Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => Discussing Photographic Styles => Topic started by: Borgefjell on March 25, 2015, 05:49:37 am
-
Looking at my pictures I must admit that I am not aware of any own specific photographic style so far - I like some of my pictures more that others but I could't say that there is some kind of common style detectable so far. Some photographers out there definitely have it, which raises the question: would you think that you already have developed a personal (photographic) style and if yes how would you describe it? Pictures are welcome as well!
-
My style seems to me to be one of 'not as good as I'd like'. I've been practising this style for some time now.
-
I like clear documentary photography. When I say clear, I mean focused on a subject as opposed to super sharp.
I don't like the confused street shots you see on the net of a bunch of people doing nothing and are presented as 'Hey look at all these people doing nothing I just shot on the street!' Although some critics said the same thing about my photos...so it is all in the eye of the viewer.
Now, I may freak out my photos a little with HDR. If conditions are tough for light I just make the best of it...as long as the photo is a worthy one.
3 recent projects...
(nsfw)
http://bikermardigras.tumblr.com/
(nsfw)
http://dewallenrld.tumblr.com/
(nsfw)
http://whoopwhoopartistsbook.tumblr.com/
Some of my old school film work from the 70's.
(nsfw)
http://danielteolijr.tumblr.com/
-
I like clear documentary photography. Although I may freak them out a little with HDR. If conditions are tough for light I just make the best of it...as long as the photo is worthy.
3 recent projects...
(nsfw)
http://bikermardigras.tumblr.com/
(nsfw)
http://dewallenrld.tumblr.com/
(nsfw)
http://whoopwhoopartistsbook.tumblr.com/
How did I know that you'd do this....yet again? Maybe its just me. Maybe everyone else needs to see your stuff repeatedly.
-
...Maybe its just me...
Nope.
-
Nope +
-
I don't think using HDR is a shooting style but a post processing style. The original poster was I think alluding to a shooting style? A style imo is something that happens to a photographer subconsciously rather than consciously unless someone has a photographic hero and decides to copy them. ::)
-
I don't think using HDR is a shooting style but a post processing style. The original poster was I think alluding to a shooting style? A style imo is something that happens to a photographer subconsciously rather than consciously unless someone has a photographic hero and decides to copy them. ::)
What would a "shooting style" be?
The only ones that come readily to mind is that guy in New York who would jump in front of unsuspected passerby and fire a huge flash in their faces, catching their surprised and, frankly, terrorized faces. Or the studio guy who would torture little kids into crying. Or if you consistently do your street photography from your hip. Those would be "shooting styles" for me, but I doubt the OP had that in mind.
-
Adam Marelli has a nice take on this, I think:
http://www.adammarelliphoto.com/2015/02/when-style-is-a-gimmick/
-
Adam Marelli has a nice take on this, I think:
http://www.adammarelliphoto.com/2015/02/when-style-is-a-gimmick/
Fine reference, Andrew. Marelli puts his finger on it: what we usually call style is an Andy Warhol type gimmick. But he also showed a couple of Bierstadt's mountain scenes. Did Bierstadt's approach to the mountains constitute a style or a gimmick? I'd say: neither. Many people seem to think Bierstadt's use of exaggerated linear perspective is a gimmick or a style, but if you live in the mountains long enough you come to understand that outside the fanciful native Americans paddling around in their canoes, Bierstadt was representing the mountains as they often seem under certain weather conditions.
I do think it's possible to have a "style" if you're a painter. Renoir certainly had one. Whether or not that's possible with a camera is another question. I think HCB developed a style in his early work, but broke away from it when he became a photojournalist. I think Robert Frank came closest to having a consistent style, but it wasn't really all that consistent.
-
The only ones that come readily to mind is that guy in New York who would jump in front of unsuspected passerby and fire a huge flash in their faces, catching their surprised and, frankly, terrorized faces.
That guy is Bruce Gilden, Slobodan. And, if you've read my essay "On Street Photography," you'll see that I agree with you about his ham-handed approach. But that isn't a style. It's the equivalent of standing in the street, ripping open your shirt, beating on your chest, and giving a Tarzan yell.
