Too Much Style

[billschwab]

I'm not much good at starting threads, and I may be sticking my neck too far out, but I don't want to hijack another thread.

Here goes...

Activity in a couple of threads has me interested in the subject of "artistic" photographic style, where it comes from and basically when does the time come when enough is enough.

The discussion at hand has been the Kenna-likes, but I don't think it can be limited to that. Obviously it is currently a high profile phenomenon in the photography world, but what about all the high-profile Adams/Weston (etc) disciples? John Sexton, Alan Ross, Kirk Gittings just to name a few of my favorites in that genre. There are obviously other "styles" of work and I am not picking on these guys. I use them simply because it is another area of interest personally. Are they too "living off the backs" of the greats that preceded them as was pointed out to me in another discussion? Why is it that for some this is a subject of derision? Is there really anywhere else for us all to go, or are we going to endlessly chase each other's tails? Is anyone really innocent of being knock-offs of the greats in whose shadow's we live?

Does it even matter?

A lot of questions I know... Hoping we can keep this civil as we are all a long way from the schoolyard.

Bill

Ps. No, this isn't an ad for a workshop... (double smiley)

[Christopher Walrath]

Ya know, this is somewhat along the vein of the article I wrote. But I guess what doesn't occur to some folks in the art critique community is that sometimes it might be just a smidge possible that at least two people's artistic vision can overlap. Yes there is a definite influence between a master and an apprentice and the direction of their art will invariably carry in somewhat differing directions. But there will invariably be similarities. This is not necessarily 'riding the coattails' of another. Rather the short sighted vision of others, I believe. In my humble opinion, that is.

[Troy]

I make my living by stealing from others. I'm a newspaper photographer and when I see a great shot from another shooter I file it away, I sometimes even write it down. That way, when I find my self in a similar situation, I can think WWHCB do? That's "what would Henri Cartier-Bresson do" or whoever. Then I blend it with my own situation, style, historical period and — viola! — an "original" picture.

I'm also a folk music performer by trade and we call this the "folk process." Take an old tune, write some new lyrics and presto. It worked for Dylan, it worked for Woody Guthrie and it worked for every ancient traveling bard who ever used the same tune with new words to flatter a king.

I don't care if I'm breaking new ground as long as it's new ground for me.

[Ian Leake]

Robert Henri wrote, "All the past up to a moment ago is your legacy. You have a right to it." In other words, we have a right to use others' work as a stepping off point for our own.

A conscious (or unconscious) copy is boring, but building on the work of others (which requires us to diverge from their path) is exciting and creative.

Unfortunately many artistically motivated photographers are unable to grasp this and are so hung up on being "new" and "original" that they cannot create anything significant at all (and then disparage others for not being "new" or "original").

[scootermm]

Bill I actually attempted to reply in that other thread (it was long, so likely missed by most)... but I truly do enjoy discussing things such as this... especially when I get the chance to "read" the thoughts of people who I am familiar with and even whos work I even admire.

Here goes...

Activity in a couple of threads has me interested in the subject of "artistic" photographic style, where it comes from and basically when does the time come when enough is enough.

The discussion at hand has been the Kenna-likes, but I don't think it can be limited to that. Obviously it is currently a high profile phenomenon in the photography world, but what about all the high-profile Adams/Weston (etc) disciples?

I honestly think the "{insert photographer name}-like" is a natural part of being an artist. Perhaps the influence is a living artist or a past one - in my meager stack of books read I've found biographies and autobiographies expressing that photogs such as Adams, Strand, and Weston etc, each have admitted to being influenced by each other along with strongly influenced by photographers that came before them and their contemporaries. It seems natural to me to know what we like, admire it, and even connect with it to an extent that we adopt it as our own.
I started truly making creative work as a painter in college. I was HEAVILY influenced by my painting prof and friend. If you were to look at my work and his side by side, there is an obvious and strongly apparent influence. But because of the time and effort I have put into it, there are distinctly different visual aspects to it... he used more neutral colors, I am drawn to bright and brilliant ones... etc.
I think that when we are truly influenced by fellow artists (and photographers in this case) we may well create work that resembles theirs but if we are truly creating our own work... it will undoubtedly be VERY MUCH ours. It will have our signiature on it.... it may take years to truly fine tune that signature, but that signature is there within each of us, no matter the extent that we are influenced by others... we will eventually truly make it our own if there is commitment to growth and personal expression.
Id be full of sh*t if I could blatantly state that I haven’t been STRONGLY influenced by both past photographers and current ones…. I will always be drawn to the industrial imagery of Weston. I started down the road of this entire passion and practice of large format and ULF because of two distinct people. The view camera article with Clay Harmon’s and Michael Mutmansky’s work. In that article I saw work that I admired but what I saw that was even more profound was a format of photography that resonated with something deep inside me. Add to that I saw a subject matter that was near and dear to my heart…. The skeletal remains of industrialization. Its obvious that people such as clay, Michael, kerik, etc have influenced my photography. I am immeasurably grateful for that…. And out of respect for the influencers both living and passed, I can only commit to continuing to walk the path of creating work that resonates with my true vision and hopefully can eventually create what is truly MY work.

Why is it that for some this is a subject of derision?

Pure and simple I think because of Ego. Human individuality and a true sense of uniqueness are driving forces behind a lot of derision in society… but the truly ironic thing, in my opinion, is that true uniqueness is inherent and ever present, not something needing to be strived towards.

Is there really anywhere else for us all to go, or are we going to endlessly chase each other's tails?

As I stated above, I don’t actually feel we are chasing our tails. Unless there is a conscious decision to purely emulate then ultimately we should each be seeking out what is truly our own photography.

Is anyone really innocent of being knock-offs of the greats in whose shadow's we live?

No, I think relatively speaking each and everyone of us could be categorized as knockoffs….

Does it even matter?

Not in the least bit, I don’t think.

It seems to me that we each have to answer to ourselves and if we can honestly say we are attempting to walk OUR path towards creating OUR work… then it will inevitably manifest itself in an enormously and immensely diverse and creative group of photographers.

A lot of questions I know... Hoping we can keep this civil as we are all a long way from the schoolyard.

Bill

Ps. No, this isn't an ad for a workshop... (double smiley)

You mean you aren’t setting up a Kenna-Vision workshop?

[Ole]

Now that I think about it, 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. If not, it goes back in the heap to mature for a few years - or maybe to be ripped off for yet another reworking of ideas.

[billschwab]

You mean you aren’t setting up a Kenna-Vision workshop?

LOL!!! Good one.

Matt... that was a wonderful post.

[JBrunner]

I have many influences at this point, Weston has taught me much about seeing, Adams has taught me much about technique, Kenna has taught me to abandon the constraints of time, and embrace other dimensions apart from the one I live in, and so on. If my photograph appears to mimic one of my mentors, it may an unavoidable result of my experience, but truly, no matter what I do, it is my experience speaking, through the melting pot of my evolving understanding, touched by those who have spoken to me. I hope they would be flattered.

[keithwms]

What I think distinguishes original art from duplication is awareness and refinement of the emotional ingredients that go into the work.

If I stacked a bunch of soup cans and composed a photo without infusing any of my own thoughts, that would of course be mere duplication.

But if I were inspired to make that composition in a way that really meant something, at least to me, then I think it would rise above mere duplication.

If we go out west and find Ansel's tripod holes with the attitude of trying to get the same emotional impact, then that is duplication. But if we stand on that mountain and allow ourselves to be personally inspired before clicking the shutter, then that shot is our art. I think you can let any scene become art just be letting it affect you before capturing it.

[TheFlyingCamera]

As others here have already said, every single one of us owes a great debt to those who have inspired us to pick up a camera. Nothing at all wrong with that. Art has always been a synthetic process - take from those who came before, shake, stir, and add a pinch of salt, and come up with something new.