Carpe Lux

Subjects are the subject today

It's interesting watching people's reactions to photographs. I've come to realize that there are different "personality" types when it comes to how people respond to a series of photographs. This ties in to a previous post about photographing cliche's.

For many people, particularly non-photographers, the subject of the photograph is king. It doesn't matter whether the photograph is any good technically, either in terms of sharpness, exposure, lighting, or composition. To them, in order for the photograph to be interesting, the subject has to be interesting.

I'm just the opposite. I don't really care what the subject matter is in the photograph. I respond mostly to the play of light in the photograph, and secondarily to how it's composed and how it's technically executed.

It's kind of like how I respond to music. I rarely pay attention to the lyrics of songs. I don't even know the words to some of my favorite songs of all time, either because I can't understand what the words are anyway, or mostly because I simply don't pay attention to them.

I respond mainly to the melodies and textures of the music. To me, the words are just part of the texture, and they don't have to make any sense at all. In the 70's I liked many of the songs by the band America, even though if you actually listen to the words, it's hard to make any sense out of them. Neil Young was also an early favorite of mine, and the words to his songs rarely made sense either.

I like country music, or more precisely, I like the sound of country music. But ironically, I don't really like what many country songs are saying. I just like the sound of the words, and the particular instruments being played, especially fiddles and pedal steel guitars.

As far as photographs are concerned, I respond mostly to the lighting. I could care less what's being lit. The subject could be a stunning landscape, a plastic doll hanging upside down in a window, an old ratty coat, water, sun, sky, buildings, people, whatever.

To me, if a photograph is executed well, has good lighting and composition, and is sharp when it's supposed to be, and soft when it's supposed to be, then it's a good photograph, and I will probably like it, regardless of what's being photographed.

I'm not so sure that most people are like that -- even many of my photographer friends don't seem to be like that. It's particularly a problem during the judging at the monthly competitions in our local camera club. Even though the judges are supposed to evaluate the photographs objectively, without regard to the subject, (unless there is a designated theme), most judges have a hard time factoring the subject out of the equation. Some like portraits, and dislike landscapes, or vice versa. And they seem to judge accordingly.

My pet peeve is when the subject is a cliche'. For example, take photographs from one of the many well-known photographic icons of Arizona and Utah, such as the slot canyons near Page, or the "Wave", or "Horseshoe Bend", or "Mesa Arch" in Canyonlands, or the "Mittens" of Monument Valley, or "Cathedral Butte" in Sedona. With many judges, all you have to do is photograph one of these icons, and you are guaranteed a high score. It doesn't matter much at all how good your photograph is. It's particularly infuriating if you have a photograph from the same area, that's well executed, but isn't the standard iconic shot from the standard vantage point, well worn with tripod holes. Your photograph will most likely be shot down.

But just because the photograph is a cliche', doesn't make it a bad photograph. Indeed many of the "icons" are icons because, quite frankly, they are great subjects, and great photographs can be made from them.

It's possible to take a good photograph of a cliche', and it can still be a good photograph. You can also take a bad photograph of a cliche', and it is still a bad photograph. Likewise, both good and bad photographs can be made of subjects that by themselves aren't so interesting or well known. (Good grief, I just re-read this paragraph -- I'm starting to sound like Donald Rumsfield. Ech!)

Of course, the best photographs are of interesting subjects and are well executed from a photography standpoint. Such photographs will appeal to all photographic personality types, even though each person is responding to the photograph in a different way. As with any art, I suppose, having that universal appeal is what sets the best photographs apart from the ordinary ones.