On the other hand, Gilden is a Magnum photographer and if you check his portfolio you'll see that he's done some pretty good work. On the other hand, as I said in that essay, knowing how Bruce does "street photography," when I discover he's still alive I'm astonished.
-
Walker Evans had a style. At any rate, I have no trouble identifying an Evans (except when I get thrown by a student of Evans). It's some sort of "straight ahead, dead on, and yet, despite that damn it it still works, how is that?" thing that's very distinctive.
I can't tell what it is, but that's probably because I am looking at the wrong things and thinking about it the wrong way. It seems to have been very teachable.
-
Ok, let's see it in practical terms.
If I walk through cities, often years and thousand miles apart, and similar things grab my attention and I capture them and process them similarly, does it constitute a style?
-
I have a somewhat idiosyncratic definition of style:
It is a set of photographic decisions made the same way across a body of work.
That's it.
A successful style gives visual connection between the pictures within the body of work. They all look, to a good degree, 'the same'.
Too much and you're just shooting the same picture over and over - boring. Too little and nobody can see the unifying elements.
And finally as Adam Marelli points out, a style by itself isn't enough. It's just a gimmick. You've got to have a point if view or an idea or something.
I like to say that you need something to "say" (an idea, a point of view) and then the style is the way you say it.
-
I do not really know what a "photographic style" might be, in my opinion it could be some personal style which allows others to guess that this picture might have been taken by a specific person as some elements can be recognized - like with paintings etc.
The street shots taken by Bruce Gilden are one example - I don't like the style but it can be recognized and copied by others. For me this does not only involve the picture elements but also the post processing - over the last couple of years landscape-pictures from the US (I live in Europe) tended to be much more saturated and had more contrast compared to the pictures from Europe, this could be regarded as a global picture style from my point of view.
-
"Style is the answer to everything.
A fresh way to approach a dull or dangerous thing.
To do a dull thing with style is preferable to doing a dangerous thing without style.
To do a dangerous thing with style, is what I call art.
Bullfighting can be an art.
Boxing can be an art.
Loving can be an art.
Opening a can of sardines can be an art.
Not many have style.
Not many can keep style.
I have seen dogs with more style than men.
Although not many dogs have style.
Cats have it with abundance.
When Hemingway put his brains to the wall with a shotgun, that was style.
For sometimes people give you style.
Joan of Arc had style.
John the Baptist.
Jesus.
Socrates.
Caesar.
García Lorca.
I have met men in jail with style.
I have met more men in jail with style than men out of jail.
Style is a difference, a way of doing, a way of being done.
Six herons standing quietly in a pool of water, or you, walking
out of the bathroom without seeing me."
- Charles Bukowski, Style
-
Ok, let's see it in practical terms.
If I walk through cities, often years and thousand miles apart, and similar things grab my attention and I capture them and processed them similarly, does it constitute a style?
Yes.
-
That guy is Bruce Gilden, Slobodan. And, if you've read my essay "On Street Photography," you'll see that I agree with you about his ham-handed approach. But that isn't a style. It's the equivalent of standing in the street, ripping open your shirt, beating on your chest, and giving a Tarzan yell.
On the other hand, Gilden is a Magnum photographer and if you check his portfolio you'll see that he's done some pretty good work. On the other hand, as I said in that essay, knowing how Bruce does "street photography," when I discover he's still alive I'm astonished.
Just because you do not like someone's work or their attitude, does not mean there is no style. I'm not particularly a fan of Gilden's street work on the whole and really dislike his manner, but he certainly has a recognisable style
-
The idea of "a style" in photography, equivalent to a style in painting, is an absurdity on the face of it.
-
I do not really know what a "photographic style" might be, in my opinion it could be some personal style which allows others to guess that this picture might have been taken by a specific person as some elements can be recognized - like with paintings etc.
I think that's as good a definition as any, and it was my immediate assumption from your question. I don't agree with Russ that the concept is absurd: Nick Brandt's African photos are pretty much immediately recognisable as his, for example.
Jeremy
-
Russ,
The idea of "a style" in photography, equivalent to a style in painting, is an absurdity on the face of it.
Please can you explain what you mean by the above?
-
...Please can you explain what you mean by the above?
