Too Much Style

[CPorter]

I have learned "off the backs" of greatness and so I am enfluenced by that same greatness. Photographing the same "type" of subject matter as someone you are enfluenced by such as things in the natural world is not an admission of lack of personal photographic creativity; IMO, it's an affirmation of a creative effort in which you seek to excel. I'm not even sure the word "style" is even correct because I think that it is too hard to define.

To me, style is one's vision (dictionary def #3: vision = "the manner in which one sees or conceives of something). Ansel Adams said (paraphrasing) in one of his interviews I've seen on a DVD that some have told him that his work is somber and his response was: "well, that's my style". I thought about that for a good while because I never would have characterized his style as "somber". So how does someone define style?

Chuck

[wfe]

I think "art" is difficult if not impossible to define as it means different things to different people. Many of my photographs I consider art but others may not so I try to avoid judging them as art or not. If someone likes one of my photographs well enough to hang it in their home I would consider it either art to them or it has some meaning for them. For me I consider something art if the person that created it did it with passion, effort, hard work and commitment including a piece of themselves in the work. I may not like the work that they produce but I appreciate it based on what they have put into it.

As far as using other's work, I was taught in a workshop to do just that and at the same time spend a lot of time looking at and studying other's work. I have on many occasions working with models presented a print of someone else's work as a concept or starting point for the two of us to work from. I have never ended up with a copy of someone else's photo even if I try, it always ends up as something that has been created by the two of us making the photo.

So I stick to making the photos that I am passionate about and don't dwell too much on the "art" thing. I have also realized through experience that when photographing what I'm most passionate about, the pictures have more of me in them. May sound goofy but I've looked at photos that I've made of other people and seen them as self portraits to a certain extent. This gets me very excited and validates that I am photographing what I want to photograph for the pictures have a bit of me in them.

I hope I've not gone off topic here.

Cheers,
Bill

[ijsbeer]

First: Bill excellent start of a thread!

In Dutch we've got a saying: "High trees take a lot of wind". So when you're famous you will get a lot of things thrown at you.

more serious:
I think every Photographer looks at other Photographers. It is not said that what you see in the photographs of them directly viewed back in his photographs. But when the photographer thinks about it is has altered the view of the photographer. The photographer adds a bit of knowledge or vision of the other photographer in his view. Also when he dislikes a photographers vision his is reinforced with the knowledge of what he will let out of his vision.
Also I think there are not as much styles as there are photographers so there will be always photographers with styles that are close to one or another.
third and last point: I think that when you are such a great/well known photographer like Kenna, Horn, Schwab that you always get critique from people only because you're a great name in the business and a brilliant photographer.


I'm going to bed.

good Night,

Reinder

[David Brown]

Originally Posted by Ole

I do it more like the baroque composers:

I steal ideas, themes, subjects and everything else. Blatantly and unabashedly.

And then I mix it all together and extract the bits I like.

If my wife likes it too, it's a good one.

Ole: I could not have said this better for myself.

My formal training was in music. We musicians have a long history of "borrowing" and (most of us) are not the least bit concerned about it. We all steal from the best.

I have no pretensions as to the originality of my photographs. I have said that I would die happy if anyone ever looked at one of my prints and said: "Wow, that looks just like a Weston!" But nobody ever has. On the other hand (not to brag, just to make a point), I have had someone pick up one of my prints and say simply: "Wow!"

Maybe I'm on to something.

[photomc]

Great stuff here, like Matt I enjoy this sort of discussion and find it at least sends down the road to look inside a bit - can be scary stuff some times.

We can not help, but be influenced by someone - after all, there was a moment I think when we fell in love with photography and it would have been the result of one work or another. Does it matter? Not one damn bit in my mind.

I do not go out looking for the tripod holes of others, for sure, but my choice of format, film, technique can only come from the experience of viewing the work of others. Be it oil paintings, water color, cast in bronze, or made of stone the art work that moves us will also influence us I think. It could be as common as a lamp or light fixture, a fine piece of woodwork, the fine work of an architect, or as simple as a chair in a room - we are I hope moved by something such as light and form. Be it a photograph from HCBresson, AAdams, EWeston, WESmith, PStrand, M. White from the past or works by a contemporary artist such as T.Crane, KCarter, MKenna, Kerik or even yourself Bill - if we are inspired by the work, we are likely to take it with us in one way or another.

