How do you judge the artistic value of a photograph?

  • Thread starter Thread starter PhotographyBuff
  • Start date Start date
P

PhotographyBuff

Guest
Are there specific criteria that have to be met, or is it rather a combination of factors that cannot be isolated? If the former, then what are those criteria? If the latter, then what is it that makes a photograph great?
 
Good lighting and composition can make a great photograph from almost anything, you need a very strong subject without them but even the best subject can be spoiled without them
Artistic value is very subjective and we all like different things
I'd say most of my favourite shots are nice strong contrasts and shadows with a well positioned and lit subject. It varies depending on what the subject is of course from portraits to landscapes/architecture/whatever
 
I don't think there is such a thing as artistic value. There are no set criteria and what makes a photo great to me is how much I like it. If I like it then I like it and any parts of it that may typically not make a good photo are irrelevant.
 
BruceMo said:
Good lighting and composition can make a great photograph from almost anything, you need a very strong subject without them but even the best subject can be spoiled without them
Artistic value is very subjective and we all like different things
I'd say most of my favourite shots are nice strong contrasts and shadows with a well positioned and lit subject. It varies depending on what the subject is of course from portraits to landscapes/architecture/whatever
Click to expand...

This exactly. Creativity can get a great image with a mundane subject and if you've ever seen snapshots of the Taj Mahal...,,,

If you want to improve artistically there's plenty of guides on composition, but less on lighting. Which is just as important b
 
monetary value and artistic value are not the same thing (says he who doesn't really agree with concept of artistic value anyway!)
 
There's no way to tell artistic value until after the shot in my opinion, what works great in one shot wont always work well in others, there's just too many factors to form any good algorithm on good worth.

Sure a good sharp focus on a photo brings out a lot more detail and nice lighting may make it bright and cheerful too, but what's to say the opposite wont also bring out a photo you fall in love with, a dusky dull dark photo of the moon with an added blur effect to fade the stars so the moon stays the main subject.
 
$4.3M for that?

I think it might be better to say nothing. :)

Actually, I've changed my mind... ...

Suppose I'd have taken that photo and put it up for critique in the landscape section on here. I really can't imagine anyone replying

"Wow, that's a fantastic image, Ged, it must be worth at least $4M!"
 
Last edited:
u1bd2005 said:
There's no way to tell artistic value until after the shot in my opinion, what works great in one shot wont always work well in others, there's just too many factors to form any good algorithm on good worth.

Sure a good sharp focus on a photo brings out a lot more detail and nice lighting may make it bright and cheerful too, but what's to say the opposite wont also bring out a photo you fall in love with, a dusky dull dark photo of the moon with an added blur effect to fade the stars so the moon stays the main subject.
Click to expand...

Good light and bright light aren't the same thing.

You can take the challenge to show me a great image where the light isn't interesting:)

When we're learning and struggling to understand exposure - we're driven to capture the 'right amount' of light, which can lead us to believe that good pictures need lots of light. Once you understand that quality of light is about your most powerful tool, you're on your way... (I don't think I've ever taken a great photo, but I've only been practising 29 years)
 
'Artistic Value'

Tricky one that as it's two words.

Put them together and it's easy to jump to a conclusion regarding what they mean but treated independently, can mean different things.

'Artistic' - I'm going to skip over that as it's completely subjective.

'Value' - this can mean different things. Financial worth / importance / influencial / held dear etc etc.

Can you have a good photograph with both - yes.

Are either or both required to make a good phogotgraph - no.

Can a photograph be technically good without either - yes.

That doesn't help much then.
 
Last edited:
I think too many people get "artistic" and "technical" mixed up.

For me, the artistic value of an image is how it makes me feel and would I want to be there.

For me, the technical value of an image is the composition, lighting and focus.

Andy
 
For me personally a great photograph has to have an emotional impact that grabs me. We each have our likes and dislikes when viewing the various styles of photography, but we all have come across images that we connect with strongly. I guess you would have to say it has artistic value. But rarely have I ever consider using the term to describe a truly great photograph.
 
The phrase - "Fools and their money......" comes to mind.
 
Keebsuk said:
For me, the artistic value of an image is how it makes me feel.

For me, the technical value of an image is the composition, lighting and focus.

Andy
Click to expand...

Agree. I if I like an image I can look further into what leads me to like it (the technical aspects) if I don't like an image I would be less inclinded to look why I don't like it. Any 'value' it has to me can only be decided by me.
 
'Artistic value' is an emotional response, IMHO, and as such is subjective. Whereas the technical merits of a photograph are objective, point of focus, exposure, composition etc.

Having said that so called 'artists' will often agree on the artistic merits of a piece of art and, I suspect, would argue that there are certain aspects of any piece of art that give it artistic merit. Then again an unmade bed won the Turner prize.....

That's why I look to shoot wildlife and landscapes and try to get the technical aspect right and leave the artistic bit to the natural beauty of the subject.
 
A photography has a higher artistic value to me the more it pleases my aesthetic sense or engages me intellectually. Even more if it does both at the same time.
 
