What's the difference between a good photo and a great photo? Can anyone even agree on how to distinguish the two? One man has tried, and it's a rather polarizing view.
Recently here on Fstoppers, one of my fellow writers opened the debate on what constitutes "fine art," and that article has generated some very interesting discussion. What I liked reading most was the variety in readers' ideas of how they define art and fine art. It's a very polemic topic and shows that people have their own interpretations of terms, definitions, and quality with regards to art and photography. And so it is with how you define good photography and great photography. Again, it's almost impossible to create a universally accepted definition that clearly distinguishes the two, because there is so much emotion and personal interpretation involved.
However, Marc Newton, from The School of Photography, has put his neck on the proverbial chopping block and tried to put a line between the two. As I watched and listened, at first, I thought he was way off the mark and a little bit condescending, but in the second half, he turned me around somewhat. What I liked is that not only is he forthright with his opinion, he also gives reasons and endeavors to provide evidence for his views. I do recommend you watch it and stay to the end, because he does provoke thought and considered discussion, which is always healthy.
What do you think? Is he self-righteous, absolutely correct, or somewhere in the middle? Please leave your thoughts in the comments below.
I have seen better in my photography groups online. I've seen images here on Fstoppers that would blow that image out of the water. The solar panels picture to me is good, but not something I would hang on my wall.
Given its size, it would be very problematic to hang it on the wall indeed. Unless you live in a castle, of course.
P.S. Les Mées ( showing a solar farm in the French Alps), 2016. C-Print 220.9 x 367.2 x 6.2 cm © Andreas Gursky | DACS, 2017.