What is a good photograph?

A Dreamy Early Morning. This photograph was submitted to three photo contest (one as a B/W version) and won an honorable mention in each.

Sometimes you know what a good photograph is just by looking at it. But how do you know what you know is right? After all, how can one really know what is a good photograph? We may expand this question even further, and ask: How do we know what good art is?

This question leads us into a deep philosophical-social-economic trap, related to the definition of Art. Personally, this question interests me on two levels.

One is as an evolutionary psychologist, that is, as someone who has studied both animal and human behavior, specializing on communication, I was intrigued looking at role of art, existing at the interface between personal and mass human communication. With the question of “What is Art?” I closed the courses I taught at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and at Haifa University, entitled “On the evolution of interpersonal communication”. I was invited twice to talk about this at the Israel Museum, Jerusalem.
Second is my subjective point of view, as a photographer and a creator who is trying to evaluate his own work as well as those of others he’s seeing.

As an evolutionary psychologist who specialized on animal and human communication research, it seems productive to divide the definition of Art and its social roles into three different categories:

(1) Art is a tool for self expression

This is the first foundation of art. The emotional and cognitive views and thoughts of the creator are expressed during her/his creation process.

The flow of personal emotions and cognitive thoughts and ideas of the creator are expressed during the creation process, and may leave detectable tracks in the final product. The creator has the freedom to experiment, letting thoughts and feelings come and go or stay during the creation of the work, or let curiosity and exploration of shapes, colors and tools leak into or dominate the process, all of which can sometimes be traced back when examining the final product. The creator can be totally free of concerns of what others would think about the work or about him/herself, or be partially or totally imprisoned by such thoughts, depending, for example, on the intended use of the creation. When speaking of photography, the process of exploration may be expressed by a series of photographs rather than by a single one.

That is the reason why children draw or sculpture (e.g. in sand) even if they are not Van Gogh or Picasso or Michelangelo. They do it simply because it makes them feel good. Adults also draw, sculpture, create in ceramics, shoot photographs, sing, dance or write, because it gives them a tool for creative thinking and for emotional expression, or the chance to forget and rid of worries and anxiety, with the freedom to let internal streams of feelings and thinking flow uninterruptedly. Photography, as a quick documentary tool, has another special emotional and/or rational value to it, with its immediate potential to preserve memories.

Yet, adults are more careful when creating than children, because they are more aware of social criticism. For this reason, adults are more weary, often avoid creation when it is not functional, or sometimes may do the opposite, and be more eager to receive reinforcement and appreciation from others. Hence, adults tend, more than children, to consciously learn tools and rules that will help them understand what is “correct” or “acceptable”, and what will help them create a “better” artwork, or they be more judgmental about their own or others’ work. One way or another, fundamentally, this type of art is first and foremost personal, and may have a personal value to its creators. Psychologists and therapists who practice art therapy and phototherapy, use them as tools for a better understanding of their patients. Perhaps, they may also be helped further by understanding the balance between the creator’s need to express and freedom to create, in the face of the obstacles that this freedom has.

(2) Art is used for interpersonal communication

In the beginning… Art as a communication tool has existed ever since Homo sapiens has made his or her first tool, or since he or she painted their own skin with mud or ochre and alike. It is very likely that singing, dancing or playing (such as mimicking animals or other humans) even predated that, although they did not leave records for us to see in archeological sites. The value of this type of art has been its use by the creator to convey information to other directly about him or herself, such as about skills, talent, physical condition, wisdom or personal experience, or about his or her emotional world, or it may have been used as a channel to tell information about the outer world such as what, where and how, or a narrative with an educational role or a lesson.

Since art gives information to others, it has evolved within the framework of communication dynamics. In other words, when people react in response to this information, it gives the reactor a temptation to work further on that creation, perhaps making it more precise, emphasized or extroverted, in order to gain further social rewards. This could often have been a conscious decision.

Personae. A photograph that won honorable mentions in the two competitions in which it competed.

(3) Art as an economic asset

The understanding of art is confusing, unless we make a clear distinction between art as a self expression tool and art as an economic asset. Art as a personal expressive tool may or may not have economic value. In order to get one, it must go through stages of scrutiny, criticism and judgment by experts who ask the question: Is there anyone who is willing to pay for the creation, and how much?

Here, the role of psychologists in evaluating the artwork tapers off, and is replaced by art historians, treasurers, art critics, and art referees, as well as by museum owners and collectors who use the artwork as either an economic investment, or as a showcase to publicize their economic status and or their emotional or intellectual aptitude. It is them who give the artwork its economical value.

Is a photograph or any artwork necessarily “better” if someone is willing to pay a higher price for it? – Of course not. There are two reasons that lead me to make this statement. The first is that our gut feeling resists admitting this might be the case. The second is the recognition that fashion and trendiness do play a significant role in the assessment of the economic value of an artwork. We would have liked to believe that the value of an artwork, such as a photograph, is directly related to its artistic value, but we cannot do it unless we have an absolute and objective measure of an artistic value. The catch is that we do not have one. Hence, instead, we use the judgment of experts, or of people who risk investing their money in it, and when we do so, we let the public relations that surround an artwork or an artist be crucially important, whether they are the artist’s PR or those of the treasurer, the art critic or the collector. After all, there is money in it. The risk is that an inherent imprecision is built in the process that determines an artwork’s artistic value.

In that regard, it is fascinating to look at one of the greatest forgery paintings in the history of art, which passed through Knoedler Gallery in New York. They were sold at a sum of some 80 million USD, in error and in fraud – paintings that were considered as previously unknown creations of some of the greatest artist in the middle of the 20^th Century: Rothko, Pollack, Warhol and others. This fraud was investigated after For 12 of which experts mistakenly believed these paintings were indeed original, until further investigation was made that revealed that all of them were created by a Chinese painter, Pei-Shen Qian. Qian, who apparently could not find his economic success in the USA, was seduced by crooks to paint these paintings for them, and managed to escape to China. The betrayed collectors were left owning paintings they acquired for millions of dollars, and suddenly became worthless.

