This has been an exceedingly enlightening thread to read. I’ve found I have to sit down and truly allot time to attempt to mentally digest the amount of diverse responses.
I continue to have many personal thoughts… so I will attempt to be concise, but I make not promises of brevity.
Quote:
KJSphoto: "Every artist dips his brush in his own soul, and paints his own nature into his pictures."
- Henry Ward Beecher
I don’t think people are born artists; I think it comes from a mixture of your surroundings, the people you meet, and luck.
Francis Bacon
Those who do not want to imitate anything, produce nothing
Salvador Dali
The two above quotes seemed fitting given the implied meaning behind the above quoted post.
Thomas Moore, in Care for the Soul, speaks volumes about the concept of soul and nurturing and growing a relationship and dialogue with it. The concept of growth through the details of everyday life, from the perversity’s of human nature, to the mundane details of daily stressors. That each of these societally labeled “wrongs” are not meant to be fixed, cured, or extracted, but communicated with and welcomed, meant to be given respect and acknowledgement. That even the things that seem to hurt us, the things we wish to fix or completely eradicate, these things serve a purpose, and a healthy and positive purpose at that.
The reason I mention this is that I believe there is a semblance of this in regards to art and creative pursuits (the arts and creativity play a large role in the book Care of the Soul, by the way). There has always been a implied aspect to art that it MUST in fact be entirely original and unique, perhaps this is some societally subconscious panoptic of a concept.
Personally, I feel originality in any art form, to be simultaneously impossible and accomplishable.
Instead of True and False the possibility exist for True and True.
Jung stated that human nature has two shadows, one is the dark shadow that is based on the opposite of the choices we make in life, the balance of the “right” choices we have made, this shadow represent our darker half, the half that made the “wrong” choices what those choices mean and signify in our human experience. The second shadow is that of The truly wrong in life, the evil in human nature and in our heart/soul. These two shadows should in fact, be one in the same, yet recognizing that your personal shadow is not the same as the “evil” shadow proves that these “two truths” can in fact coexist.
It has been proved to me on countless times in my mere 29yrs on this earth that these inexplicable “two truths”, do in fact, coexist and they even grow and flourish.
On one hand, unless we force ourselves to be cut off from the peers in our chosen photographic realm (as Cheryl mentioned doing), we will inevitably be effected by the work of other photogs that we encounter, these experiences will shape our path of continually growing OUR work. Personally we can only know if the work we produce is work that is our own. But my faith in my fellow artists affords me the trust that we each are walking that path.
Now on the other hand, originality from a purely measurable and practical sense is completely inevitable in my mind when contemplating photography. We can try our damndest to capture the exact same image that someone prior to us captured, we can locate with GPS the exact coordinates and photograph the exact same scene, at the same time of year, on the same day, at the same hour. Inherently, because of the reality of time and physics that very moment will be entirely unique and original in the purest definition of word. Photography inherently captures a moment in time (or a series or multiple moments) but I feel these moments are unique and if we are truly connected to what we choose to capture, inherently it will contain originality.
The duality of unoriginality coexisting with pure unique originality is, I feel, a powerful concept
Quote:
MurrayMinchin: I think it takes an artist time (sometimes a long time) to grow comfortable within their own skin and produce work that is uniquely their own.
Among the exceedingly long list of wonderful thoughts expressed in this thread this comment resounded with me. I couldn’t agree more with what you said Murray, but I also know that deep down inside me, conceptually, I hope that I never reach that moment… mainly because the path of walking towards that moment is the part where growth and learning occurs. An artists life of perpetually navigating a path towards my work, but never actually reaching any form of finality or destination.
I just finished reading “Framing the Frontier” a book about the work of William Henry Jackson and the growth of the “American” west (I use that term loosely, as it was well established before the US “discovered” it)
Near the end of the book the author expresses the pure drive of Jackson to always continue to grow and never stop. Jackson even was quoted as saying (roughly) “I lived this long because I never stopped to take time”. I find this to be an amazingly inspiring thing, he was continually walking his path and as he stated near his death…
“I was one of the fortunate ones”
As artists and/or photographers I believe we are as well, one of the fortunate ones.
I have part of the answer for that one. I went to the dr. today and passed a McD's restaurant where the billboard said, "Have a Latte, it's good for the Soul"
Is an artist's soul filled with Latte's? Mine is regular coffee, what about you?
I don't think we can, even if we truly wanted to. In order to do something different, you have to have something to be different from. Therefore, you have influences, even if they are "negative" influences.
I agree entirely.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheFlyingCamera
While I agree with you that there is no harm to the individual who practices in a cliched style for the sole purpose of their own pleasure, I think we're addressing those who aspire to something more than "Painting Lessons by Morty" on sunday afternoons at 2 on public access cable.
I think that in this thread I have been reacting to the idea that there is one single thing that is 'photography' and that any other way of using a camera is somehow less worthy. I prefer to see spectra of intent and originally (not necessarily coincident) and I see no unbiased way of determining an inherent value for any given point on those spectra.
There are no rules. Even if you do aspire to more than a mechanical hobby, there is no ultimate arbiter except the false one of tawdry popularity - and that usually leads to a slavish devotion to fossilised styles.
My own personal quest does indeed follow a standard humanist, rationalist path, and it does aspire to originality, or at least a definite personality. But when I see that aspiration advanced as a universal goal I get itchy and remember the potters who try and recreate Silla Celadon, or the concerts I have loved on period instruments, or the icons, mandalas and raked gravel gardens of religions where the continuence of artistic tradition is more highly valued. As a free artist, I have a choice, and I find it useful to explicitly face that choice from time to time, rather than use the crutch of an imaginary absolute to deny its existence.
