Why Do Our Photographs Fail?

Fine art, printing, materials, presentation, etc.

Random image from my one-light, $20 wardrobe portrait series.

Les’ essay on choosing print media prompted me to consider a lot of questions. Why do we make prints? Why do materials matter? How do we decide the size of the print? Why do we care about presentation and mounting? Why do we make pictures? Why do we point our cameras at the things we do? The biggest question; Why do most of our pictures fail?

I’ll acquiesce that some technical reasons and fumbles cause failure. All of those things we're wed to in our pursuits as photographers, focus, exposure, and resolution are trivial. These are not the primary failures. The real issue is vision, our ability to see what is in front of us. Ultimately, our failure is the lack of ability to translate the essence of what we are responding to when we press the shutter button.

Let’s return to the question of why we make pictures. There are countless reasons. Documenting, storytelling, illustrating, sharing, and remembering, all of those are valid but what are the deeper motivations? Are they to market or sell a product? Are they to provoke a reaction or gain attention? Are those motivations fame and fortune?

I’ll propose underneath all of the reasons and motivations we speak of constantly there’s a desire to find beauty. If that’s not the reason it certainly should be every time we point a camera and click the button.

When we observe a moment, a scene, small or of epic proportions, and recognize beauty we’re compelled to memorialize what we recognized in that moment. We’re driven to produce an object that somehow imitates the transcendental nature of beauty itself. Think that thought all the way through.

Beauty is not fashionable or trendy. Beauty is not provocative or “edgy” for the mere sake of being provocative. Those notions can coincide but without an element of beauty, they will become empty and meaningless. Beauty is not subjective or relative, it just is, like math. The scenes and moments we witness and recognize beauty are ephemeral, the beauty is not.

On those rare occasions when we are successful at distilling the ephemeral beauty that we are responding to with a camera, there’s a natural desire to make a physical object that represents the transcendental nature of that beauty. This is why the materials, presentation, mounting, and method we produce that object are important. Should they be trendy or provocative just for the sake of it? Should they be ephemeral or short-lived? Should they be in opposition to the aesthetics of that moment or in harmony with it?

Many of our attempts to respond and distill the beauty that we observe and experience into a visual representation fail. We should all try to examine why and be more effective next time. On those rare occasions when we are successful, even in the slightest bit, carrying it through to producing a representational object of beauty and permanence in and of itself shouldn’t be the point where we fail.

As I thought about Les’ essay on material selection appropriate for fine art this is what I took away and what I think he was getting at. Your thoughts?