Have you ever checked your Facebook feed only to discover a steady flow of poor quality street photography photos? Even worse, have you notice how many of these poor quality images often receive lots of positive feedback? “You’ve been hiding this gem all these years?,” and “Wow, just an awesome shot!,” and “You are an incredible artist!” are common themes found among the comment sections of social media.
There seems to be a philosophical cult dwelling within the photography community which insists that every kid receive a gold star, every Jack get his Jill, and turkeys fly about ready roasted.
The problem is NOT that people post not-so-hot street photos, as many people are exploring and learning; the problem is the dominating atmosphere in which you’re only allowed to give positive remarks, rather than honest and critical feedback. As soon as you do, you’ll have the thought police issuing moral citations for criticizing others. “I disagree, the rules of composition are meant to be broken,” is one of the most common utterances employed by these photographic mystics. These are the same folks who insist that camera gear doesn’t matter, that everyone has talent, and that what constitutes a “good” photo, is totally a subjective affair. They dance in circles around their sacrificial fires, throwing true excellence upon their alter of mass mediocrity.
Yes, academics like Ted Forbes will tell you that the rules of composition are meant to be broken, but this is probably one of the reasons why Ted Forbes doesn’t have a published online portfolio of his good images. He’s an academic, and in academia they teach subjectivism, relativism, and Cultural Marxism. I deal with reality, and I’ll let my work speak for itself.
If we want to truly get better, if we want to become masters; then we cannot hold the philosophy of the photographic mystics. We must be critical, even harsh – especially with our own work.
Subjective taste, and objective standards of beauty