Among the exceedingly long list of wonderful thoughts expressed in this thread this comment resounded with me...
Quote:
Originally Posted by MurrayMinchin
I think it takes an artist time (sometimes a long time) to grow comfortable within their own skin and produce work that is uniquely their own.
Quote:
Originally Posted by scootermm
I couldn’t agree more with what you said Murray, but I also know that deep down inside me, conceptually, I hope that I never reach that moment… mainly because the path of walking towards that moment is the part where growth and learning occurs. An artists life of perpetually navigating a path towards my work, but never actually reaching any form of finality or destination.
And I absolutely agree with your last comment. I was talking of young artists shedding their influences and finally finding their own voices, but I didn't mean they wouldn't grow from that point! I've often said that any artist who's comfortable with what they do and aren't seeking to grow are dead in the water as artists.
Life is way too chaotic (in a good way ) right now for me read and appreciate all these good replies to Bills OP, but I'll come back to this thread later to soak it all in.
Murray
__________________
_________________________________________
Note to self: Turn your negatives into positives.
I think people get way to hung up about copying another persons style or suject matter. If you enjoy making images make them. I made Kennaesque images long before I knew who he was. Funny thing is no one comes into my home, sees the kenna like print on the wall and says, "wow, that looks just like a Michael Kenna print." Except for Ansel Adams, I don't think any of my non-phtography friends could name another well known photograper. I don't think my friends who are artists in other media would recognize the work of more then a handfull. For 1% of the folks on APUG who sell and show their work professionally a personal unique style migh be important. But then again look through enough back issues of View Camera, Lenswork and B&W magazines and you would find a couple of dozen Adams emultors that are bought, collected and reprsented by galleries.
Photograph what moves you and catches your eye. Photograph what interests you and makes you smile. Use what ever tools and techniques that feel right. It is just that simple.
__________________ "Fundamentally I think we need to rediscover a non-ironic world"
Robert Adams
I don't see why we need to popularize a discussion about personal style (in the sense of populist, lowest-common-denominator popularize). The subject of this discussion really does only apply directly to a 1% of this forum who do aspire to an artistic career. Yes, I think we should all shoot what we want how we want, and if our sole reason for practicing photography is the exercise and discipline of executing a well-made photograph to look at and provide pleasure to ourselves, there is nothing at all wrong with that as a goal. But just as we should not cast aspersions toward the sunday afternoon hobbyist, neither should we denigrate those who aim for more. That aiming for more, rising above mediocrity, exceeding expectations was a fundamental quality taught in my education and upbringing, across all disciplines, be it art, music, math, science or even sports. I don't understand why this concept is not more widely taught and more widely embraced.
Trying to achieve a personal style, through whatever means, is an interesting topic and bears more discussion, far more than it gets here. There is a real process to this, and I think we can outline some commonalities to this process through discussing our own experiences, and this will be very educational to newer/younger members, like Marko, who was asking this very question (how do I change my style?) in another thread.
Scott Im curious about your post.... these are merely questions and NONE are meant in a manner of judgement or criticism... just curiousity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheFlyingCamera
I don't see why we need to popularize a discussion about personal style (in the sense of populist, lowest-common-denominator popularize). The subject of this discussion really does only apply directly to a 1% of this forum who do aspire to an artistic career.
While this has the possibility of being true... why do you feel this particular discussion only pertains to the 1% that strive towards "artistic"?
And for that matter how are you defining "aspire to an artistic career"? that seems like it could lend itself to a pretty broad definition, and given that, this may in fact be quite pertinent to a broad populous of people on here, etc.
Quote:
Yes, I think we should all shoot what we want how we want, and if our sole reason for practicing photography is the exercise and discipline of executing a well-made photograph to look at and provide pleasure to ourselves, there is nothing at all wrong with that as a goal. But just as we should not cast aspersions toward the sunday afternoon hobbyist, neither should we denigrate those who aim for more. That aiming for more, rising above mediocrity, exceeding expectations was a fundamental quality taught in my education and upbringing, across all disciplines, be it art, music, math, science or even sports. I don't understand why this concept is not more widely taught and more widely embraced.
Trying to achieve a personal style, through whatever means, is an interesting topic and bears more discussion, far more than it gets here.
do you mean that it hasnt, thus far, received the discussion it deserves? or the depth etc?
Quote:
There is a real process to this, and I think we can outline some commonalities to this process through discussing our own experiences, and this will be very educational to newer/younger members, like Marko, who was asking this very question (how do I change my style?) in another thread.
is this what you are hoping can occur in threads such as this? that we should each give examples of "walking our paths, respectively?
just curious, your post brought some questions....
Trying to achieve a personal style, through whatever means, is an interesting topic and bears more discussion, far more than it gets here. There is a real process to this, and I think we can outline some commonalities to this process through discussing our own experiences, and this will be very educational to newer/younger members, like Marko, who was asking this very question (how do I change my style?) in another thread.
It does bear more discussion, so at the risk of going OT I'd like to ask a follow up question.
For those here who believe they have a style, when did you discover you had a style? For me it was when I realised that I could look at the work of another photographer but be content to enjoy their work without feeling the slightest urge to mimic it because I was quite happy creating what I was already creating. Does that make sense?
Linear Mode
