DSLRUsers.com

I can't post any images at this stage, so thought I would post a question for discussion.

What makes a great photograph?

Alicia gave me a book on Magnum photographers for Christmas (which I love). Looking at the various photographs, I find a large number are simply fantastic. I have been trying to understand why I think this, and, apart from generally being technically good photos, there are a range of other elements, including the story told, the event captured by the photographer, the confluence of timing, luck, skill to capture that 1/500th of a second, etc.

But, then I look at other photographers' images, and I find that, in my opinion, they are nothing more than snaps.

Here are two examples:

Peter Fonda captured by Richard Young

This, to me, is simply a photo of someone relatively famous taken in context. It tells a story of bikers, 'rat-bikes', etc, but, in my opinion, I can take it or leave it.

Marine captured by Peter Marlow

Whilst completely different to Young's, it shows a person in their particular context. To me, this is a much stronger image.

Yet, I can't find a reason why I have these opinions.

Anyway, in your opinion, what makes a great photo:

1. Technical qualities of the image?
2. The historical, political or social context of the image (considering some of the Pulitzer winners here)?
3. The specific subject and it's importance to you?
4. Any other factor?

If this has been done to death on this forum, forgive me but I am interested in your thoughts.

Patrick,

I don't know the answer, but I think it is a very important question. Anyone that knows the answer will be a very successful photographer.

That being said, the answer is probably going to vary from viewer to viewer and to some extent from subject to subject. For example, for nature photography (and there are some fantastic images out there) history, political or social contexts are probably not relevant. However, the shot of the marine has significance in context (both the background of the photograph) as well as the current climate of war and conflict.

There really isn't a checklist you can tick off to make a good photograph.

I think to some extent a photograph needs to be technically sound to warrent a great photograph.

Other than that it's completely subjective, what may be a brilliant photograph to one may be complete trash to another. I may be more aware of this than others on this board, many users of this board could not care less about much of my photography... although my work is considered good enough by others to be printed (and paid for).

FWIW i thought that shot of Peter Fonda was pretty dull, while I enjoyed the marine shot far more.

I agree that it is completely subjective, but I'm not so sure that technical quality is the overriding factor. For example, my daughter was raving about a photo she took of some newborn puppies, and so were most of the people associated with the puppies. It obviously had some impact on them because of the actual event of the birth of those puppies. The fact that it was taken with a camera phone didn't seem to matter.
In the end, I think the best guide is general consensus from the viewers.

As I mentioned in this week's PotW thread, I am currently enjoying a BBC Four six part series
called The Genius of Photography (you can read about it here ) which examines
this very issue in great detail.

I recommend that you try and track it down.

Sometimes, the analysis of a particular photo strikes me as ridiculous, but at other times, I am
amazed at the meaning or intent which I had failed to note.

Ultimately, I believe that a great photo is one which strikes a chord with many of those who
look at it, although even then it is a difficult thing to gauge. There could be a family photo
of Aunty Gladys which has a massive impact on everyone in the family, but no-one else could care less.

Another photo could be seen and appreciated by millions and millions of people around the world. Or it
could make a point or tell a story which is significant in the big picture.

It is a fascinating subject for consideration.

Thinking about this some more, I think we may need to define a great photograph. While there may be good photographs, whether that be puppies, guys jumping on bikes, a nudibranch, their appeal may be to a limited audience (people that like puppies, bikes or nudibranchs. I think for a photograph to be truly great it needs to appeal to a much wider audience.

Even if I don't comment, I know there are some great photographs here that appeal to me even though the subject matter wouldn't normally. No disrespect intended, but wedding photographs do nothing for me. There was a shot of a couple in a park (a few months ago) that blew me away. That was a great photograph.

phillipb wrote:I agree that it is completely subjective, but I'm not so sure that technical quality is the overriding factor. For example, my daughter was raving about a photo she took of some newborn puppies, and so were most of the people associated with the puppies. It obviously had some impact on them because of the actual event of the birth of those puppies. The fact that it was taken with a camera phone didn't seem to matter.
In the end, I think the best guide is general consensus from the viewers.

where do you draw the line between 'snapshot' and 'considered photograph'.

ATJ wrote:I think for a photograph to be truly great it needs to appeal to a much wider audience.

I agree.

Sure, a nice wedding photo may mean a lot to the people involved. I'm sure if there comes a time that I get married, my wedding photos will mean the world to me. But to someone I don't know, it is just another nice wedding photo.