I think what is mean't is that a truly individualistic style is possible when painting. It may so distinctive as to obviate the need for a signature.
A work may be copied stroke-for-stroke but a unique work will likely be picked as not of the original artist but a pretender.
I do not think that the comment is meant to say that a style is not possible in photography - just that it cannot be exactly the same as characterised in other art.
Style in photography is definitely an entity: choice of subject or theme, composition, and post processing (not an exhaustive list) all contribute to what could be termed style.
It is possible, however, for two individuals, having never met or be aware of one another, to have a virtually indistinguishable style with photography.
None of this means that style is not possible in photography or that one's style is not unique.
Tony Jay
-
Tony,
Thank you.
It is possible, however, for two individuals, having never met or be aware of one another, to have a virtually indistinguishable style with photography.
...but not so with painting?
-
Russ,
Please can you explain what you mean by the above?
Hi Rob, I think Tony came closest. Look at Renoir's paintings. When you go into a museum and wander past the walls, can you spot a Renoir immediately? If you're familiar with Renior's style I think you can at least come close. There are others who've tried to duplicate Renoir's style, but they always fall short, and even when they fall short it's still a case of somebody trying to copy a Renoir style. I probably could spend the next half hour listing painters with a recognizable style.
Now, let's look at a photograph of a small African-American girl, all dressed up, fit to kill, in an obviously depressed neighborhood. Is that a Walker Evans, a Robert Frank, a Helen Levitt? No, turns out it's a Cartier-Bresson? I think I can spot a Cartier-Bresson right off the bat, not because Henri has a particular photographic "style," but because I think I'm familiar with his specific photographs. But every once in a while I spot something I can't identify as a Cartier-Bresson, because I've never seen it before, and there's nothing there that can tell me it was made by Henri, but, in the end it turns out to be by Henri.
Paintings by the world's greatest painters capture the essence of the painter's personality. That's a "style." Photographs don't do that.
-
Russ,
Thank you for taking the time to respond so comprehensively.
-
Still not true though.
Many works by 'masters' may have done in fact by their studio and many forgers have successfully passed off fakes as genuine such as in this story in today's news (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-31818367)
-
Thanks, Jeremy. You made my point. You can't do a "master's" work in a studio unless the master has a recognizable style, and you can't pass off a fake as genuine unless it has a recognizable style. Try doing that with a photograph. Do you think you can pass off a fake Cartier-Bresson on the basis of his "style?"
-
One most certainly can have style in creatively composited photographs, eg, Jerry Uelsmann.
-
Hi Nancy, You've got a point. I'm familiar with Jerry's stuff, and in fact I have a friend who worked with Jerry for a while. I think the problem lies with the definition of "style." That's a term that's almost as slippery as "art." As Nixon used to say, I'll say this about that:
By "style," I mean a way of producing art that uniquely reflects the personality of the artist. On another thread I mentioned Man Ray and "rayograms." On the same thread, Chauncey showed his latest translucency. If you accept constructions such as these as "styles," then you'd also have to call street photography and landscape photography "styles." I see what Man Ray and Chauncey do as photographic genres. John Constable had a style; Renoir had a style; van Gogh had a style. When you use your hand to draw or paint, there's something uniquely your own that comes through. When you use a camera, what comes through as unique is unique to the camera, not to the artist.
I realize one can push slippery definitions beyond reason, but anybody with eyes to see can spot the unique styles of people like van Gogh. Those with eyes to see would have a hard time identifying an Elliott Erwitt he's never seen before. Same thing with Jerry. Within Jerry's genre of compositing almost anybody with Photoshop on his computer could produce something with what you're calling Jerry's "style."
-
I find it interesting that although Jerry and his wife, Maggie Taylor, are both excellent photographic montage-builders, I've never seen an image from one of them that resembles the other's in the slightest.
Of course Maggie does all of hers in color using PhotoShop, while Jerry still does his in the wet darkroom with a bunch of enlargers.
-
Thanks, Jeremy. You made my point. You can't do a "master's" work in a studio unless the master has a recognizable style, and you can't pass off a fake as genuine unless it has a recognizable style. Try doing that with a photograph. Do you think you can pass off a fake Cartier-Bresson on the basis of his "style?"