Have we seen all there is, or we left with only copies of vision of others? I do not think so, there is a big old world out there and I haven't seen it all - doubt if anyone has. So we bring on those new works of art, share your vision - tell me where you've been and I will try to do the same. After all Bill your the only person to show me a photograph of a statue of a dog, in a park, covered with snow....and it is one of my favorites of your work - it makes me smile - what more can I ask for?

[SuzanneR]

Great thread, Bill.

I'd also like to bring up the idea of "Zeitgeist"... that is... an artist lives and works in certain time, and even if they don't know other influences... their work may relate to others. For example, in the 40's, 50's and early 60's a group of artists lived and worked in St. Ives, Cornwall in the UK. They did not have much contact with the outside world, and yet... they created paintings an sculptures that are incredibly similar to what was going on in New York with the abstract expressionists at that time. Not exactly the same, but similar, and yet there was really no contact between them.

The artists in St. Ives were Barbara Hepworth, Ben Nicholson, and Patrick Heron among others. I always have found it interesting that these artists seemed to find similar expression at the same time without really knowing of each other.

Don't get me wrong. I think it's great to find work that inspires you, but I also think you can find extraordinary strength in floundering on your own, too. And you never know... you may find another photographer or artist at some point grappling with similar issues.

[jnanian]

hi bill

great thread!

i think it is hard to shut out all the influences
that one might have buried inside them and do
anything truly original. whether we are living now
or we were creating images 100 years ago
we are still being touched by the world around us
emotions and thoughts inside of us
and images we see on paper and canvas and 3d ...
while it might be ez for someone to suggest
he/she is creating never before
seen ... it probably is there somewhere ...
i don't really think it is living off the coattails of ...
but mimicking, doing something similar, borrowing from and everything
else that creative types do is the best form of flattery there can be.
and usually the person doing the "similar" brings something else
to the table besides something bland and tastless ... their own spice ...
so, no it doesn't matter ...

i am a big foodie ... i watch iron chef and iron chef america as much as
i can. i am always amazed how these folks can take something mundane
and boring and turn it into something inventive, and tasty. that tends
to happen with photography too. we see something that might seem mundane
and we somehow turn it into something else, through whatever filter we may
have ... whether someone was looking at work of another photographer, painter,
musician, author or whatever stuffs might be churning inside his/her head ...
not sure if i even addressed ur question

hope so

[Curt]

It was the discovery factor that caused me to put down the tools, in the shop building and refurbing cameras, and in the taking and darkroom work, because I realized that what time I have left would be better used if I had a retake and evaluated just what I wanted to accomplish in the next two decades, more or less. I started buying the books I always wanted and reread the one's I already had. I hunted down the DVD's movies made on photographers and just yesterday I received the movie Lust for Life with Kirk Douglas as Van Gogh. He had a very short artistic period as did Paul Gauguin. It's interesting how Van Gogh's struggle paralleled what I had read in the Day Books of Edward Weston. The struggle to earn a living and do the art was difficult for them. I don't have that specific problem but like a lot of people I want more than I can afford.

I always have found it interesting that these artists seemed to find similar expression at the same time without really knowing of each other.

Edward Weston remarked about one of his photographs looking similar to another mans work and was embarrassed, thinking the wider public would think he was copying. It is interesting to see similar work done by individuals that aren't aware of each other, whether in art or science.

I think a person just has to work hard at the craft, keep in touch with what's going on in the World and enjoy creating. I'm thinking more of the journey and not the destination these days.

Curt

[ajmiller]

As someone above said musicians have always borrowed. When I started learning jazz improvisation most teaching methods I came across encouraged studying one player and learning as many of their solos as possible. This helps understand the relationship between chords and scales. Unfortunately it's easy to become stuck in that persons style. The 'art' I suppose is in taking what you've learnt, then finding your own voice and moving it forward in some way.

[DarkroomExperimente]

My philosophy of photography used to be "if it looks neat, press the button"

..but as I grew as an artist it became "if it doesn't suck, don't hide it"