Too Much Style

[wfe]

Originally Posted by Ian Leake

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?

Great question Ian !!!
If I even have a style and I really don't if I do it is something that has not been consciously created. I don't really think about it, I just make the pictures that I enjoy making. Sometimes they are influenced by other's work and sometimes not. There does seem to be a bit of a style to my work but I don't try to label it with anything.

Cheers,
Bill

[Ian Leake]

I certainly didn't consciously create a style, and it's certainly continually developing. But looking back at older prints, the ones that satisfied me the most back then (and now for that matter) have stylistic elements that I'd recognise as "me" today, even though I didn't recognise them when I made the negs/prints.

[catem]

Interesting discussion. I'm thinking, though, I'm personally not altogether happy using the word 'style', or thinking about it as something you either have or you don't, or that you discover in yourself one day. I know that it is not meant that way here, but the word itself seems to carry almost superficial connotations to me.

Thinking of my own work, where I'm at etc., and thinking about whole range of artists and photographers and writers whom I admire, I think I prefer the word 'purpose'.

The 'style' is a part of it, but it is secondary. Like the suit of clothes you wrap around your ideas, and your intent.

[Ian Leake]

To me purpose is another dimension - the reason I get up in the morning and make a photo rather than read a book. Style, again in my personal opinion, is the visual glue that links a photographer's pictures to one another. While most people have a style to some degree, I would argue that many people lack a coherent style: one day shooting trannies, another B&W; one day using a soft focus lens, another going for maximum sharpness; always experimenting, never consolidating. But I'd also argue that lack of a coherent style is not necessarily bad nor good, it depends on what your purpose is...

[CPorter]

Originally Posted by Ian Leake

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?

I think it does make sense and I also think it is a good question but I don't care for the word "mimic". I for one don't care to be photographing people or anything else that moves about and can talk back and be inpatient with me. So, being a forester I have access to property (with permission of course) and thus, it is the natural scene the I most enjoy trying to capture, mostly intimate details, abadoned homes, etc...My point is that when I photograph a tree or decayed stump, or some grouping of leaves, am I "mimicing" becuase it has been done many times before or am I doing what makes me happy. By seeing photographs from those that I am inspired by, I have become better at "seeing" when it relates to the image on the ground glass. I don't ever think of myself as mimicing because I'm trying to photograph in my own way (i.e., through my own eyes) in my own territory with what I have available to me.

I hope that doesn't sound too much like splitting a frog hair, just wanted to clarify.

Chuck

[CPorter]

Oh, forgot to try and answer the OP. I don't know if I have a style, but I think that question would be most accurately described by others-----if, indeed, my stuff will ever be viewed and analyzed, then perhaps someone will characterize it for me. I mentioned earlier in this thread that I feel syle is very hard to define, at least for me.

Chuck

[papagene]

I don't know if I have a "Style," but I think I do have a way of seeing that is a product of my education, experience and personality. How that way of seeing developed I posted earlier in this thread.
Like Chuck, I am not (generally) a people photographer, whereas I prefer to photograph things that don't move (I am one of the world's slowest focusers!) and don't talk back. Growing up in a small town, I prefer to be out in the woods.
In my photographic work I do aspire to be creative and try to bring a personal approach to each photograph. And to quote my last post: "To me, if you stop being influenced by the work of others (in any medium) you will also stop growing as an artist."

gene

[jovo]

I am aware that I often make photographs with some regard for the influence of photographers I admire. But, when people offer an assessment of them, it is most often the same: my 'graphs seem to be particularly 'serene'. So whether I've deliberately chosen to use LF, 6x6, or 6x7, in homage to someone's work that I like, that serenity seems to be the essence of whatever style I may have. I don't even know quite what people mean by that adjective, since my experience of making the photograph may have been anything but serene....but that's what seems to come through. From this observation I want to conclude that 'style' really does reflect the unique way an individual sees regardless of the superficial aspects of format, color vs black and white, print size or whatever. Unless, the photographer is deliberately 'channeling' someone else by way of imitating, or actually duplicating a particular image, his/her photographs reflect the way they see. (But then I am always amazed by the fact that incredibly horrible people who do awful things often look remarkably unremarkable...so I may be very naive about this. )

It's heartening for me to see so many wonderful 'graphs that do not rely on monumental, iconic, or unique-site dependent subjects for their power and effectiveness. I know 'poles in the water' has been done to death, but what could be more simple and appealing when eloquently rendered. This, for me, is the true evolution of modernism....beautifully designed photographs made with clarity and simplicity of whatever is close to home.

I'm a huge fan of Chip Forelli's work that reflects what I've written above.

www.chipforelli.com

[TheFlyingCamera]

Matt- I understand your questions are not meant judgmentally. Why I feel that the question of arriving at ones independent "style" only pertains to the 1%? For those who do not aspire to some kind of artistic presence, acknowledgment, fame, fortune, notoriety, etc, having a "style" that is personally identifiable is really irrelevant. If you have one, great, if not, no tragedy, because it isn't something you care about in the first place. For those who aspire to artistic success, it is an issue that MUST be confronted.

When I say that we should have greater discussion about style and how to arrive at it, I mean that I think we as a community of practicing artists need to be more willing to seriously analyze our growth process to help educate the next generation - to demystify to some degree the artistic process. To sit down and look critically at how we work, and think, and develop ideas, and to do so with clarity and not postmodernist artspeak mumbo-jumbo.

Perhaps because this is a truly public forum, I think there is a subtle, or perhaps not so subtle at times, pressure to downplay deeply intellectual discourse about artistic issues in a critical fashion. This results in a constant re-curving to the middle of getting lost in discussions about process and equipment as a way to avoid critical thinking. I don't think discussion about art, the artistic process and creativity must be performed in such a way as to be exclusionary, but neither do I think we should decide that we can't have those discussions in the name of being inclusive.

[Ian Leake]

Originally Posted by TheFlyingCamera

When I say that we should have greater discussion about style and how to arrive at it, I mean that I think we as a community of practicing artists need to be more willing to seriously analyze our growth process to help educate the next generation - to demystify to some degree the artistic process. To sit down and look critically at how we work, and think, and develop ideas, and to do so with clarity and not postmodernist artspeak mumbo-jumbo.

I think it's really difficult to analyse and describe the process by which one arrives at a coherent style. The only frame of reference I have is myself, and many of the activities and experiences that led to my current style are burried in the mists of time. And those that I can remember I see through the lens of today rather than as I saw them then.

I honestly don't know how I arrived at the style I have today, but amongst the myriad of minor decisions, experiments, ideas, dead ends, and "eureka moments" there are three things which, with hindsight, stand out for me:

1) My decision to switch from MF to LF kit helped me to slow down and think much more about what I was making before firing the shutter (and perhaps more importantly, the LF process feels more in tune with me);

2) My decision to concentrate exclusively on Pt/Pd printing freed me from the urge to constantly experiment with different ways of printing and toning a picture (and perhaps more importantly, I just love the look and feel of a Pt/Pd print - again it feels more in tune with me); and

3) Finding a subject that resonated with me sufficiently strongly to motivate me to spend the time and effort to explore it.

These all happened at different times, and none of them were made with the intent of developing a style (the reasons were far more prosaic than that), but together they had a big impact I think.

But what about you Scott? You have a coherent style: what do you think influenced you?