AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |
Back to Blog
Eye candy definition3/30/2023 ![]() ![]() wide angle, rocks/water or whatever foreground, sharp bottom to top. ![]() Maybe/maybe not eye candy, depending on viewer, context,use: that depends on the viewers experience also. Sometimes if some image or technique becomes common, afterwhile you may react to it as eye candy, others may not. Whether it is superficial or not may depend upon its intent, and its use. It may be like one you'd see in an ad, say, then someone might call it "eye candy". If it is technically very well done, it may be a good craftsperson/amateur's work. Some photos are merely to "record', such as a picture of one's child, or dog. "eye candy", which, per the dictionary, means "somethingĪ photo can be made for many reasons, and a photos can have different purposes. Recently, a professional photographer derided my photography as mere Anyway, perhaps you'd care to take a look and offer your thoughts as it relates to this discussion: Perhaps it may even be that "artisitic" is often synonomous with "eye candy", and photographs that have "deeper meaning" are a different class all together. However, looking through that gallery now, I'm now wondering if they are anything more than mere "eye candy". To aid with that pursuit, I thought it might be useful to consider the images I had put in a gallery that I had created some time ago which were devoted entirely to what I thought were "artisitic" photos. And, just as the "Rule of Thirds" is actually a guideline, rather than a rule, I was wondering if there were similar guidelines that might help us distinguish between "eye candy" and "more meaningful" photographs. Thus, I was wondering if there might not be a few things that we can say about the matter of "eye candy and the purpose of photography" without resorting to putting our pics out on the street and getting a rating. Clearly, this should be applicable to photography as well, no? The amazing thing was that a very consistent pattern emerged. The answer was enlightening: display the subjects' paintings on the street and ask random people walking by to rate them. The problem, of course, is how to evaluate it. One of the intelligence tests was creating a painting. Interestingly, I just watched a show on intelligence which addressed this exact point, but not very deeply. So while there is an area between light and shadow, I think that region is much smaller than the area in light and the area in shadow. And, just as a shadow does not have a sharp edge, I don't think that there is a sharp and defined border between "eye candy" and "meaningful" photographs. While subjectivity plays a role, I think there is an objective reality to it. So what makes a pic "meaningful", and who decides what is "meaningful"? Is it entirely subjective? IThat's a cop-out. ![]() When I think of "snapshots", the first type of pics that come to mind are deep DOF people candids. So what types of pics do the vast majority of us take? And, because they are not like the pics described above, does that mean they are merely "eye candy" or "snapshots"? In fact, when I think of what kinds of photos constitute "eye candy", the first types of photos that come to mind are bikini pics and landscapes. Few of us have had the opportunity and means to take "meaningful" photos such as the student standing in front of the tank in Tiananmen Square, a soldier executing a spy, a naked little girl running away from a naped village, a monk setting himself on fire, or an upskirt of Jessica Alba. So it got me to thinking about the purpose of photography. Recently, a professional photographer derided my photography as mere "eye candy", which, per the dictionary, means "something superficially attractive to look at".
0 Comments
Read More
Leave a Reply. |