Partly true. People who are "outside the field" (in terms of understanding or appreciation) only recognize the quality of the photograph as an abstract art representation (of compositions, tones, etc). It does not mean that this representation actually captures the essence or quality of the performer/performance. These "outsiders" only see and understand the surface attributes of the image. They might (or might not) see the difference between a "good dancer" and a "great dancer" even if the two images are presented side-by-side (under the assumption that this type of distinction is one of the attributes that should be considered for "essence").
Capturing the
essence of something is nothing to do with ability of the performer or athlete.
For Elton John's 50th [?] birthday party a show was arranged for him with dancers performers showcasing a variety of styles, this morphed into
'Burn The Floor' a big dance show that has toured extensively ever since. I've seen it and the sections with Lindy Hop being shown I thought were excruciating. Why? Because the dancers had a ballroom background which is all about perfection and precision, so although they got the moves, they completely missed the essence of the dance which is more about spontaneity and improvisation. Ballroom Jive is fundamentally Lindy Hop danced with a broomstick shoved up ones backside and that's a bit how they performed the Lindy sections. Very skilled and very good dancers, but simply got the essence of the dance wrong. You hear the 'experts' on Strictly Dancing talk about Lindy and they haven't a clue in fact.
I think this applies to all forms of photography (and art) ... the image audience must have some cultural appreciation of the presented material. Audiences are very fickle.
I think otherwise.
