And man, is this ever art...
*image deleted for reasons pointed out in post #50*
*image deleted for reasons pointed out in post #50*
Last edited:
The joy of photography
-
A
- Thread starter nikos79
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Contax Carl Zeiss Jena Sonnar/Tessar Lenses
- Started by wjlapier
-
For Sale Darkroom supplies, accessories. Local (Tacoma, WA) pickup only
- Started by binglebugbob
-
Want to Buy Looking for a Wollensak 6" (159mm) f12.5 Extreme W.A.
- Started by lecarp
-
For Sale Nikon 200-400mm f/4 AF-S Nikkor ED Lens
- Started by Barlow
Forum statistics
Really loved reading this. I totally agree.
MattKing
Moderator
I can understand the almost overwhelming desire to discover a common thread amongst successful photographs and the photographers that make them.
But I would suggest that it is a desire that attempts to overly simplify something that has a power that is based on far more complexity than that.
There is no one identifiable fact or circumstance or criteria that "turns a switch" and makes a photograph successful or "Art".
It is a totality.
Over my many years around photography, I've had exposure to thousands and thousands and thousands of photographs, and a very large percentage of them were made for practical or mundane reasons. And a lot of those - certainly not a majority, but a lot - have various amounts of success or "Art" welling out of them.
To pick an example, I've spent a lot of time working with and even creating wedding photographs. Many of those were made for a customer. And while very few were novel, a lot of them have real value and real quality to them, and are their very own type of Art.
But I would suggest that it is a desire that attempts to overly simplify something that has a power that is based on far more complexity than that.
There is no one identifiable fact or circumstance or criteria that "turns a switch" and makes a photograph successful or "Art".
It is a totality.
Over my many years around photography, I've had exposure to thousands and thousands and thousands of photographs, and a very large percentage of them were made for practical or mundane reasons. And a lot of those - certainly not a majority, but a lot - have various amounts of success or "Art" welling out of them.
To pick an example, I've spent a lot of time working with and even creating wedding photographs. Many of those were made for a customer. And while very few were novel, a lot of them have real value and real quality to them, and are their very own type of Art.
@nikos79 OK, so you appreciate intrinsic motivation. That's great. I think we all do. What's all the fuss about trying to create a divide between those who 'got it' and those who allegedly don't? There's nothing to be gained in this endeavor. Also, I'd like to remind you of the discussion we had recently. It seems you forgot, or at least didn't really manage to apply it to your discourse. That's a pity.
As is this:
Painting and photography may both depict suffering, but they do so from fundamentally different realms. Painting builds a world from imagination — even when it portrays pain, it's filtered through layers of interpretation, symbolism, and metaphor. It's fiction that speaks truths.
Photography, on the other hand, is inherently tethered to reality. When we see a photograph of a dead child in the aftermath of war, we don’t just see an image — we see something that actually happened. It’s a record of a real moment, a real life lost. And inevitably, we ask: the photographer was there — why did they choose to lift the camera instead of offering help?
That moral weight changes how we experience photographic representations of misery. The photograph doesn’t just show us tragedy — it implicates us in it. That’s what makes it so ethically complex, and so different from other art forms.
Yet you have that quote "A still photograph is the illusion of a literal description of how a camera saw a piece of time and space" -- what do you suppose that means in the face of "Photography ... is inherently tethered to reality."? I assume you believe what Winogrand said in that quote.
Thanks for pointing that out — and fair enough. I didn’t mean to come off as creating a divide or sounding dismissive. I think my tone may have gotten sharper than intended, probably because the topic touches on something I care deeply about.
What I was trying to express (maybe too bluntly) is just how strongly I feel about photography that comes from a place of joy, curiosity, or care — rather than one that leans into spectacle or stylized suffering.
I think about someone like Lartigue, who shot with the wonder of a child. That kind of spirit really resonates with me, and it’s shaped how I read images — I’m naturally drawn to work that feels honest and full of life, even when it’s quiet or imperfect. And maybe that’s also why I sometimes struggle with images that present misery in a way that feels overly polished. It’s not about questioning the photographer’s intention (I can't know that), but about how the work makes me feel, and what it asks of the viewer.
But you're right: our previous conversation was a good reminder that it’s more productive to look closely first, interpret next, and only then evaluate. I guess here I jumped straight to the evaluation part.