A forgery of a Rothko painting, supposedly a new, unknown painting.

.Which, of course, raises the question: What is that thing of value? Is it the artwork, or is it the name of its creator, the artist? In other words: Does celebrity have a value?

The answer is almost self-evident – of course, celebrity has value, and a crucial one. This value is expressed in both financial and artistic appreciation, and it often times comes together with reputation and credibility, although exceptions are known.

This, however, is not the only answer, because every successful artist has some artworks that are appreciated more than others, financially, of course, which implies that there are others else along the line, or some dynamical processes, which determine the artworks’ values. The official reason would normally be, of course, their artistic value, and this brings us back to the dynamics of the appreciation and evaluation of good art, though with the understanding that higher credit is initially given to successful artists.

Not all types of public relations are the same in their ability to give value to a work. Some celebrity types are considered “higher” and more important among collectors and by those who determine the artistic or economic value of a work, and “lower” celebrity types, who are considered less important. For example, Facebook celebrity is not considered important enough to determine the economic or artistic value of an artwork. The reason is that reactions to photos shared on Facebook are influenced by the relationship the creator has with other surfers, sometimes even in give-and-take relationships (likes), more than to the quality of the photos, and because the commenters are not professionals in the art industry, and therefore their opinion is usually worthless in the eyes of the professional art evaluators (and I would insist, though: unless there is money in it!). The Value of a PhotographSo: how can I know how good my photography is? Is there any objective measure? And above all, what interests the common man or the beginning creator – if I’m not a recognized artist, is there a way to determine the quality of my photography independent of its economic value, and therefore also independent of my public relations? The answer is that it is possible, in part, by subjecting it to objective judgment. So let’s talk for a moment about photography contests. There are many of these – though most of them are a financial business – most of them charge a fee for each competing photo, and there is a large gap between the total revenue and the amount of prizes. Nevertheless – most of them also have artistic pretensions and judges who are professionals, and in the more significant competitions – also well-known curators and photo critics and even renowned creative photographers. For this reason, photography contests are considered to attract more participants, and the level of submitted photographs and the level of judging are indeed very high. Each photo contest has a small number of winners – usually up to three per submission category. It is very difficult to win a competition to which thousands or tens of thousands of photographs have been submitted, many of which are excellent photographs, which makes your photograph one of many. Even if your photography is very good, then except for exceptional cases where you have presented a photograph that really stands out in its subject or in its creative work, the decision on this or that photograph as a winner is almost arbitrary.

In addition to winning an award, many photographs are also highlighted with the title of Commendation, whether the title is “Honorable Mention” or “Nomination” (depending on the competition). About ten percent of all photographs may be selected under this heading. These wins provide a sense of value to a wide audience of contest participants, and give them motivation to continue submitting photos in future contests.

Pigeon. A photograph that was submitted to one photography contest, and was awarded an honorable mention.

If you won, then you won. It’s definitely a statement that has value, which has both an artistic statement about photography that comes with a degree of celebrity. Especially if your photograph won the entire competition, which is another and more significant category. But if you didn’t win, or if you “only” won a commendation – does that mean the photograph is not good enough? Should I give it up for later contests?

Not so fast. It is always good to remember examples of best-selling books that were rejected many times before they were published. The book Catch 22, which was one of the most popular books ever, received the symbolic number of rejections, 22.  Harry Potter received 12 rejections before finding the publisher that decided to publish it, and so on and so forth. – So how do you know?

One of the practical answers to understanding the value of a work is – the attention it receives from the professionals. For example, a photograph that won a commendation in (at least) more than one competition, means that the attention it received significantly exceeds the statistics, and is therefore valuable. Of course, even more so when it wins several awards.

The Photos of this Post

The photos of this post have attached to this post one photographic work that I submitted to two different international photography contests and were awarded an honorable mention in both, and one that was submitted to three and won honorable mention or alike in all three contests. Therefore, statistically, these are appreciated photographs. Below them is a photo that was submitted once, and therefore only passed the test once and won it (therefore, with a greater chance of winning it randomly than the first two photos). And the bottom photo is a photo that was submitted to two different contests, and didn’t win either of them. I’m not asking you to be the judge, but you can certainly wonder: Is the difference in quality significant?

Black and White. A photograph that was submitted to two photography contests and did not win in either of them. The thin gap?

If you believe in your photography and think it is good, then stick to it. The confidence to believe in yourself is important. Perhaps nothing is more important than this. Maybe it doesn’t matter. A photograph can be a great work of art even if it has no financial value and if it has not received the attention it may deserve. You should pay attention to the signs that can strengthen your appreciation of your work, but don’t forget that photography always has its first function as well – the work is your tool of expression. As such, it should be the most significant value for you that will attract you to create more and more.

Then, a small but very significant footnote: I was dealing here with the question of whether photography is good, and not whether a photographer is good, which is a completely separate question. My post was not intended to ask that question. However, it is precisely to get answers to this question, or to be better photographers, people go to art and photography schools – to rub shoulders with people who have an opinion that counts, to learn their way of looking, and also to get an objective opinion that is free from interest. It is easier in the highest quality educational institutions, which can afford to provide independent, opinionated, and sometimes harsh and blunt criticism, without fearing the financial cost involved in discouraging students from criticism. On the other hand, this is also the place where a positive opinion about the creator from teachers who think they have an influence, can push him or her up the road.

This post was first posted on my Hebrew blog on March 25^th, 2021.