The Threefold Path

Put up some straight nature shots. J.D. took exception, and mentioned that "Three elements are needed for a good photograph. Good subject, good light, and good composition, all of which are open to interpretation."

I have a problem with dogma like, "Three elements are needed for a good photograph: good subject, good light, good composition," just as I do with the Buddha's "Eightfold Path." (Eight elements needed for a good life: right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration.) Are you (or Siddhartha) sure there isn't a fourth element, or a ninth? Good story, maybe, or good color, or good exposure, or good focus, or good perspective, or good technique, or good bokeh, or good message? Or right hobby, or right diet, or right drugs, or right knowledge, or right sex, or right net worth? And what's right, or what's good? "Open to interpretation" is a modern synonym for "meaningless." Consider how many mutually exclusive meanings have been read into, say, the First Amendment. "Good light" is like "good English." Is it good English to say, I dunno, "This was the most unkindest cut of all"? Is the last chapter of "Ulysses" good English?

The usual answer is, "Nobody can define X, but I know it when I see it." In the 40's everybody knew what good light was you could see it in every National Geographic photo and every publicity picture out of Hollywood. Then came the 50's, the Robert-Frank generation, with 35mm and "available light" and nighttime street photography. By 1970 even the National Geographic wouldn't print full-sun-on-the-red-shirt-worn-by-a-guy-pointing-at-the-mountain photos. As for good subject matter, try Joel-Peter Witkin or Mapplethorpe.

So I'm with you on specifics (about these photos, which are pretty pawky stuff) but we part ways when it comes to dogmatic generalities, in which I devoutly disbelieve.