Take your photography to the next level and beyond...

  • NEWS
  • REVIEWS
  • INSPIRATION
  • COMMUNITY
  • COMPETITIONS

Why not join for free today?

Join for Free

Your total photography experience starts here


PRIZES GALORE! Enter The ePHOTOzine Exclusive Christmas Prize Draw; Over £10,000 Worth of Prizes! Plus A Gift For Everybody On Christmas Day!

Famous photographers


Why does every seem to assume that every photograph taken by a famous photographer is an amazing work of art?

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

22 Jul 2013 6:33PM
Do you know that or are you assuming? Wink

You know what is said about assumption.....it makes an "ass" out of "u" and "me".
SlowSong e2
6 4.8k 29 England
22 Jul 2013 6:34PM
They don't. You've made a rather wide-sweeping statement there. What can you say to back it up?
franken e2
12 3.3k 4 Wales
22 Jul 2013 7:14PM

Quote:[Why does every seem to assume that every photograph taken by a famous photographer is an amazing work of art?/quote]

What a completely ridiculous statement to make!

Ken

peterjones e2
12 4.0k 1 United Kingdom
22 Jul 2013 7:22PM
I thought a statement ended with a . or sometimes a ! but not often a ?

I suspect the OP was asking a question for discussion rather than dare make a statement that transgresses traditional epz thought; funny that word traditional within what is supposed to be creativity.

My own answer is I try never to assume anything especially a so called amazing work of art whoever the photographer is be it a "rock star" or an ordinary jo.

Peter.
I come across so many people who see a David Bailey image and they say "WOW what a wonderful photo" even though most are average, but they are considered great becasue David Bailey took it.
I know lot of photographers see a Cartier Bresson Image and will wax lyrical about the perfect timing and yet to me they look like snap shots, if your average person on the street saw a Cartier Bresson image they wouldnt look at it twice.
@Peterjones you seem to understand me.

It seems that a lot of Peter assume higher quality when a well known name o brand is attached to it, much the same way as designer clothes labels.
keithh e2
11 23.4k 33 Wallis And Futuna
22 Jul 2013 7:54PM

Quote:I come across so many people who see a David Bailey image and they say "WOW what a wonderful photo" even though most are average, but they are considered great becasue David Bailey took it.


You don't though, do you and Cartier Bresson got where he is because his photos worked.

A discussion needs a less shallow starting point.
collywobles e2
10 3.4k 9 United Kingdom
22 Jul 2013 8:37PM

Quote:I come across so many people who see a David Bailey image and they say "WOW what a wonderful photo" even though most are average, but they are considered great becasue David Bailey took it.


Not necessarily true, but some images as 'a collection' work well and if you look at for example Donald McCullins War images individually and technically they are not good but as a historical set and a statement they are remarkable.
22 Jul 2013 8:48PM

Quote:It seems that a lot of Peter assume higher quality when a well known name o brand is attached to it, much the same way as designer clothes labels.


There is the power of suggestion, whereby if "enough" people believe something then others may go with the flow. For example, Mercedes Benz.... many people assume higher quality but lots of people probably haven't even been in one. This could explain why some people think a David Bailey photo is wonderful because David Bailey took it, but again your initial question is asking why everyone (i assume Wink you meant every "one") seems to assume etc... the meaning behind it seems quite clear in that you are looking for an answer as to that specific question... at least by my understanding of the English language.

peterjones. I think the other posters genuinely thought the OP was making a sweeping statement rather than "transgressing traditional EPZ thinking". I know i did.
joolsb e2
10 27.1k 38 Switzerland
22 Jul 2013 8:53PM
I suggest you show us some examples of what you mean because there are a great number of famous photographers, working in a great number of different genres. Some are considered good because they broke the mould (Bailey, Donovan, Duffy), some because of their phenomenal sense of craft (Adams), some because of an approach to composition and timing that makes you look at the ordinary in a different light (Cartier-Bresson, Kertesz), etc., etc, the list goes on and on.

Going back to Bailey, he made his name in the 60's with a collection of strikingly unconventional portraits. Old hat in today's 'been there, seen that' jaded photographic world but daring and new in their day. Actually, quite a few of them hold up pretty well now. And that's the true mark of a great photographer - does that person's work stand the test of time?
keithh e2
11 23.4k 33 Wallis And Futuna
22 Jul 2013 9:30PM
Who do you think you are...........?

"So, whose that photo by?"

"David Bailey. Icon. Helped invent the idea of Swinging London. Photographed most of the worlds beautiful models of two generations and created at least two of them from nothing. Inspired the film Blowout. Awarded CBE for services to Art. Developed a style of photography that would be copied to this day. "

"I heard he was ****"
redsnappa e2
12 2.0k United Kingdom
22 Jul 2013 9:47PM

Quote:Cartier Bresson got where he is because his photos worked

Maybe Cartier Bresson got where he is because we are told that his photos worked.
keithh e2
11 23.4k 33 Wallis And Futuna
22 Jul 2013 9:49PM
Who told you?
Wink
22 Jul 2013 10:29PM
I agree with the op that in many cases having a 'name ' certainly adds much credibility to even the most mundane images. I did challenge many images in my degree studies. I wondered why weston's cloud images were better than anyone else's snaps of clouds, at least the ones I'd seen anyway.
Coventryphotog Junior Member 1 149 United Kingdom
22 Jul 2013 10:45PM
Pretentions in "art" become problematic, to my mind, when viewers, who disagree with the arbiters of taste, whoever they may be, are informed that they simply do not understand.....

World most expensive photo - to date - a rather crap view of a river....or maybe I just don't get it.....

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.