To answer Bill's point at bit more coherently or directly - I think what matters is to find your direction as a photographer, what you want to photograph and why. (So for me, in Ian's list above, the 'subject' comes first).
The 'style' will follow naturally from that, without forcing, if you are true to yourself. If you ARE authentic in what you are doing, - whatever you are doing, and I believe this is inclusive not exclusive - then it doesn't matter if the 'style' seems similar to someone else's or not (of course it will be similar to someone else's for many reasons already mentioned - no-one is that unique). If your photograph carries enough power, through your engagement with it, and your purpose in taking it, then you will communicate that power, emotion, idea (whatever is within your photo) through the 'style' (which is inseparable from the end result, but which is nothing without substance - i.e. authentic engagement of the photographer, which has the possibility, in turn, to engage the viewer).
You're absolutely right Cate. A style without meaningful content is just an affectation.
(Just for clarity though, I didn't consciously order my list although it happens to be in chronological order.)
Afterthought: but without a discernible and coherent style, is it likely that an audience will pick up on, understand, and appreciate the purpose of one's work?
Ian- like most of us, my style has been evolutionary. I don't know that I've had a series of obvious, conscious "Eureka" moments either, but I do know that I've had a single driving concept behind the work I do. I have a notion of "Beauty" that I want to put on paper. As I have continued to photograph, and to learn and experiment, the tools available to me to capture that notion have grown and changed. I've always worked first and foremost with larger negatives - I had a (VERY used) Hasselblad before I had a 35mm SLR. I got into a 4x5 quite early on, then had to put that idea aside for economic reasons for a while. The big ground glass and the large negatives have always held an appeal, for much the same reasons as they have for you. The larger canvas on which to compose, the slowing down of the working method, and the ability to print in whatever media I want all appeal, because they give me much more control over the final image. The Pt/Pd look appeals to me not only because of the tone and scale, but also the way in which I make a Pt/Pd print fits in my concept of Beauty - the beauty of the everyday, the wabi-sabi beauty of the imperfect, the value of the different.
I know the kinds of angles I like to shoot, and in part I know why as well. Part of it comes from really having learned photography on a waist-level finder, part of it comes from the models I often shoot (certain sizes and shapes). Part of it comes from the equipment I currently use (the studio 5x7 on the studio stand - which makes for a very different kind of shooting than with the Hassy and the waist-level finder). Part of it comes from having an experience working with someone else whose artistry I have great respect for.
We all pick up touches from our various instructors (and I don't mean always formal instruction) - I got my sense of lighting from Stephen John Phillips, which got refined through Tom Baird (both teachers at Maryland Institute College of Art). Tom learned lighting from working with Ruth Bernhard, and clued me in to her work. Then along came a workshop with John Dugdale. Although I had already decided to learn pt/pd, the workshop with John pushed me to think about not only the style of shooting I was doing, but it also kick-started me into printing more openly, with a longer tonal scale, and move away from soot-and-chalk style images. The soot-and-chalk was a great way to work in my youth, because I needed the drama that it presented. I still want drama in my images, but the drama I seek now is better conveyed through the content and the pose instead of the printing.
Trying to articulate the path to a style, especially when it is not something we are conscious of (and it may well be something we CAN'T be conscious of), is a difficult task, perhaps impossible, because we can't really do this concurrently (the conscious observation and recording of the evolutionary process) concurrently with the actual evolutionary process. I do think it is a worthwhile exercise though, to at least attempt it. I hope I'm making a reasonable attempt at it here, and I'm not being too opaque.
How best is "style" defined or related in terms of the photographic image?
Is style more "subject" oriented (to include all decisions made prior to releasing the shutter) or is it more "process" oriented? By process I mean treatment of the image formed on the negative----more "pictorial", "documental", or more "straight" (using AA's definition of "straight": "the simplest and most direct revelation of the optical image"....."defined by the use of glossy papers and emphasis on [tonal] value and texture"). Can't forget the alternative processes as they relate to style and I've no experience with any of them. I mean...."style", if it can be characterized, then, IMHO there has to be a central emphasis by which to base the characterization.
I personally believe that style is more heavily process oriented than subject oriented, but I am no art connoisseur, just thinking outloud on something I don't normally think about at all. It just seems to me that style has to be rooted in something.
To Bill, I have never given the concept of "style" more thought prior to your initiation of this thread. I don't know whether to thank you or curse you .
It has been interesting though.
Chuck
__________________
"Photography is an illusion. It is amazing that human beings consider a photograph to be a representation of reality."
---John Sexton
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG
have the option to remove this ad.)
Chuck- I think you can't separate subject and mechanics when discussing style- they are both vital components of a personal style. I don't think you would ever confuse Ansel Adams with Henri Cartier-Bresson, but they both printed relatively "straight" prints on black-and-white silver gelatin paper. And same for William Henry Jackson and Ansel Adams, although they both photographed the same subject matter.
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.
Maybe someone starting to think about their style is an indication that they do aspire to more of an artistic presence?
I think part of attaining your own style is allowing yourself to let go. Overthinking something is probably one of my bigger faults. I don't know that I do have my own style, yet, or at least don't know what it is myself. However I get there, it will need to involve me letting myself keep going, shooting more, and stop thinking too much.
I don't think it's entirely bad if someone sets out to emulate another photographer's work, as long as it isn't a straight copy for copying sake (as others have said better than I). I think that using another's work as a jumping off point can help to start the process of learning, however. "How did they get that light?" "What if I do this? Will it have that effect?" Questions like those can lead someone who doesn't have access to a class to figure out how to achieve certain looks.
As for landscapes, each scene will look different on different days and at different times. If 2 photographers have similar landscapes, it seems to me it's because they're both attracted to similar scenes.
Great thread, by the way. The rest of you are much more eloquent than I.
Location: Helsinki, Finland for over 14 years now.
Posts: 755
Think of language. We learn our mother tongue as children, without knowing it, by copying the sounds made by people around us and then, gradually, understanding what those sounds mean by life experience. We go to school, learn to read and write, learn mathematics, by rote and also by emulation, comparison and imagination. In high school we learn to write essays according to an accepted methodology. We are taught to ascribe importance to the thinking of others, various canons of thought that are handed down to us. At this point, we speak and write fluently in our mother tongues. We study the canonical literature and begin to master our national mythologies and masterpieces. Already at this point, it will be seen that certain students show a greater facility and love of language than others. Their wits are quicker, their puns are pithier, they are not the ones to engage in verbal battles. Simply put, when it comes to language they are talented. Perhaps they love to write -- stories, essays, journalism. Perhaps they will go on to university, perhaps not. Perhaps one of them will aspire to become a writer, a novelist, even (dare I write it) an artist. She knows the canon inside and out, she loves poetry and prose equally, she is well-versed in literary theory as it treats the novel. Years go by with much scribbling down of ideas, situations, scenarios, the germs of characters that coalesce but do not take root. A few short stories are written, competent, even interesting, but weightless. At 25, it would seem that she has not yet developed enough character herself to give a story the weight and depth of experience needed to make it interesting for an adult, intelligent reader. She is struggling, and knows it. She is caught up in the surface of things, in the glitter of clever dialogue and description. She is confusing style with substance. Will she find her "voice", her "tone"? Will she ever absorb her influences and stop being absorbed by them? Finally, does she really have something to say and will she find the form with which will fully express what she has to say? Only time will tell.
Not to me it doesn't. People should make the photographs they want to and if that means being totally original or being influenced by a certain style then so be it.
I think people are too quick to assume that a photographer is trying to be the next MK or whatever, I dont think people should make assumptions like that without personally speaking with the photographer. You might think you know, but you don't actually unless you speak to them.
Most photographers who are influenced by a certain style will probably add their own twist as they go along. I wonder how many guitarists wanted to be Jimmy Page? Is that so completely wrong?
.
Linear Mode