That said, I do stand by the core of what I wrote — not because I think there's a single 'correct' way to view art or photography, but because I find it important to stay honest about what moves me and what doesn’t. When I see work that seems to frame suffering in a visually seductive way, it raises ethical questions for me — not just aesthetic ones. But I agree that labeling something as “not art” might have been too blunt. It’s probably more accurate to say that it doesn’t align with the kind of art I seek or value most.
So maybe the difference here is context. In our earlier discussion, we were analyzing two specific images and taking the time to peel back layers. Here, I was reacting more to a broader trend or philosophy around photographing hardship, which can trigger different concerns for me — especially around representation, dignity, and distance. But you're right to remind me that even then, slowing down and reflecting rather than reacting is a better approach. I'm glad you called me on that.
Let’s keep the conversation going — I genuinely appreciate the way you challenge me to think more deeply.
It would good for many to be bale to ignore single posts, without going to ignoring the entire thread. It's art for you, not even close for me.
Last edited by a moderator:
This image — W. Eugene Smith’s Tomoko Uemura in Her Bath (1971) — is one of the most powerful photographs ever made. It’s haunting, tender, and absolutely devastating. And what makes it so singular is precisely that paradox: it’s an image of profound suffering, and yet it’s filled with love. Not staged love, not romanticized love — but real, aching, human love.
Smith took this photograph in Minamata, Japan, as part of his long-term documentation of the mercury poisoning tragedy caused by industrial pollution. The young girl, Tomoko, was born with severe deformities due to congenital Minamata disease. Her mother is bathing her, cradling her gently in an act that feels both intimate and monumental.
This isn’t misery for misery’s sake. It’s not sensationalist. It’s not aestheticized despair in the way that can sometimes feel manipulative. It’s a photo that insists: look, witness, but also feel. It tells the truth, but it does so with reverence and dignity.
To me, this is where Smith’s genius lies — he doesn’t exploit suffering; he honors it. And in doing so, he transcends journalism, even as he remains entirely truthful. The photo doesn’t scream. It breathes.
Last edited by a moderator:
Hey, thanks for asking — I really appreciate the directness.
To be fully transparent: yes, I do use generative AI sometimes, mostly to polish and refine my writing. It’s not about outsourcing what I want to say — the thoughts, the ideas, the emotional tone are all mine. But English isn’t my first language, and sometimes I just want to make sure my words hit the right note, especially in more subtle or nuanced conversations like this one.
It’s not about making things sound “perfect” or slick — I actually prefer keeping things honest and a bit raw. But I also care a lot about language, and I try to express myself as clearly as I can. Think of it more like having a second pair of eyes for editing, not a ghostwriter.
That said, if you’d rather I post without any polish — just straight from the heart, no filters — I’m totally okay with that too. It’ll be slower and probably less elegant, but I’d still stand behind every word.
And you are right as I am. Which is exactly why one shouldn't decide for all others what is art and what isn't.
Same here.
I'd still like you to address my question. You see, a photograph presents itself as a document of a situation or event, but there is no necessity there. In fact, given the amount of potential purposeful inclusion or exclusion of elements from a composition, it's always difficult to say "This is definitely a photo of that" in the sense that "that" is equivalent in some way to "this". So, it's not as different from painting as you suggest - for either the painter/photographer or the viewer.
Both photos and paintings have the power to implicate ethical concerns. We are accustomed to photography being used for that specific purpose and so are a bit more ready to understand a photo in that way. That in no way reflects on the artistry involved. It also doesn't guarantee a truth value for the photo. A photo can be contrived - completely staged - and have as great a moral impact as another.
Furthermore, you attempt to divorce morality and aesthetics. That is not something that I would suggest is as clear and clean as you think it is.
I'm quite peeved, knowing that I may have been arguing with a machine. You're going to have a hard time convincing me that you are using AI just as "a second pair of eyes for editing." Your post on Gene Smith's Minamata photo may be from you, but it reads exactly like the stuff ChatGPT would spurt out when prompted. So now I can't tell which is which, and, in such case, no conversation is possible.
By the way, my first language is French. When unsure of the meaning of a word, or if the word I want to use is the right word, or if I use it correctly, I do like all old people do, I open a dictionnary or a thesaurus or a grammar. That's how you "polish and refine" your writing. Not by letting a machine write, and therefore think, in your place.
And yeah, sometimes I get lazy and use the wrong word or simply translate in poor English what I'm thinking in French, hoping readers will forgive me as they have forgiven countless others here that come from different non-English countries who have nevertheless contributed to conversations no matter how poorly they would write.