Yes. Apart from the fact that his work is very recent and well documented, so next to impossible to find an undiscovered shot. Plus you would need to find a photographer that can shoot just like him and travel back in time to when he was shooting. Copying someone else's style is not that easy, if it was, anyone could shoot like a master.
BTW, people have said they seen my [uncredited] images on posters or whatever and guessed they were mine by their style.
-
By "style," I mean a way of producing art that uniquely reflects the personality of the artist. On another thread I mentioned Man Ray and "rayograms." On the same thread, Chauncey showed his latest translucency. If you accept constructions such as these as "styles," then you'd also have to call street photography and landscape photography "styles." I see what Man Ray and Chauncey do as photographic genres.
You can have a style within a genre. Martin Parr and Bruce Gilden both work in the same genre with similar techiques, but have quite different styles.
John Constable had a style; Renoir had a style; van Gogh had a style. When you use your hand to draw or paint, there's something uniquely your own that comes through. When you use a camera, what comes through as unique is unique to the camera, not to the artist.
That's the sort of thing said by someone who cannot create distinct works with a camera.
I realize one can push slippery definitions beyond reason, but anybody with eyes to see can spot the unique styles of people like van Gogh. Those with eyes to see would have a hard time identifying an Elliott Erwitt he's never seen before. Same thing with Jerry. Within Jerry's genre of compositing almost anybody with Photoshop on his computer could produce something with what you're calling Jerry's "style."
And people can also copy Van Gogh's style, doesn't make it any less his style. Funny how you do not see often composite work that looks like Jerry Uelsman's and if I do I tend to think, "oh that looks like Jerry's work".
-
I remain unrepentant, Jeremy. You can disagree, but if you're going to refute what I said, you'll need some evidence. I suspect most people are clear-headed enough to see, on the face of it, that what you're calling a photographic style is nothing of the sort.
-
Not very many people DO try to copy the great painters, but when they do, they are often quite successful. A competent technician certainly CAN copy them. Students copy them with varying degrees of success, and forgers copy them (by definition) with great success. The thing is, there are few enough "well known" painters that there's room for distinctive styles.
Photography is so easy, there are so many photographers, and it is SO easy to copy someone else, that of course we have endless overlapping bodies of work that all blur together.
I do not think that it makes sense to think of "style" in the same way. My thinking is that the serious work in photography has to be portfolios. Any individual picture might be a copy of this or that, and look kind of like the other thing, and so on. But a complete portfolio can still have a distinctive look. Loads of people have done cinematic photos. Only Cindy Sherman would put together a set of 59 of the things, all with the same girl in them, all with the same general flavor (which flavor itself only becomes clear when you see multiples, really).
-
Again, Thanks Andrew. We may not agree on some things, but we certainly agree on this thing. Yes, Cindy Sherman's collections might properly be called a "style." If there is such a thing in photography this probably is where it is.
I've given up on the argument because what I'm getting back has nothing much to do with the photographs or photographers involved but a great deal to do with the definition of "style." That's as much as dead end as is the definition of "art."
-
Russ, pardon me for not reading carefully the whole thread, so my question could have been already asked and answered, but here it is: "Isn't it enough to define a style if people can recognize the photographer just by looking at pictures?"
-
Hi Slobodan. Yes and no. If you're talking about, say, Ulesmann's darkroom contortions I'd hesitate to call it a style. Instead I'd call it a genre. Outside of somebody making quickly recognizable distortions I don't see how anybody can look at a photography and say, for instance, "That's a Cartier-Bresson. I've never seen it before but I'm sure it's a Cartier-Bresson." I've been studying Henri's work since the middle 1950's and I can't do that. If the picture were of a dog doing something funny I'd suspect that it's by Elliott Erwitt, but it would only be a suspicion. Other people do funny dogs.
Renoir created a recognizable style. Other people can mimic Renoir's style, but it's still Renoir's style -- something his hand produced naturally. There's nothing similar in photography. But, as I said earlier, part of the problem is semantics. When you and I say "style" we may not be talking about the same thing, and I don't see anything in my dictionaries that really helps pin it down.
