On Fri, 31 Jan 2003 16:04:42 +0000, TP <tp@noemailthanks.com> wrote:

>"Patrick L." <nicework@ifyoucangetit.com> wrote:

>>In my previous "how to meter this shot" thread, which another fellow

>>restarted, I note that there were posters who admired the shot, and

>>others who trashed it.

>>

>>No doubt there are obvious stinko shots that most, perhaps, would

>>toss, but there seems to be a definite area of photography where

>>quality is, like beauty, in the eyes of the beholder.

>>

>>Comments?

>Like anything else, the beauty of a photograph is entirely in the eyes

>of a beholder.

>

>The value of a beholder's comments varies extremely widely, depending

>on who that beholder is. When the photographer *is* the beholder,

>there is no value whatsoever in the beholder's comments. You cannot

>objectively judge your own work.

>

>Perhaps the ultimate arbiter is whether people like your work enough

>to pay good money for it.

If you cannot judge your own work, you are unable to

assemble your best work, unable to select those pieces

that may represent your own vision (and not the "comfy

cliche"), unable, really, to present anything publicly.

This does not "jibe" with reality - many people have this

ability...;-) As for money being the determinant of quality,

I guess that places Van Gogh's work well below that of

Karsh's, given the sales-rate and size of payments for the

initial sales of the items produced...;-)