Quote Originally Posted by JeffBradford View Post
A viewer may be bored by a photo, but a photo is not intrinsically boring.

A photo of an unremarkable subject from a normal or common point of view may not excite many viewers. However, there are still technical aspects such as focus, exposure, and composition, as well as the existential construct of context. Why was the photo taken? How or why was this subject chosen? What is the interaction or juxtaposition? What isn't in the photo? What is this photo the antithesis of?

On the other hand, I find most "snapshots" to be utterly boring.
I agree that photos aren't intrinsically boring. Much depends on the viewer's experience, willingness and perception that makes an image boring or not. I remember looking at the work of Robert Adams and thinking, "Man this stuff is boring." But after I read more about his intention and thinking about what he was doing they were no longer boring. I know a lot of people, especially those focused solely on beauty, don't always feel they should have to work to understand an image. Or that it needs explanation. Just different bodies of work I guess.

I remember the first time I saw the work of the Starn Twins and how angry some of my traditional photography friends were at the "poor quality" of their printing or the fact that the prints had stains, creases, fingerprints, etc. But that was part of the work -- a rejection of all the rules and expectations we grew up with.