I just took a look at the picture in the link and can only shake my head. Art market is a lot like stock market it seems. The value of the art (stock) is defined not by it's inherent value but by what people are willing to pay for it. But, as in the stock market, this can also be a good thing (for the photographer).
 
DrGed said:
$4.3M for that?

I think it might be better to say nothing. :)

Actually, I've changed my mind... ...

Suppose I'd have taken that photo and put it up for critique in the landscape section on here. I really can't imagine anyone replying

"Wow, that's a fantastic image, Ged, it must be worth at least $4M!"
Click to expand...

Taken from the comments below the article,

'For those that think they could reproduce a Gursky - I'd like to see you try. It is an 80" x 140" photo with unbelievable resolution, captured with multiple shots on $50,000USD medium format digital back on a large format camera. The resulting enormous file that would kill most computers, is then processed over weeks of work. Good luck reproducing that with your Canon Rebel and Macbook.'

as to its value....:shrug:
 
Last edited:
Photographs made by the Hubble Space telescope are made with even better gear, higher resolution and are undeniably more artistic that that POS from the article.
 
It is a POS to you, but clearly not to many others. As always with any discussion around art, totally subjective and no real conclusion.
 
With that photo it is like in the fairy tale by Hans-Christian Anderson about the naked king.

As always with any discussion around art, totally subjective and no real conclusion.
Click to expand...

True.

But there are also objective factors which make something beautiful (especially people) which are wired in our brains on a subconscious level. The artistic part is a conscious effort though.

But I think if we take a picture that it is not artistic but beautiful and an artistic picture which is ugly then most people will go for the beautiful one. But if you manage to have something beautiful and artistic then it is the perfect combo.

And the POS from the link is in my oppinion neither artistic nor beautiful.
 
The thing about opinions is that in the modern world, some people believe that all opinions are equal. It's one of my biggest frustrations with modern media, where some 'white witch' who has a supposed cure for a disease is allowed the same amount of airtime and a balance against an eminent doctor. It's totally ridiculous.

And someone who has never viewed the actual work of art and has no artistic credentials can label something as a PoS and expect to have that opinion valued. :cuckoo: The world truly has gone mad.

Of course everyone is entitled to an opinion - but more importantly, some opinions are worth taking to the bank and some aren't worth the time spent expressing them.
 
memorire said:
But I think if we take a picture that it is not artistic but beautiful and an artistic picture which is ugly then most people will go for the beautiful one.
Click to expand...

What would make one picture artistic and another not artistic and how would an artistic picture be ugly and what is ugly?
 
ernesto said:
What would make one picture artistic and another not artistic and how would an artistic picture be ugly and what is ugly?
Click to expand...

That is an excellent question (s).

I don't think there is a black and white answer to that. In the end what makes a picture artistic is how much of himself the artist puts into it. And how much it interacts with the viewer.

Let's say we have to landscape photographies...In one a tourist just pointed and took a picture around midday. On the second one, with exactly the same composition an artist waited for the right light and the right moment and then took the picture.

So one picture is nice but less artistic, the other is nice (probably more beautiful) and more artistic. But the motive is the same.

As for the artistic and ugly, it can definetly be combined. One memorable moment was a Hermann Nitsch exhibition in Berlin. To me his work there was very ugly and also repulsive but also undeniably artistic.

And ugly can be many things, again each finds some stuff more ugly then the other one...But there are also things which all of us would consider ugly, which is biologically wired in our brains.
 
And what if I prefer the landscape photograph taken by the tourist and think they did a better job even if it had less thought or planning? as I said, subjective and no conclusion on the way.
 
Last edited:
If there was a conclusion to this discussion all art would be very reptitive and dull. Of course it is subjective as art. But art (especially photoraphy) mirrors reality. And in reality beauty for example is objective.

Basically our tastes and preferences as humans follow a gaussian distribution, so there are pictures which most people will consider art, and those which most people will not consider art.

So I would not say that what we consider art is purely subjective, but it also can not be purely objective.
 
jon ryan said:
The photo in this link is worth $4,300,000. At least, that's what was paid for it. When you have worked out what makes it so valuable, please let me know as it beats the hell out of me! :cuckoo:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/...s-Rhine-II-the-most-expensive-photograph.html
Click to expand...

Yip - I am a person who thinks the Mona Lisa is crap. Not worth a penny. Same with Picasso paintings.

Give me a Landseer, a David Sheperd painting or one of the many landscape painters then I see worth on a grand scale.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder I suppose.
 
memorire said:
Basically our tastes and preferences as humans follow a gaussian distribution, so there are pictures which most people will consider art, and those which most people will not consider art.

So I would not say that what we consider art is purely subjective, but it also can not be purely objective.
Click to expand...

So it is subjective then, for it not to be it would have to be 100% objective, you can't have both...
 
Okay, have to agree to disagree on this one. I can't see how anything that is subjective can really have any objective part to it as your objective is different to my objective!
 
The artistic worth of a photograph can only be judged in the same way as any other artistic endeavour.
The problem in the UK, is that few people regard photography as Art.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top