What if a good photograph was a photograph we don't look at ?

It may sound paradoxical, but it is a conviction I have held for a long time: to me, a good photograph seems to be a photograph that we do not simply look at.

Obviously, you can imagine that I do not mean we should turn our eyes away from it. What I mean is that there are images that, after a few seconds, cease to be mere visual objects. They become springboards, passages. They take us somewhere else.

If I were to draw an analogy with another art form that I deeply love music I would say it is like a song that moves us in a particular way. It often happens to me that I start playing a track, only to realize several minutes later that I am no longer truly listening to it. The melody is still there, but my mind has begun to wander. It has awakened a memory, an emotion, an image, a thought. In other words, I am no longer listening to the music itself; I am exploring what it has triggered within me.

And it almost takes a conscious effort to return to pure listening.

Over time, I have come to notice that the songs that affect me the most are often the ones I do not truly listen to anymore. They do not demand my attention: they set it free. They create an inner space in which my imagination can move freely. I often say about my photographs that I want them to become spaces of projection for those who look at them. In the end, it means almost the same thing.

In fact, you may have noticed that some images are flawless: perfectly composed, perfectly exposed, technically impeccable. We can admire them for their mastery, but we quickly move on to the next one because they run out of breath and lack depth.

Conversely, others are more mysterious. We begin by looking at them, then, almost without realizing it, we stop observing them because they leave room for a memory, a thought, or an interpretation.

The more I reflect on this question, the more I think that this is where the true difference between a boring image and an interesting one lies. The first one shows. The second one suggests.

The final word

That being said, the debate surrounding good and bad photography is as old as photography itself. While in the previous lines I argue that a good image possesses certain identifiable qualities, I also keep in mind this famous interview with Robert Doisneau, who was asked: “What is a good photograph?” To which he replied: “I don’t know. If I knew, I would make one every time.”

In fact, I have no doubt that Doisneau knew how to recognize what made a good image. What he meant was that even while being able to identify what gives a photograph its strength, he was nevertheless incapable of producing one consistently.

This is precisely the paradox that fascinates me: this strange contradiction between knowing how to recognize a good image and never being certain of being able to create one.

There is something almost metaphysical about it. As if the photographer could prepare the appearance of an image without ever being able to fully command it. He knows how to search, he knows how to look, he sometimes knows how to recognize the moment… but he only discovers, by seeing the result, whether or not the image has chosen to reveal itself.

Fascinating…

PS : I'm sharing with you a link to an article from a friend photographer who also questioned that topic. Some thoughts are the same but he also brings other opinions. Go check : https://www.juliensunye.com/journal/what-makes-a-great-photograph