I wanted to write on the topic Becoming a Great Photographer, referring to the established Greats and their works, drawing on how and why they have achieved that status, and how others might emulate them. I have found it far more difficult task than I imagined. It isn’t hard to list photographers who are acknowledges Masters, undoubted Artists. The list is rather long, starting with A for Ansell ADAMS and proceeding through to Z for Nicos ZOGRAFOS. It is relatively easy to to note the principle qualities they bring to their work: technical mastery, commitment, a particular style, innovation, a deep understanding of their subject, the ability to connect with the viewer, the capacity to see and select the image lost in the background, and to display it in a way that the viewer understands. Easy but glib.
It is harder to say what makes any one image a Great Photograph. Walker Evans, who would certainly be on THE LIST described as “...a moment so iconic it will outlive its creator by generations."
Great is hard: but great photographs have first of all to be good pictures: technically, they should be well saturated with good tonal range, sharp, in focus, correctly exposed. If they do not meet these criteria, there should be a clear intention on the part of the photographer to use the ‘fault’ for a creative purpose: blurring a subject to impart a sense of motion, underexposing to establish a particular mood, for instance.
They should also be well composed, which presupposes that the elements of the picture are placed in such a way that they convey to the viewer something that the artist wanted to say. That in turn suggests that the photographer has something to say. Something more than “this is a pretty sunset”, or “look how cute my kids are”. There are many guidelines and rules that help establish how to manage the relationship of the objects in a two-dimensional work of art.
The ancient Greeks thought they had it down to a mathematical certainty with the Golden Mean (which we approximate with the “rule of thirds”, which recommends placing important elements at the intersection of imaginary lines dividing the photo into 3 equal parts, vertically and horizontally). The Greeks observed and understood the Golden Mean, saw it in nature and decided that, if it was good enough for the Gods, it was good enough for them! In 1202AD, Fibonacci demonstrated the mathematical series on which the Golden Mean is built. But I digress...
Master the technicalities and obey all the “rules”, or break them with clear intent, and the percentage of good pictures to poor will certainly improve. But will you ever produce a Great Photograph? Probably not. At a minimum, to be Great, a good picture must also be interesting; and not just because of some personal connection to the subject matter. After all, grandparents are always interested in photos of their grandchildren, no matter how ordinary the picture is. No, to be considered Great, the image must have more universal appeal.
But is a well composed, technically flawless image that generates wide interest, necessarily a Great photo? No. Compare a photo of (insert whatever current Celeb you like) with Lewis Morley’s iconic photo of Christine Keeler shot in 1963 (e.g., http://www.vam.ac.uk/collections/photography/icon/index.html).
What do they have in common? Well exposed, well composed, of models who were highly topical and recognisable at the time the picture was taken. But how many of the current batch of celeb photos will survive the test of time as Morley’s has?
The qualities that make technically competent, interesting picture able to retain its appeal are difficult to define; I believe it must also be evocative, perhaps have some degree of mystery or ambiguity that prompts the viewer to realise there is something here that demands further thought.
Another quality I would argue for in defining a Great photograph is it’s capacity to define a moment in time. this is not just a historical issue. Nostalgic photos of the 1930s and World War II abound; many are fine photos, but few define the Moment. But Joe Rosenthal’S “Flag raising on Iwo Jima." is in a different class, with Dorothea Lange’s 1936 image of a migrant woman and her daughter during the Great Depression.
Great photograph have the capacity to reveal something about the subject and often about the photographer, not just to record the subject. They draw you in, make you more than an observer. Like great music, it is speaks of the composer, of the artist, perhaps, but it becomes part of you and changes your understanding of yourself and your world.
A Great photographer is not someone who can make such a photograph. A great photographer is one whose photographic work typifies this kind of visceral, lasting, evocative image. talent, perception, skill and humanity, expressed through the photographic medium... no wonder there are so few!
