Aesthetics of Photography

[sticko]

Hey guys.

Recently I have been doing research on the aesthetics of photography.
About rules of third, golden rules, symmetrical composition and all. But what is the real meaning of the aesthetics of photography. I am curious about how different people would interpret them. So i hope you guys can give me some feed back and thoughts.

Thanks

p.s. I have search through the forum for similar post but could not find any. But I might have missed a few. If there are any do show me. Thanks.

 

[night86mare]

unlike lord of the rings, there isn't a one ring or all size fits all thing

some photos are found good by a group of people, others spit and step on it.
if a photograph is beautiful, it is beautiful. if it isn't, it isn't. you can't force someone who thinks that the photograph is ugly to think that it is good.
think less, and be more truthful to yourself when selecting pictures to post/process. if a photograph looks ugly to you, it usually is. if it looks good, it usually has some merit, simple as that.

 

[shgfun]

just like mentioned above, art, photography is a form of art, is subjective. As saying goes, beauty lies in the eyes of beholder. and in general, we tend to over-appreciate our own a little bit, i think.

 

[waileong]

I think you should do more research. There are essays and books on this sort of things. More authoritative than forum opinions for sure.

Hey guys.

Recently I have been doing research on the aesthetics of photography.
About rules of third, golden rules, symmetrical composition and all. But what is the real meaning of the aesthetics of photography. I am curious about how different people would interpret them. So i hope you guys can give me some feed back and thoughts.

Thanks

p.s. I have search through the forum for similar post but could not find any. But I might have missed a few. If there are any do show me. Thanks.

 

[forward]

From Wiki...

"Aesthetics (also spelled esthetics) is a branch of philosophy, a species of value theory or axiology, which is the study of sensory or sensori-emotional values, sometimes called judgments of sentiment and taste. Aesthetics is closely associated with the philosophy of art".
The more you learn about individual expressions vs emotions
the more you will be able to appreciate the reasons for the
image that was made in the first place with an open mind.

People shouts "foul" and condemn an image without finding
out why it was created in the first place. Just because they
don't like it doesn't mean the image is bad.

Aesthetics of an image must be absorbed and learned by every human being who will soon begin to appreciate the work of the Ultimate. The relationship of God and man
so to speak. Go for it because the more aesthetics you are
the more beauty you will find within you. Your work will
soon reflect such new found realism.

:thumbsup:

 

[sticko]

I think you should do more research. There are essays and books on this sort of things. More authoritative than forum opinions for sure.

Ya. I think so too. I am looking into those areas.
But in this case i want to see how different individuals interpret the meaning of aesthetics of photography. Cause I am sure different people have different interpretation.

Thanks

 

[espion]

There is certainly a thing as beauty or else we wont have a word for it.

And partners will think and see their other half as beautiful at least for some moments in time.

And then you yourself have surely said or thought or felt something as beautiful.

The difficulty is saying what is it that makes something beautiful, and then getting others to agree with you.

There are several reasons for this, and this is where philosophy comes in. But we need not go into it. The Greeks have established some of what these things are, eg the golden mean.

More practically if you are in the business of selling beautiful things, then beauty is not so much being in the beholder's eye, but in the one who holds the purse strings. And this is what is meant by commercialism corrupting art. (But what is art?)

But really what I think you are getting at, is to know how to make beautiful pictures.

One start is look at beautiful pictures, those that are generally acclaimed, eg Ansel Adams, Henri Cartier Bresson, and also fine art artist from various genres, eg Michaelangelo, Klimt, Matisse, etc etc. And read what people say what make them masterpieces. And then put into practice and then seek critique, especially valid critique. Thats the start.

My own personal view is that there is an OBJECTIVE, ie NOT based on what you feel, standards for beauty, but rather something in and of the beautiful thing itself. The problem to me is not so much in a thing lacking beauty but rather it being seen as such. (And I think everyone is beautiful, but not all are given to see this.)

And I think mostly it is the one seeing, or rather not seeing, which is the main problem, and in a sense, that is the social role of an artist, namely to make others see beauty where it once was not seen. (Imagine a portrait of a wrinkled old poor woman with fire and defiance in her eyes when told Singapore is the happiest place on earth.)

But to be sure there are people - plenty I would readily wager - thinking trash as beauty and pushing them as art. And one reason for aesthetics was to discriminate such trash from true beauty, even as logic was invented by the same Greeks to discriminate nonsense from sense in arguments.

 

[forward]

Can we argue then...what is trash and what is not?
The same scenerio about what is right and what is wrong.

The trash bin is simply unwanted stuff that you don't want
cause to you they are useless or bad but to another folk...
lol...the trash bin content is a gold mine.

Just simply walk down Sungei Road (Kelantan Lane)
during the weekend to find out the simplicity of the other
meaning of discriminate trash.

When a human being makes an image using whatever
means either with a camera or even without a camera,
it is an output of his thoughts, emotions, feelings at that
time or accumulated time. Depending on the quality of
that human being (his education, training received etc) the
output of his images will varied accordingly.

The context now perhaps is to redefined what images
are supposed to be trash content and what is not. For the
students of photography most probably they have to
master all the basics of aesthetic beauty and the likes and
then further his studies by putting what has been learned
to his work. At the same time they got to keep going by
creating new images through whatever things that comes
to their mind with new methods of execution.

Aesthetics is artistry of man imagination brought
about by his mind in connection with the universe.
There is no such thing as bad taste in aesthetics or good
taste in aesthetics.

 

[espion]

Can we argue then...what is trash and what is not?
The same scenerio about what is right and what is wrong.

Of course! Its called philosophy, but then this is not the forum for it.

 

[espion]

Actually I am most interested in whether there is a non Western concept of aesthetics and beauty. There ought to be as beauty is universal. For example, the Chinese have a word for beauty, but I am not sure if there is an equivalent word for aesthetic, and if so what is it, and whether it is used to discriminate whats beautiful and whats not. PM if you want to discuss this further.

 

[waileong]

Ya. I think so too. I am looking into those areas.
But in this case i want to see how different individuals interpret the meaning of aesthetics of photography. Cause I am sure different people have different interpretation.

Thanks

You don't believe, do you?