Or photos of some cute puppies taken on a camera phone. Sure, to those who know the puppies, it may be a nice photo of those puppies, but i'm sure there are plenty of better photos that have been taken of other puppies.

I think a photo at least needs to be able to transcend geographic boundaries, or mean something to people that are not emotionally involved (at least to start with) with that the specific subject of that photo.

jamesw wrote:
where do you draw the line between 'snapshot' and 'considered photograph'.

Good point James, but that is opening up another can of worms. Remember Cartier-Bresson? A lot of his best work was basically snapshots. The other thing is, the photos I take, with whatever skill or talent I may have, will surely be considered just snapshots by people with much greater skills and talent then me. That's why I said that the vast majority should decide what makes a great photo otherwise it can become elitist.

phillipb wrote:

jamesw wrote:
where do you draw the line between 'snapshot' and 'considered photograph'.

Good point James, but that is opening up another can of worms. Remember Cartier-Bresson? A lot of his best work was basically snapshots. The other thing is, the photos I take, with whatever skill or talent I may have, will surely be considered just snapshots by people with much greater skills and talent then me. That's why I said that the vast majority should decide what makes a great photo otherwise it can become elitist.

i definitely understand it's opening up another can of worms, but i guess it is intertwined within the whole 'great photo' vs 'good photo' thing.

from my somewhat limited general knowledge, cartier-bresson was somewhat of a pioneer to the photojournalism style. heck, photojournalism is essentially a glorified snapshot, i guess. there is something more to it, though, some intangable quality that i cannot define. if someone else wants to jump in on that, sure go for it.

i don't know about the 'vast majority' criteria. the opera is supposedly great. i for one do not appriciate it. i'm sure the vast majority of australians do not enjoy the opera, or would ever consider viewing it. but there would be at least a few on these boards who would argue persistently that opera is one of the finest arts, and those who do not appriciate it are simply not cultured.

i guess what i'm trying to illustrate is that what consitutes great photograph is completely subective, and i dont think you can say that you need some absolute number who appriciate it to make it 'great'.

i do, however, think that there needs to be some technical merit behind the photograph... some combination of light, exposure, and composition.

people who can nail those three will usually produce great photographs.

i think besides all the subjective arguments about what makes a good photo there is one point that seperates an average photo from an exceptional one and that is lighting. fullstop

A great photograph FEELS GOOD... and I think that's all that matters.

a great photo is one that most people like

phillipb wrote:Good point James, but that is opening up another can of worms. Remember Cartier-Bresson? A lot of his best work was basically snapshots.

That's true, but they were very carefully selected snapshots - HCB took lots of shots, and published few. Such was the liberation of 35mm cameras, with a whopping 36 exposures available without changing film...

Cheers

A GREAT photograph in my opinion is a photo that makes you, LOOK, and
LOOK again,it must make you feel GOOD, or BAD,or just a feeling of REVULSION ,if you incorporate any or,all of these elements,then I believe you have a great photograph.

Cheers
NeoN

jamesw wrote:

phillipb wrote:I agree that it is completely subjective, but I'm not so sure that technical quality is the overriding factor. For example, my daughter was raving about a photo she took of some newborn puppies, and so were most of the people associated with the puppies. It obviously had some impact on them because of the actual event of the birth of those puppies. The fact that it was taken with a camera phone didn't seem to matter.
In the end, I think the best guide is general consensus from the viewers.

where do you draw the line between 'snapshot' and 'considered photograph'.

Where indeed!

Let's get back to the two examples that Patrick provided in his opening post.

Patrick remarks that the first of those images, the Fonda by Young, doesn't impress him, whereas the second of those images, the marine by Marlow, does.

Why is it so? What is the difference between those two images?

My initial feelings are much the same as Patrick's: the Young strikes me as being little more than a happy snap, for want of a better expression. Harsh lighting, casual pose, seemingly little care taken to set up the image. Perhaps a paparazzi shot?

Dunno, but to me, there is little in the image that seems to be of merit.

Again, and I emphasize this : to me there has been seemingly little care taken in making this image. It's more of a grab shot.

The Marlow is very different. The lighting and the composition is sublime. Clearly this is an image that has been carefully crafted. Even if it is a candid, it has been thought about, and the image has been made in a much more deliberate and thoughtful manner.

So .. is the Marlow truly a candid?

Let's return to the Young, and Cartier-Bresson.

Again, HCB's images are much more thoughtfully crafted than this one by Young.

Just like the Marlow.

What about Capa's images? Very much candids. but very good. Always worth looking at.

I recall my last visit to LA, where we were fortunate to see an exhibition of work, including Capa's, at the Getty. This was a devastatingly powerful exhibition, of maybe just 40 images, most of which had won awards such as the Pulitzer Prize in the mid 20th century.

I can't tell you what was good about those images, but they certainly were not snapshots.

Interesting thread.

IMO Capa’s (any for that matter any war photographer) takes ”snap shots”. There is no way that you can compose and define a photo when there are machine gun bullets and shells landing all around you. In fact, if you look at Capa’s truly great shot of the Spanish soldier you could say that it is a bloody awful photo - what makes it great - the moment of death.

With the Marlow, and as Gary has said, you have a truly crafted shot. But is it a candid? IMO no it is not because it has been crafted.

The Fonda shot - well it is a happy snap, but then again most shots of celebs are just that. You either like them or not - it’s a choice that we make as individuals.

sirhc55 wrote:Interesting thread.

Very.

Chris,

With the Marlow, and as Gary has said, you have a truly crafted shot. But is it a candid? IMO no it is not because it has been crafted.

Could one then infer from what you're saying that HCB's shots were not crafted?

You seem to be suggesting that an image can either be a candid, or it can be crafted, but never both.

For me, Patrick, the issue under discussion is quite illusive. I think that in the end the overwhelming quality of an image is that absorbs you into the action as if you were part of it or an observer.

sirhc55 wrote:Interesting thread.
IMO Capa’s (any for that matter any war photographer) takes ”snap shots”. There is no way that you can compose and define a photo when there are machine gun bullets and shells landing all around you

I don't know if I agree with that... Having never been in a war situation, i can't really offer any personal experience. But still, I would be suggesting, that like a soldier, a keen war photographer would get used to what is going on around him and get on with the job.

Soldiers don't blindly fire their guns or rocket launchers or whatever because of what's going on around them, so why would a 'seasoned' war photographer?

gstark wrote:

sirhc55 wrote:Interesting thread.

Very.

Chris,

With the Marlow, and as Gary has said, you have a truly crafted shot. But is it a candid? IMO no it is not because it has been crafted.

Could one then infer from what you're saying that HCB's shots were not crafted?

You seem to be suggesting that an image can either be a candid, or it can be crafted, but never both.

Yes - a candid is normally defined as ”being taken without the subjects knowledge”. So there would be some degree of differential between a crafted shot and a candid.

You could say that one could craft a candid but this would be IMO still be a candid if the person(s) were unaware of the shot. This kind of photo would take patience as the photographer would be in a situation where the shot is pre-set, but just waiting for the ’human’ source to enter the set.

A classic shot that many would call a candid is the photo of the marines/sailor erecting the US flag on Iwo Jima. But, there are 2 pics of this - the first was a candid, the second (and more famous) was totally crafted.

Take 2 photos of a waterfall.

First is simply a snapshot using all auto settings on a camera..any camera.

Second taken using top end large format camera, composed painstakingly, perfect exposure highlighting blurred water and soft green surrounding foliage...you get the idea.

Now show both photos to 100 people

If 52 people like the "snapshot" and 48 people like the "art shot", then without arguement, the snapshot is the "greater" photo.

Thus, regardless of how the image was made, or the technical nature of the image, or the subject matter...a great photo simply has to be liked by more people than any similar photo.

So, a photo of your new born baby...there is only one of YOUR new born (unless you have twins, obviously), so a photo of your baby only has to be liked by yourself and your partner for it to be great....easy.

A photo of troops in Vietnam (of which there are countless) must be liked by vast numbers of individuals from all corners of the globe for it to be called great. Tim Page took great photos of the Vietnam war...easy.

Escapism wrote:Take 2 photos of a waterfall.

First is simply a snapshot using all auto settings on a camera..any camera.

Second taken using top end large format camera, composed painstakingly, perfect exposure highlighting blurred water and soft green surrounding foliage...you get the idea.

Now show both photos to 100 people

If 52 people like the "snapshot" and 48 people like the "art shot", then without arguement, the snapshot is the "greater" photo.

Thus, regardless of how the image was made, or the technical nature of the image, or the subject matter...a great photo simply has to be liked by more people than any similar photo.

So, a photo of your new born baby...there is only one of YOUR new born (unless you have twins, obviously), so a photo of your baby only has to be liked by yourself and your partner for it to be great....easy.

A photo of troops in Vietnam (of which there are countless) must be liked by vast numbers of individuals from all corners of the globe for it to be called great. Tim Page took great photos of the Vietnam war...easy.

your turning it into a popularity contest, and to some extent, that is missing the point.

Escapism wrote:If 52 people like the "snapshot" and 48 people like the "art shot", then without arguement, the snapshot is the "greater" photo.

I don't agree with this, because as you can't say that this guy is better for president than the other because he took 52% and the other 48%, the same you can't say about a photograph imo.

sorry for my Sony english...

jamesw wrote:

Escapism wrote:Take 2 photos of a waterfall.

First is simply a snapshot using all auto settings on a camera..any camera.

Second taken using top end large format camera, composed painstakingly, perfect exposure highlighting blurred water and soft green surrounding foliage...you get the idea.

Now show both photos to 100 people

If 52 people like the "snapshot" and 48 people like the "art shot", then without arguement, the snapshot is the "greater" photo.

your turning it into a popularity contest, and to some extent, that is missing the point.

Correct. Using Escapism's logic, Big Brother is great TV.

To my mind, popular very rarely is the equivalent of even "good", let alone "great".

To some extent, critical acclaim might be better test, but probably only marginally so. It depends, of course, upon whom the critics providing the acclamation might be, but the bottom line is that the public are very rarely if ever qualified to pass judgment.

gstark wrote:

jamesw wrote:

Escapism wrote:Take 2 photos of a waterfall.

First is simply a snapshot using all auto settings on a camera..any camera.

Second taken using top end large format camera, composed painstakingly, perfect exposure highlighting blurred water and soft green surrounding foliage...you get the idea.

Now show both photos to 100 people

If 52 people like the "snapshot" and 48 people like the "art shot", then without arguement, the snapshot is the "greater" photo.

your turning it into a popularity contest, and to some extent, that is missing the point.

Correct. Using Escapism's logic, Big Brother is great TV.

To my mind, popular very rarely is the equivalent of even "good", let alone "great".

To some extent, critical acclaim might be better test, but probably only marginally so. It depends, of course, upon whom the critics providing the acclamation might be, but the bottom line is that the public are very rarely if ever qualified to pass judgment.

At least critics supposedly know what they're on about.

sirhc55 wrote:

gstark wrote:You seem to be suggesting that an image can either be a candid, or it can be crafted, but never both.

Yes - a candid is normally defined as ”being taken without the subjects knowledge”. So there would be some degree of differential between a crafted shot and a candid.

You could say that one could craft a candid but this would be IMO still be a candid if the person(s) were unaware of the shot. This kind of photo would take patience as the photographer would be in a situation where the shot is pre-set, but just waiting for the ’human’ source to enter the set.

Which is, I believe, how HCB crafted many of his images.

How about I go down to the beach; I'm on the boardwalk and I see a guy walking a dog. I decide that an image of the dog is what I wand, and so I decide upon the composition I want, the background, etc, and I set up my camera they way I want, all the while the guy with the dog continues walking towards me.

When I'm ready, and when they're in the desired location, I make my image. I think we're both in agreement that this would be a candid shot, but yet it's to a large degree crafted.

What if the person walking the dog sees me with the camera at my eye, and decides to "pose" ? I would respectfully suggest that this is still a candid, despite his behaviour: is he posing for me, or is he acting in a candid manner?

While I accept that the well known Iwo Jima shot was staged and thus is not a candid, what do we know of the Marlow that suggests it was staged?

What about if I select a location that I know might be a good location for a particular type of shot, such as the boardwalk at the beach? I might decide that on any given day I can wander there, in the knowledge that people behave in a particular manner and as such, I can be almost guaranteed to be able to grab a particular shot?

With the Marlow, could the photographer not have scouted that particular location, observed the lighting and environment, and predetermined that this might be a good location for him to make a candid image?

And thus he returned and made the image.

All of which is probably off-topic in terms of the question that Patrick originally raised, but nonetheless it's still a great topic to discuss.

jamesw wrote:

gstark wrote:To some extent, critical acclaim might be better test, but probably only marginally so.

At least critics supposedly know what they're on about.

Hence my use of the word "marginally".

gstark wrote:
To my mind, popular very rarely is the equivalent of even "good", let alone "great".

To some extent, critical acclaim might be better test, but probably only marginally so. It depends, of course, upon whom the critics providing the acclamation might be, but the bottom line is that the public are very rarely if ever qualified to pass judgment.

I agree...100%

Problem is, thats the way the world works. Aint no way around it. As such, its the only way to judge ANYTHING on the whole.

Its either peoples choice or its personal choice. Neither is right, but one of them has greater wieght.

As such, if more poeple like photo A than photo B, its impossible to say photo B is the better photo just because YOU think it is...photo A is the better photo, end of story.

hehe

Escapism wrote:As such, if more poeple like photo A than photo B, its impossible to say photo B is the better photo just because YOU think it is...photo A is the better photo, end of story.

Photo A is the more popular photo (amongst the people who could and did vote). It might be the better photo. It might not. It does not in anyway mean it is a great photo.

ATJ wrote:

Escapism wrote:As such, if more poeple like photo A than photo B, its impossible to say photo B is the better photo just because YOU think it is...photo A is the better photo, end of story.

Photo A is the more popular photo (amongst the people who could and did vote). It might be the better photo. It might not. It does not in anyway mean it is a great photo.

Then we need to define GREAT...

Escapism wrote:Problem is, thats the way the world works. Aint no way around it. As such, its the only way to judge ANYTHING on the whole.

Er, no.

It's not how I judge anything. Never have, and never will.

Except to say that popularity, to me, is a warning of potential mediocrity.

Its either peoples choice or its personal choice. Neither is right, but one of them has greater wieght.

Who's to say that either of them has any weight at all?

Choice, is exactly that: choice.

Where does the concept of "choice" come into the concept of "great"?

Choice indicates no concept of goodness, let alone greatness. It merely indicates personal preference. In the realm of more people making a choice, I look to the LCD factor, and turn away in abhorrence.

Ask the audience? No way in hell, thank you very much!

A friend and I were having a very similar discussion a day or so before New Years. Neither of us could come up with the answer though. Some photos you look at, have the "WOW" factor. There have definitely been photos posted on this forum that my first reaction has been WOW. Yes this is a personal subjective thing, but it also I think comes down to technical aspects.

The light and colour represented. The mood which the viewer is left with. The adherence or breaking of the "rules of photography". The final composition of the view given to the end user. The story being told or depicted.

I think these things all contribute to a photo being WOW or great.

My 2c worth.

Escapism wrote:

ATJ wrote:

Escapism wrote:As such, if more poeple like photo A than photo B, its impossible to say photo B is the better photo just because YOU think it is...photo A is the better photo, end of story.

Photo A is the more popular photo (amongst the people who could and did vote). It might be the better photo. It might not. It does not in anyway mean it is a great photo.

Then we need to define GREAT...

Why?

I think that there are two different types of "good" or "great" photo.

There's the technically good (or great) photo that has good composition, and appropriate DOF, exposure, etc.

Then there's the other "good" which is what the viewer thinks of the photo - it's purely subjective and is possibly different for every person.

Maybe it's the case that the truly "great" photos are the ones that fulfill both criteria.

Plus I think the Mona Lisa is a load of crap, but thousands, if not millions, would disagree with me.

Everything in life is subjective - how often have you read a critics report on a movie that, in their opinion, is a load of crap only to find it excellent, and vice versa

"Stairway to Heaven" is probably the most popular and well known Led Zeppelin song, and yet (in my opinion) it doesn't even come close to their best. I wouldn't even call it great.

Who are Led Zeppelin?

Escapism wrote:

ATJ wrote:

Escapism wrote:As such, if more poeple like photo A than photo B, its impossible to say photo B is the better photo just because YOU think it is...photo A is the better photo, end of story.

Photo A is the more popular photo (amongst the people who could and did vote). It might be the better photo. It might not. It does not in anyway mean it is a great photo.

Then we need to define GREAT...

have fun with that...

in the meantime the rest of us will ponder our navels or maybe even go out and take some great photos.

In my opinion, this is a great photograph:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:TrangBang.jpg

It isn't technically brilliant, although the composition is pretty good. You might even call it a snapshot because of the amount of time the photographer had. I think it is great because it tells a story and it is so rich with information. I suspect that while it might have been a snapshot situation, the photographer would have skills and knowledge that makes even a snapshot good.

gstark wrote:

Escapism wrote:

ATJ wrote:

Escapism wrote:As such, if more poeple like photo A than photo B, its impossible to say photo B is the better photo just because YOU think it is...photo A is the better photo, end of story.

Photo A is the more popular photo (amongst the people who could and did vote). It might be the better photo. It might not. It does not in anyway mean it is a great photo.

Then we need to define GREAT...

Why?

Simply because if you dont know what it is you are defining, how on earth can you answer the question????????????

I take great photos ALL the time. How do I know this? I defined great for myself.