-
Presented with five prints, one each from Cartier-Bresson, Arbus, Friedlander, Gilden, and Winogrand, I'm fairly confident I could identify them all. If this is not evidence that photographers have an individual style, then what is it? 'Genre' won't work, as all five photographers are working in the same genre ('street', 'documentary' or some such).
-
... I don't see how anybody can look at a photography and say, for instance, "That's a Cartier-Bresson. I've never seen it before but I'm sure it's a Cartier-Bresson." I've been studying Henri's work since the middle 1950's and I can't do that...
It might simply mean that HCB did not have a style. Nothing wrong with that.
But there are others. For instance, when I see a close up portrait of a baby or kid crying, coupled with a distinctive post-processing, I can certainly recognize it as belonging to a certain photographer (who's name escapes me at the moment). Helmut Newton fashion images are rather recognizable too. Mapplethorpe's male nudes. Salgado's refugees.
I do agree with Andrew that a body of work makes a difference in recognizing one's style.
-
I meant pictures I hadn't seen before, obviously.
-
My guess is that you've seen an awful lot of photos.
I play this game while watching TV with my daughter: very often I am able to guess the next line in a dialog. Because they tend to be cliche and highly predictable. Just like your comment above. I was about to post how Isaac will respond exactly like you did, but you beat me to it. I am expecting better from you, Isaac, by now :)
-
Presented with five prints, one each from Cartier-Bresson, Arbus, Friedlander, Gilden, and Winogrand, I'm fairly confident I could identify them all.
How much would you be willing to bet on that, Elliot? I think you're overestimating your perception.
-
Hi Slobodan. Yes and no. If you're talking about, say, Ulesmann's darkroom contortions I'd hesitate to call it a style. Instead I'd call it a genre. Outside of somebody making quickly recognizable distortions I don't see how anybody can look at a photography and say, for instance, "That's a Cartier-Bresson. I've never seen it before but I'm sure it's a Cartier-Bresson." I've been studying Henri's work since the middle 1950's and I can't do that. If the picture were of a dog doing something funny I'd suspect that it's by Elliott Erwitt, but it would only be a suspicion. Other people do funny dogs.
Maybe the problem is that you are looking at photographers who are not creatively distinctive enough. Other photographers like David LaChapelle or Gregory Crewsdon are far more distinct in their styles, but as the photographers you tend to prefer are the ones who are more anonymous in their style, you cannot distinguish them so easily. Uelsman's work is also quite distinctive to me.
Renoir created a recognizable style. Other people can mimic Renoir's style, but it's still Renoir's style -- something his hand produced naturally. There's nothing similar in photography.
Utter nonsense.
But, as I said earlier, part of the problem is semantics. When you and I say "style" we may not be talking about the same thing, and I don't see anything in my dictionaries that really helps pin it down.
And other people copy the styles of the two photographers I just mentioned.
-
But there are others. For instance, when I see a close up portrait of a baby or kid crying, coupled with a distinctive post-processing, I can certainly recognize it as belonging to a certain photographer (who's name escapes me at the moment). Helmut Newton fashion images are rather recognizable too. Mapplethorpe's male nudes. Salgado's refugees.
I know exactly who you mean by that description, which certainly indicates a distinctive style. But annoying I cannot recall her name either, something like Sally Greenfield and I was also going to mention the others too as they are as distinctive as some painters.
-
I know exactly who you mean by that description, which certainly indicates a distinctive style.
Eventually managed to get the right name by searching for her style instead and interestingly enough one of the first links is how to copy her style...Baby photo retouching tutorial| On Jill Greenberg style (http://www.photoshoptutorials.eu/baby-photo-retouching-tutorial-jill-greenberg-style/)
Then there's loads of tutorials on copying the Dave Hill style (https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=copying+the+Dave+Hill+style&oq=copying+the+Dave+Hill+style&aqs=chrome..69i57.668j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=119&ie=UTF-8) too....
-
How much would you be willing to bet on that, Elliot? I think you're overestimating your perception.
Not a lot. But then I get Picasso and Braque mixed up. I don't buy the idea that painting is inherently more stylish than photography.
