Well, I think a female photographer sees the world differently from a male. I think that in general women see the world differently from men. It's a part of there being two sexes. (There also are two genders, but that has to do with language, not sex.)
The question I'd have for you is this: Would a female photographer agree with you about the question of quality? That comes down to la difference (viva that). In other words, when it comes to art, do women evaluate quality differently from men?
Bet you haven't an answer to that any more than I have.
I was going to do all manner of wonderful things this morning, but made the mistake of tuning to LuLa first!
Well, I think that the main difference between male/female photographers could well be one of sensitivity. That sensitivity may be down to nurture; perhaps basic hormonal differences between genders; the natural "care" ethic which I think escapes most men - perhaps even motherhood (experienced or expected) may play pivotal rôles in the way the female mind functions and, therefore, expresses itself.
But more specifically, since we are thinking within the context of female photography just now, maybe one important feature that marks a difference (which I do believe there is) comes from the photographer's attitude towards other women. Unless we have a gay female snapper, there will probably be no temptation to use obvious sex as a tool in making a visual statement about clothes, and it's the marketing of clothes that's the commercial raison d'être of fashion photography.
Of course, there is another factor here that can slip beneath the radar, though it becomes obvious when it strikes one: the women photographers who have gripped my respect so strongly are also artists and, in the main, appear to do their own thing and not really follow trends at all. I have not researched this in any detail, so I have not the answer to my own question, but if there is similarity in places between the work of Sarah Moon and of Deborah Turbeville, has one consciously aped the other, or do the styles spring from within the female condition and its consciousness of style and of what constitutes femininity?
I suspect that women do more reading than do men. It appears that books of the historical fiction type sell well, and I think that might go back to such literature speaking to a sense of highly structured female "correctness" of different codes of conduct and presentation of the female self. Harsh reality in the world of today precludes most of the sartorial pomp and flamboyance from being achieved, but within the little rich world of designer fashion those dreams can be played out to some degree, even when the designers know full well that specific clothes are simply loss-leading advertisements for the brand's creative spirit. Lucky the people who get to do their photography around those theatrical extravaganzas rather than depressing trouser suits or thick Shetlands!
But, would those female photographers I esteem agree with me? I have no idea, as you suggest, but even more odd might be if they give the question much thought at all. I believe that they just do their thing, consciously or otherwise, probably otherwise. And that's where the answer has to lie: within their mental make-up.
"I suspect there's more intrinsic difference between one individual photographer and another than between female and male 'togs as groups. Now when it comes to photographers' styles a whole host of extrinsic stuff comes into play: societal norms and current photo fashions, to name two. That stuff makes it hard to say what in a particular photographer's approach is innate and what is learned. You might guess at it but you won't know. Most likely neither will the photographer.
-Dave-"
This is all true, but note that I am not really thinking in terms of an entire world of photographers, but of those very few that have grabbed my mind so strongly. In fact, the vast majority fail to have identity, and ape one another continaully. How can it escape them that the stars are stars because they are
different, that this one or the other one already exists, and is there to be hired by magazines for next to no money because payment is often in terms of
prestige and not big money? Advertising brings the cash, not editorial, unless you are able to get a massive exclusivity contract, but few ever attain that!
Trying to copy another photographer's style is bound for failure. Rankin did a series of ape shots a while ago, and in my opinion, he couldn't pull it off, and he was aping specific photos, not the more difficult task of assimilating and using another's style on new work! You are you, and that's both your best card and your worst.
;-)