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 91
- Format
- 4x5 Format
Within my circle of friends there are more than average people that you can call creators. Most of them are driven by the joy of creating something. They tend not to be interested in exposing their work. The motivation originates from the joy of creating. Not from being a “artist”.
If you have to make money with your work it will be considered a burden.
If you have to make money with your work it will be considered a burden.
Last phrase couldn't agree more
I can assure you: there’s no machine in my chair, and definitely none doing the thinking for me.
I don’t use AI to write for me — just to help me say what I already think, but better. Think of it as spellcheck with a philosophy degree. The ideas, the doubts, the analogies — they come from real brain fog, not a server farm in Ohio. Maybe that’s hard to believe, especially since today’s AI can mimic tone and structure so well. But in my case, it’s still me behind every thought.
And hey, I totally respect the old-school way. Dictionaries, grammar books, thésaurus in one hand, a glass of red in the other — beautiful image. But just because I use a different tool doesn’t mean I’ve forfeited thinking. Michelangelo had assistants; I just have a neural net with questionable taste. Also for me, the language barrier can sometimes feel more like a wall than a step. And when I write about things I care deeply about, like Smith’s Minamata photo or the role of joy in photography, I want to be precise. Not slick, just precise — and understood.
Jokes aside, I’m not trying to pass as a native or play some linguistic game. I’m here for the ideas, the disagreements, and the messy, passionate photography talk. I think it would be a shame to pull the plug on the conversation just because I write too well
Anyway — if you still want to talk, I’m all ears (and zero microchips)
Yes, there is. The problem is, you're not acknowledging it, and likely not realizing the extent to which it really does matter, in multiple ways:
* Our discussions are about philosophy, philosophy revolves around formulating thoughts and communicating them through language, and human agency in this entire process is fundamental to the exercise.
* As you've observed, it's not just your end of the deal that matters, but also perceptions on the other end. People may not appreciate the fact that they can't rely on your words actually being your words, even if they really do (or you really believe that they) express your feelings/thoughts. Any meaningful conversation is inherently based on a certain basis of mutual trust and respect. Some may feel this trust is being violated if either discussant chooses to delegate some of the work to a machine.
Consider this parallel. You're married to a wife, and from time to time, you have sex. At those times, you secretly think of another woman. At some point, you come to talk about this and explain this to your wife. You may assert that the love you feel for her is as genuine as it ever was, and that you stand firmly behind the things you did together. You will still sleep on the couch.
OK I will stop using them completely then. In that case and from now on it will be inherently harder for me to explain my thoughts and insights and I won't contribute that much thoughts to the forum. To paraphrase St. Augustine:
"What is a good photograph? If no one asks me, I know; if I want to explain it to a questioner, I don't know"
So, let it be like that I find it way more honest too
As for philosophy etc. I am open to continue as it is more interesting and personal. But for photography I don't think I can express my understanding well despite the procedure you taught me. It might work with simpler images but with images like Atget the pure description won't get you anywhere
I appreciate it, @nikos79. Sorry to be hard on your case, but I feel there are some very fundamental ethical issues underlying the use of AI in a context like this.
You see, I had kind of hoped you would come to that conclusion. I think it's very difficult, too. That's exactly why it needs to be done, I feel.
In several of your arguments, you've expressed your appreciation (or lack thereof) of bodies of work in subjective terms and normative assessments: essentially variants on the extremes of 'good' or 'bad'. A discourse built from such elements seems to work quite well at first glance and indeed, it's possible (as you've demonstrated) to build a seemingly convincing and intricate argument on this basis. But if you try to analyze it systematically, it tends to crumble. Here's comes parallel, which I expect will take quite a bit of creativity and effort to understand, and maybe it doesn't even convey very well in the first place: this kind of argumentation seems to me a bit like skating very fast on ice that's very thin in many places, or riding a bike very fast on a poorly paved road. Everything is (mostly) fine as long as you continue on your merry way, making good speed. But can you come to a rest and manage to stand upright? What happens if you go a little too slow over too thin a bit of ice?