-
Not a lot. But then I get Picasso and Braque mixed up. I don't buy the idea that painting is inherently more stylish than photography.
It isn't but the difference is that there is a huge barrier to being called a painter as you need to have skill to even do it in first place. Whereas with photography, it takes zero skill to take simply take a photograph. Therefore the photographers who do have style and talent are hidden amongst the billions of uninteresting and banal pictures without any style.
-
It isn't but the difference is that there is a huge barrier to being called a painter as you need to have skill to even do it in first place. Whereas with photography, it takes zero skill to take simply take a photograph. Therefore the photographers who do have style and talent are hidden amongst the billions of uninteresting and banal pictures without any style.
There are also plenty (billions) of rubbish paintings out there too from over the ages....
Tony Jay
-
There are also plenty (billions) of rubbish paintings out there too from over the ages....
In one sense true, but compared to the number of photographs being taken every day it's almost insignificant.
-
In one sense true, but compared to the number of photographs being taken every day it's almost insignificant.
Nonetheless the cream will always float to the top...
Tony Jay
-
It is one of those questions more serious photographers ask during workshops. First time I was asked, consistency came to mind, and the only way to do that is to be true to yourself from subject matter to aesthetics. I think I can spot a Sugimoto and Rothko, or maybe I am just familiar with their work. A body of work would be a better gauge. One cannot see by a single act alone (single image) but through time.
Maybe a style is like a personality. True that many of us almost have the same but there's certainly or maybe something unique about us.
-
Nonetheless the cream will always float to the top...
But it's really hard to see the cream when it's only 0.01%. :P
-
Nonetheless the cream will always float to the top...
Tony Jay
With respect, this is absolutely not true. Some of the best known photographers working today are quite awful. Possibly if you are very very careful in just which "top" you're referring to, you might be right, but I doubt it even then.
-
It is one of those questions more serious photographers ask during workshops. First time I was asked, consistency came to mind, and the only way to do that is to be true to yourself from subject matter to aesthetics. I think I can spot a Sugimoto and Rothko, or maybe I am just familiar with their work. A body of work would be a better gauge. One cannot see by a single act alone (single image) but through time.
That applies to any body of art. Music in particular as everyone has heard the ignorant person claim that 'All so and so music sounds the same', when those who like it obviously can distinguish finely between songs/artists.
People only tend to see similarities of things they are unfamiliar with, but once knowledgeable, then they see the differences and can easily identify specific artists.
Maybe a style is like a personality. True that many of us almost have the same but there's certainly or maybe something unique about us.
It's almost exactly like a personality. Possibly the best way of describing style yet.
-
With respect, this is absolutely not true. Some of the best known photographers working today are quite awful. Possibly if you are very very careful in just which "top" you're referring to, you might be right, but I doubt it even then.
You not liking someone does not make them awful. They are simply not to your taste. No more no less.
-
. . .I think I can spot a Sugimoto and Rothko, or maybe I am just familiar with their work. A body of work would be a better gauge. One cannot see by a single act alone (single image) but through time.
Jeremy's BS aside, Red, I think you hit the nail on the head. You have a better chance of spotting any artist's work if you're familiar with the body of his work. In Rothko's case you're talking about a painter, so it's at least remotely possible you'd be able to spot an individual example of his work, though there's more than one painter who spreads flat splotches of color on canvas. In the case of Sugimoto I'm not so sure. Anybody with a camera can go out and shoot a picture of the quiet ocean, placing the horizon exactly in the middle of the frame.
-
With respect, this is absolutely not true. Some of the best known photographers working today are quite awful. Possibly if you are very very careful in just which "top" you're referring to, you might be right, but I doubt it even then.
Although it is a matter of personal taste "good" photography, as with other art forms, is distinguishable.
The fact that there is a lot of photography to choose from does not change that.
In addition there is difference between a commercially successful image and an artistically successful image even if to some people that is merely a semantic distinction.
In every era of art there have been fads and styles that have been popular.
The work of some artists have stood the test of time transcending temporary popularity.
Photography, as an art form, is relatively new, so lets wait and see whose work stands the test of time.
I agree that some of the work around now that seems to get a lot of attention, and money, does not necessarily do a lot for me.
