Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Bertilsson View Post
And I am not catching your point. What should evolve over time, and why?

Projects are, to me at least, a way to focus my work. I try to show something that I feel is important, or convey a certain emotion. If I don't pay attention to subject matter and am selective, how do you accomplish this with a body of work? It doesn't have to be very complicated either. Example: I like to photograph things of transportation, done the old way. So, old cars, airplanes, and trains. It's fun and it describes a time where certain mechanical and engineering challenges were at a different stage. Another example: The Midwest culture and heritage around the grain industry. There was a time when this was of vital importance to a large portion of the world, supplying food in times it was needed. Etc. This project aspect of my work positively defines how I shoot, what I shoot, how I print it, and how I combine it with other photographs to make them speak as loudly as possible.
I don't understand the posts here about people and their project fetish and how that defines style. A project is a project, a style is a look. You can have the same look by photographing barns as you can photographing trains, or people or mountains. Its how your work looks. Not the subject matter.

Your projects are merely a period of what you shoot and when you are done you move on. They don't necessarily define the style you have.

As I've said, a style is a marketing tool to sell people what they are used to. But as a photographer you evolve onto something else, even if you continue to produce some work for your style groupies.

But if a photographer or any artist continues to stick to a style/rut for the sake of sales or ego he will stagnate and be unhappy because talent has to grow or it dies.

If you are a musician and all you do is play the same songs over and over instead of evolving you become a quaint novelty and artistically wither away. You may get rich but you'll be unhappy artistically.