What makes a compelling photograph?

 Recently I have been pondering what makes a compelling photograph.  Perhaps it is because I have been rummaging through the more than 10,000 images on my hard drive for a select few to submit to shows, realizing that while occasionally a few may resonate with me, so many fall short.
Or maybe it is because of the many more images I see regularly by my digital photography students or on contemplative photography forums that this has arisen. As a final exam exercise, I randomly selected images from my files and had my students rank, edit and make a slideshow of them.   I included a wide variety of both "good" and "bad" images for them to consider.  I found their selections to be quite enlightening.  In some cases, students rejected what I considered my "best" and chose to rank highly images that I found pedantic, even boring.  Taste truly is subjective, but perhaps there are some key factors to consider, particularly in a time period when we are overly exposed to digital photos.

This top image stopped me in my tracks after a compelling day of mahamudra meditation (a practice of looking at the mind and sense perceptions with inquisitiveness about the direct experience.)  It is called "Emptiness/Luminosity", which are terms used to describe the fleeting yet vivid experience of the mind in the moment.  This image is compelling to me because it relates directly to my state of mind and remains as a postcard of that experience.  But does it translate to others?  This is always the open question for the artist.

 This image was one I included in the final exam exercise and the student rejected it as uninteresting, perhaps because the original was a much more neutral gray.  I find it compelling because it places man as a small entity encased in concrete with a vibrant foreground of nature.  Yet not much is happening beyond the contrast of organic and linear order.  The compelling aspect is in the contrast.  Does the image need to have a narrative?  And who supplies it?  The artist or the viewer?

Perhaps an image needs a punchline or maybe two, like this image.  To make a statement on society, or just make us laugh.  Evoking an emotion or mood can cause us to connect with an image like the quiet, abandoned feel of the image below.  I continue to consider my work in this light, with no solid answers, just more questions.  Duchamp said “What art is in reality is this missing link, not the links which exist. It’s not what you see that is art, art is the gap.” That gap happens between the work and the viewer and artist. What makes an image compelling to you?

A Glut of Images

It's tough being an artist these days.  Everyone is an artist, we all have access to cameras, software that paints for us and new imagery is uploaded by the millions to personal computers and the internet daily.  Why would anyone invest in another's artwork when we are so inundated with free imagery?  It's particularly tough for those of us who are making digital photographic images.  Flickr is loaded with images, not to mention Picasa, PhotoBucket, etc.  Etsy sellers list their images for $2.50 for an artist card to $8.00 for an 8x10 (what one would expect a drugstore re-print to sell for.)  Let's face it some of those images are actually nice, but who can make a living with those prices?  And the web offers images of anything you can imagine free for viewing and downloading 24/7.  No wonder, while camera sales are soaring, photography galleries are closing.

One might look at this as the democratization of art, but could it also be the Wal-martization of art?  And are we getting better art or merely more schlock?  While anyone can buy the equipment and software to make images, what isn't happening is the training of the eye, the hand and the person to cultivate the disciplines and skills that make for an arts professional.  This makes creating an image of quality and power a hit or miss thing.

But the biggest casualty in this deluge of imagery is our ability both individually and as a culture to discern what is truly worthy of our attention and appreciation as art.  I'm not speaking of the snobbish attitude of High art versus Low art, or Art with a capitol A, but knowing the fact that visual imagery has power in and of itself as a form of communication.  And when we are barraged by a cacophony of visual imagery on a daily basis, at some point we stop looking, particularly at the subtle and possibly more refined messages as the grosser, louder or more obvious messages crowd them out. The image becomes de-valued and the image maker does too.  Not all images are worth making or viewing.  But in our gluttonous society, we want to acquire them all and just as quickly discard them for the next new thing.

What we lose in this "all images are equal" and "everyone is an artist" is respect for the work of art created by a master artist as shaman, who understands the potent forces they are working with in the phenomenal world.  One who goes beyond the noise of mental chatter to call up imagery that speaks to things that cannot be thought or spoken of in mere words.  One who has developed a relationship with the material world and mastery of their tools, cultivating an intimate connection with them, so that deeper truths can be accessed and skillfully articulated both for himself and the viewer.  But this type of work takes time and patience to cultivate, it's not about just talent, but also dedication and sacrifice.  It comes from a deeper calling to create as an act of service to something larger than one's own self-expression.  It is less about documenting and capturing what is seen as it is about giving expression to the unseen and intangible reality beyond concept.  When we experience a work of that potency we are changed by it.  Those images are rare even among the works of masters, for they are more than adornment for our ego or cataloguing of our lives through images.  They are messages from the collective unconscious calling us to wake up to the magic within our world and within us.