thanks for that I could never have spelled it. I mean I know what it means I just cannot spell it. Trix and rodinal
Originally Posted by bjorke
All this is wonderful food for thought.
I envision "style" as the opposite ... the true preconsicious "structure" developed by the photographer, that defines and identifies her/his work. "Signature" is, or was ... I'm not so sure anymore ... an artificial affectation, chosen consciously to try to establish some sort of "value" to the work of one insecure of his/her individual intrinsic value.
I looked "style" up in my Funk nd Wagnalls (no kidding ... Funk and Wagnalls Standard College Dictionary) and here it defines "style" as an individual, characteristic way of doing something (simplified ... I count 18 entries).
This is a favorite discussion of "Cocktail Party Dilettantes" ... who love to ramble on, talking about something that is really unknowable - as if they had the ultimate understanding of the subject - and, the more I listen to them, the more I am convinced that *no one* does... gulp!! ... not even ... ME!
It still is an important ... make that *VITAL* concept ... and although I seriously doubt that we can understand it ... It DOES exist .
That is contrary to the "scientific" approach... where if we can't understand something ... it *necessarily* does not exist ... as opposed to mysticism.
The hell with it - I'll continue to be a "mystic", accepting the idea that there are thins out there that I do not know intimately... like "style" or "spirit" ...
It works better for me.
Ed Sukach, FFP.
Ed, I think we need to let others (marketing Types) define an individuals style, there is so much already to be concerned with, with respect to the craft that the artist is already to focused on their objective and issues related to accomplishment, it would be impossible to step back and define in words your own style. Their are a lot of obvious conclusion that can be drawn from types of tools,experiance and choice of medium but style and spirit are conclusions best left to those more objective. Anytime someone thinks to hard about what their doing rather than staying in the moment their freedom gets bogged down.
Stop trying to get into my mind, There is nothing there!
I don't try to define, or select my style. I think that "style" or "signature" (still comptemplating semantics) is THERE, always. It is not something that can be faked - just as the results from a Rorshack Ink Bolt Test cannot be "faked".
Originally Posted by Thomassauerwein
It is individual, it is more or less -- largely -- somewhere in there - preconscious; that is, below the level of our perception. Its influence on one's work is not only there, but unavoidably THERE.
We can work on the techniques of photography, certainly. I would venture a guess that everyone here - and most involved with photography - DO. Techniques can be learned, composition, exposure, swings and tilts, ... on to absurdity.
"Style" - aesthetics ... I think we assimilate those, rather than learn them.
The aesthetics - what we "feel" in our hearts and bones - is by far the most important factor in our, and ALL art.
I once met a High School Art teacher - of the *highest* order. He was an accomplished artist in his own right, and well respected by all of his students.
He once said, "If I give one of my students an assignment, involving `seeing' through my eyes, and approaching the subject the way *I* would; and s/he tells me, `The hell I will! I'm going to do it as *I* see fit,' ... that is the student I have really taught something about art."
Ed Sukach, FFP.