I feel that if you're trying to say something meaningful (i.e. something that can be understood by someone else, and that you can discuss in such a way that the discussants effectively share a comparable mental model of the subject), there's some groundwork that needs to be done before the argument becomes somewhat solid. In the case of 'joy' in a photographer's work, I'm afraid that in attempts to do this, you'll inevitably hit on weak spots in the ice or major potholes in the road surface. This is also what you've seen happening in the course of this thread - you see people basically asking what 'joy' is, whether it needs to be there in all the work of a photographer before the photographer qualifies (a difficult interaction between two different units or levels of analysis - the work and the person; we've seen this before), whether it's something that can be recognized or even clearly defined in such a way that others can identify it in the same way you're seeing it, and several other fundamental issues.
In this particular case, I suspect that the conceptual difficulties are so big that you essentially have to conclude that the argument just doesn't work. There's something there, alright. I feel it, too. But it just cannot be accurately captured in a relatively simplistic thesis along the lines of "the nature and degree of motivation of a photographer is visible in their work." There are too many confounding factors, too many opportunities for (successful) falsification and too many examples that 'confirm the rule' to make it work.
All this doesn't mean the argument shouldn't be made. But in doing so, I feel you should be prepared to seriously address the conceptual difficulties involved in it. Again, just like in our previous exchange, that's where the real gold is.
You see, I had kind of hoped you would come to that conclusion. I think it's very difficult, too. That's exactly why it needs to be done, I feel.
In several of your arguments, you've expressed your appreciation (or lack thereof) of bodies of work in subjective terms and normative assessments: essentially variants on the extremes of 'good' or 'bad'. A discourse built from such elements seems to work quite well at first glance and indeed, it's possible (as you've demonstrated) to build a seemingly convincing and intricate argument on this basis. But if you try to analyze it systematically, it tends to crumble. Here's comes parallel, which I expect will take quite a bit of creativity and effort to understand, and maybe it doesn't even convey very well in the first place: this kind of argumentation seems to me a bit like skating very fast on ice that's very thin in many places, or riding a bike very fast on a poorly paved road. Everything is (mostly) fine as long as you continue on your merry way, making good speed. But can you come to a rest and manage to stand upright? What happens if you go a little too slow over too thin a bit of ice?
I feel that if you're trying to say something meaningful (i.e. something that can be understood by someone else, and that you can discuss in such a way that the discussants effectively share a comparable mental model of the subject), there's some groundwork that needs to be done before the argument becomes somewhat solid. In the case of 'joy' in a photographer's work, I'm afraid that in attempts to do this, you'll inevitably hit on weak spots in the ice or major potholes in the road surface. This is also what you've seen happening in the course of this thread - you see people basically asking what 'joy' is, whether it needs to be there in all the work of a photographer before the photographer qualifies (a difficult interaction between two different units or levels of analysis - the work and the person; we've seen this before), whether it's something that can be recognized or even clearly defined in such a way that others can identify it in the same way you're seeing it, and several other fundamental issues.
In this particular case, I suspect that the conceptual difficulties are so big that you essentially have to conclude that the argument just doesn't work. There's something there, alright. I feel it, too. But it just cannot be accurately captured in a relatively simplistic thesis along the lines of "the nature and degree of motivation of a photographer is visible in their work." There are too many confounding factors, too many opportunities for (successful) falsification and too many examples that 'confirm the rule' to make it work.
All this doesn't mean the argument shouldn't be made. But in doing so, I feel you should be prepared to seriously address the conceptual difficulties involved in it. Again, just like in our previous exchange, that's where the real gold is.
As is this:
And it is a protest against a war in Spain.
Very solid reply I read it carefully. I think in the end we finally both agree by recognising the inherent difficulties of "explaining" a work of art as we always come back to the same prejudices we have (education, character, personal preference, art background, etc.). In the end understanding them helps solidify the argument or even better make it weaker than an argument and diminish it to a simple personal observation, which in turn might either turn a counter argument or attract similar resonance from the rest of the forum participants
To Tomoko’s family, displaying photographs without permission immortalizes Tomoko’s suffering. Tomoko’s father, Yoshio, stated,
“many of the organizations working on our behalf are still using the photograph in various media, many of them without our consent…I realize this is necessary for numerous reasons, but I wanted Tomoko to be laid to rest…”
The family’s request to limit reproduction is an ethical expectation which I think we should honour.
“many of the organizations working on our behalf are still using the photograph in various media, many of them without our consent…I realize this is necessary for numerous reasons, but I wanted Tomoko to be laid to rest…”
The family’s request to limit reproduction is an ethical expectation which I think we should honour.
Last edited:
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |