oldtigger Loc: Roanoke Virginia-USA

Linda is going to skin me alive and nail my hide to the wall when i say this but
there is a fourth group so innocuous that i didn't mention them:
They are the images so familiar, inoffensive, subdued and commonplace that
(like Linda's second image or sharpshooter's abstracts) you could hang them anyplace not as objects of interest
but merely as space occupiers.
They don't need labels and subjects because they serve only as
visual background noise to "enrich" our environment.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Oh come on, tig, how often have you seen me become violent on this forum?

I think that personal appreciation of photos or other art is dependent on many things. Some people enjoy a lot of stimulation or drama/turmoil in their lives (e.g. The Attic) and some are at a point in life where peaceful, pretty and calm is the most welcomed state.

wapiti Loc: round rock, texas

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

Tig, though you may have a point in principle, does that actually escape the scope of this discussion. Because a shot is commonplace, it still exhibits, if doesn't, all of the principles of photography.
That does it make it invisible. It just makes it, " oh, there's another shot of Yosemite Valley, or the Golden Gate Bridge"!
And every common object can have its own unique spin as each photographer sees it.
And let's not forget that one man's common image is the first time anoth has seen it!!
so I guess I disagree with you in principle though some shots may strike some that way!
SS

oldtigger Loc: Roanoke Virginia-USA

I think what i'm trying to say is that we as photographers whether for pay or for pleasure,
no longer see images in the same way as the casual observer.
The longer we are immersed in the field, the more stringent our demands of an image become.

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

If there was no subject, it would show only empty space ( I guess than its color would be the subject).

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

SS, your caption for your photo #3 asks, what is the subject? For me, the subject is beautiful Indian paintbrush wildflowers thriving in a seemingly harsh environment. It's a story of nature, a photography theme very dear to my heart.

Wanda said, "Your third image I could place myself right into the picture." Allowing the viewer to write their own story about an image, or to encourage them to feel a part of the moment, are every bit as important as striving to fill the frame with an easily identifiable subject IMO.

oldtigger Loc: Roanoke Virginia-USA

You youngsters... I've reached a point in life where calm, peaceful and serene is the last thing i want to see.
Give me the turmoil and drama, the photographer's tennis shoes melting as the tendril of lava
flows between his tripod legs and it flashes into flames.
No caption required.
The iconic photo of soldiers raising a flag which sends the mind to thoughts of man's struggle against man has lost its impact.
I want gut wrenching, mind boggling, statements in an image, right here, right now.
I want the subject identified and i certainly don't want to write my own story.
Of the zillion grandkids we've met here on the forum, the one i'll remember is
the little girl with her birdhouse, peeved at grandpa because the bird is missing.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

We're still looking for the bird, and she's still peeved about it 😩

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Not my strength or focus, but from time to time I stop and "smell the roses" so to speak. Critique welcome - it will help me be a better photographer.

Color

(Download)

Texture

(Download)

Pattern

(Download)

Form

(Download)

Form and Texture

(Download)

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Brings to mind the old Will Rogers quote,

"When I die I want to die like my grandfather who died peacefully in his sleep. Not screaming like all the passengers in his car."

ptcanon3ti Loc: NJ

LoneRangeFinder Loc: Left field

I absolutely agree-- and you touched on an important point here, which is the value (importance) of looking at Visual art forms with respect to the their application to photography. An artist who paints "constructs" a composition. There are elements that "work" and are instructive to photography. I've made this observation before--and never had a single response. Odd, for a visual medium and even more puzzling when the comments were made in the sub-forums that pretend to be about criticism.

Little wonder so much lacks visual interest....

Again-- thanks for making the point--and to SS for staring the conversation.

G Brown Loc: Sunny Bognor Regis West Sussex UK

SS
Not every landscape has 'a subject' but it does have to have an eye catching event or pattern to give it a strength.
Your pretty pic has stones in a triangular pattern leading the eye to the triangular hill summit centre top. (that would have been the subject if you had worked it better.) it is what probably was your subconscious suggesting that view point.
Linda's first image has a pleasing wind shadow/ ripple which draws the eye in and up. (Not an 'in your face' subject) but it gives that image strength.
Her second image has the autumn colour 'on a third' whilst still allowing everything 'Worth including' to gently flow across the image.
Third image is a compliment to Ansel Adams, The subject is 'regression', achieved by placing the darker colours at the bottom and the lighter colours at the top.How can a classic not be considered as being strong.

SS your images draw on a very visual subject - a thing! Many landscapes impart a feeling. The 'warm light of Tuscany' - a simple row of trees and bent grasses. You will immediately remember seeing images of this sort. They have a strong visual impact without any single 'thing' being dominant. A rare occurrence granted.

The discussion on 'The need for a subject' where to place and how dominant it needs to be..... has to be in the context of 'do you know' what the subject is that was the 'point of the image'.. This is why art has always had titles and critics waxing on about the finer details, symbolism, religious meaning at the time etc ad nausea.(story)
Too often that seems to get 'lost' with photography. A good image needs a title that explains.

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

GB, I agree but haven't had much of a chance today for commenting.
I realize that often and especially in landscapes it's sometimes difficult to find one thing as a subject. BUT that's where the composition takes over. The ability of the maker to see a composition that is above and beyond, that is able to strike a blended, more subtle subject into a composition that strikes us almost a strongly as the graphic subject.
It's probably there that we need to focus our discussion. how do we define what makes a compelling composition using what we are seeing to be able to draw others into it.
But there are far to many images that just don't have that strong presentation. I feel we all go basically through the same photography learning curve. Some will get there much faster than others and some never will. And because of that, It's easier for the more experienced photographer to see just where a new photographer needs to go.
For me, sunsets are rarely strong enough in, and of themselves to alone create a really strong composition. so we learn to add other elements into them to spice them up.
We should post some examples of landscapes that are strong and some that are not so strong that we can start to understand and re-enforce what to strive for.
I'm not convinced that titles added are of real value. Yes, in editorial stories an image often can't stand on its own but they are made with an additional supporting narrative in mind.
The example that Cindy Sherman NEVER titles her work just so that WE have to draw our own conclusions. An Ansel Adams landscape would NOT need a title unless he wants to give us additional info such as where it was shot.
GB, thanks for a well thought out response!!
SS