Quote Originally Posted by blansky View Post
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.
Well, presumably one would be developing projects with the same personality traits, core values, and decisions that one would take pictures. Ones style would shine through in everything that we do.

Agree wholeheartedly that we have to get outside of our comfort zone, realm of normalcy, and push boundaries in order to not stagnate. Absolutely. The original question was whether 'style' prevents us from taking certain pictures, and I guess in the context of applying our personality and values to what we do, our intellect would choose for us what to take pictures of. So in essence we are always editing, consciously or not.