #1 requirement for an image is to be visually compelling ("it must grab you"). I think a visually compelling image makes a great photo, but I'm not yet ready to agree 100% with the reverse. I'm still somewhat salvageable in this regard because I did not completely write-off the images simply because I didn't find them visually compelling. After someone was gracious enough to explain the intent and the composition of the photos, I was able to appreciate the photos a lot more. Actually, it gave me a new way to look at photos in general, and a new way to appreciate well-composed images.
So, in a way, these photos have indeed become visually compelling to my eyes, so some may argue that it only proves the original hypothesis that an image must be visually compelling. However, I think the lesson here is that just because the image doesn't visually grab you right now, it does not make it a bad photo. Because through education and change of taste, it may become a great photo to you. Perhaps it's because I have the mentality of a beginner or a student, I'm more receptive to new ideas and more willing to accept that I'm not the best judge of someone else's photo. If it means I'm more likely to enjoy life, all the better.
RSS Feed