If I am to answer the initial question of what makes a great photo, I need to know what you all think the word great means...

To me (Me Me...not you, Me) great equals of value to the intended target. ie mud terrain tyres are great in mud, not so great on road (they still work, just aint great). Big Brother is great by virue of its ratings (it is pitched at an audience...is it not??).

Again, this is how I see the word great, so for me...the initial question is ridiculously easy to answer.

NeoN wrote:it must make you feel GOOD, or BAD,or just a feeling of REVULSION

I agree. Any photograph that ellicits an emotional response could be considered great.

If you look at an image and don't feel anything then it could be technically perfect but remain just a good photo. If it brings out any emotion then it has transcended just being good.

Escapism wrote:

gstark wrote:

Escapism wrote:

ATJ wrote:

Escapism wrote:As such, if more poeple like photo A than photo B, its impossible to say photo B is the better photo just because YOU think it is...photo A is the better photo, end of story.

Photo A is the more popular photo (amongst the people who could and did vote). It might be the better photo. It might not. It does not in anyway mean it is a great photo.

Then we need to define GREAT...

Why?

Simply because if you dont know what it is you are defining, how on earth can you answer the question????????????

But why does the question even need to be asked? I'm not convinced of that.

ATJ wrote:In my opinion, this is a great photograph:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:TrangBang.jpg

It isn't technically brilliant, although the composition is pretty good. You might even call it a snapshot because of the amount of time the photographer had. I think it is great because it tells a story and it is so rich with information. I suspect that while it might have been a snapshot situation, the photographer would have skills and knowledge that makes even a snapshot good.

Andrew,

At the exhibition in the Getty that I referred to in an earlier post, I was privileged to see not simply the original of this image, but also how it first appeared in print (Life Magazine), along with editorial notes and crop marks and the photogram machine (an early fax machine, basically) that was used in those days to transmit the image from the source to the destination location. This was one of the many at that exhibition that had won a Pulitzer prize. It was a mentally devastating exhibition, such was the power of the images on display.

The original of this image is nothing like how it was published; there was significant cropping involved. Does that detract from this image within the context of this discussion? I don't know, and I'm not prepared to answer that.

But within the context of you raising the question of whether this image is a snapshot, I think the answer is very much a no. I'll see if I can dig up the story of how this image came to be. Kim Phuc now lives in the US, in San Francisco, I believe.

Okay, time to throw in MY personal opinion.

For photos that I consider to be *great*, I find that most of the following apply;

- the image tells *part* of a story, making me want to know more of the story.
- the image either tells me more of the story, or a different story when I look at again.
- the iconography or images used to tell the story are in a *language* I understand, or in other words the image can be (mis)understood by me without needing more information.
- I can see the image when I close my eyes.
- I have an emotional reaction to the image, it doesn't matter if the reaction is good, weak, strong, bad, amusement, confusion, anger or just a warm fuzy reaction.

And that's about it for me. Technical correctness means little to me per se, although well used technical skills or tools can help tell part of the *story*. Things like the use of colour, dof, sharpness, softness, lightness, darkness, compostion can all play a part in the telling of the story.

Escapism wrote:Simply because if you dont know what it is you are defining, how on earth can you answer the question????????????

Some things can be known without being defined. Some things just *are*

I can not define love, but I can most assuredly know when I am in it or around it or part of it or affected by it.

BullcreekBob wrote:

Escapism wrote:Simply because if you dont know what it is you are defining, how on earth can you answer the question????????????

Some things can be known without being defined. Some things just *are*

I can not define love, but I can most assuredly know when I am in it or around it or part of it or affected by it.

Hehehe...I get ya!

Im Buddhist...I question EVERYTHING till I get an answer!!!!

Escapism wrote:Hehehe...I get ya!

Im Buddhist...I question EVERYTHING till I get an answer!!!!

I'm a Bhuddist too... as part of my recently achieved enlightenment, I only question things that have an answer

Escapism wrote:

BullcreekBob wrote:

Escapism wrote:Simply because if you dont know what it is you are defining, how on earth can you answer the question????????????

Some things can be known without being defined. Some things just *are*

I can not define love, but I can most assuredly know when I am in it or around it or part of it or affected by it.

Hehehe...I get ya!

Im Buddhist...I question EVERYTHING till I get an answer!!!!

I'm reasonably familiar with Buddhism (Mum is a 'practising' Buddhist, actually she is in India right now staying with monks!) and from what I know there is a reasonably significant 'Faith' aspect in it... just like all of the other religions...