Who knows whether I am correct in my assessment or whether this stuff is still sought after in decades and centuries to come.
Tony Jay
-
In the case of Sugimoto I'm not so sure. Anybody with a camera can go out and shoot a picture of the quiet ocean, placing the horizon exactly in the middle of the frame.
It's not much more difficult to produce a decent Renoir or Van Gogh. There are factories in China where art students are churning out Old Masters to order - and for surprisingly little cash.
-
That's true, Red, but Renoir and van Gogh had actual styles that involved brush strokes, etc. Photographing the sea with the horizon in the center of the frame hardly can be called a style. Of course if you call that a style then anyone can replicate the style.
-
Tony,
...the cream will always float to the top...
I agree in principle, but the statement is too simplistic - a professional photographer with good business but average photography skill will be successful, while a person with poor business but good photography skill will not.
-
Tony,
I agree in principle, but the statement is too simplistic - a professional photographer with good business but average photography skill will be successful, while a person with poor business but good photography skill will not.
I don't agree that financial and business success with photography equals good art - particularly when one looks back over time.
An excellent example from the art world is van Gogh who died a pauper yet his work, that appeared worthless at the time of his death, has absolutely stood the test of time and now command immense prices at auction.
Photography is relatively young in the art world and so there are probably less examples like this to quote.
Tony Jay
-
An excellent example from the art world is van Gogh who died a pauper yet his work, that appeared worthless at the time of his death, has absolutely stood the test of time and now command immense prices at auction.
It's been several years since I read a Vincent van Gogh biography, so fwiw my impression was that van Gogh actively made it difficult for dealers to see his paintings; and if he hadn't died aged 37, he may well have lived to see Sunflowers (http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/the-sunflowers-feature) purchased for the National Gallery.
I think van Gogh is atypical.
-
That's true, Red, but Renoir and van Gogh had actual styles that involved brush strokes, etc. Photographing the sea with the horizon in the center of the frame hardly can be called a style. Of course if you call that a style then anyone can replicate the style.
Any style in any creative form can be replicated, by others, painting, music, photography, sculpture, and so on. Coming up with new styles, now that is the challenge.
Your thinking that photographers cannot have styles, is only a reflection of your consistent snobbery with regard to painting compared to mere photography. A topic you like repeatedly write about in various ways and a topic founded it seems complete ignorance of most photography outside of HCB and a few other street photographers.
Not even sure why you even bother with photography as you seem to think it so insignificant and unworthy compared to master painters. ???
-
Maybe lack of painting skills? At least in my case it's more my lack of painting skills than my photography skills which make me a better photographer than a painter. :)
-
Your thinking that photographers cannot have styles, is only a reflection of your consistent snobbery with regard to painting compared to mere photography. A topic you like repeatedly write about in various ways and a topic founded it seems complete ignorance of most photography outside of HCB and a few other street photographers.
Not even sure why you even bother with photography as you seem to think it so insignificant and unworthy compared to master painters. ???
Hi Jeremy, Please give me a reference to a post where I've indicated I think photography is insignificant and unworthy. I frequently see landscape paintings that are far superior to their photographic brothers, but that's a criticism of a genre, not of photography.
Yes, I do think street photography is what the camera is for. Street photography is far superior to what I'll call "street painting," though I have to give a thumbs up to a few exceptions: Renoir's "L'Absinthe" for one, and Picasso's "The Frugal Repast" for another. You'd understand why I'm convinced street is the best use for a camera if you'd read my essays on the subject, which are on one of my webs for all to see. But from your posts on LuLa it's clear that actually educating yourself on any subject would be too much to ask. Better to shoot from the hip with generalized arguments that will appeal to the equally ignorant. It's what politicians do.
Since you think I have ". . .complete ignorance of most photography outside of HCB. . ." I can only conclude you've never checked my webs. I've been into most photographic genres at one time or another over the past sixty-two years.
Long ago I did commercial work and hated doing it. The reason I hated doing it was that people usually were looking for the kind of clichés I see on your web. I'd rather not.
-
It seems the "discussion style" is turning towards the bad here...
Sometimes painting and photography are working quite well together...
-
I think consistency is a big part of my style a well.
This is something I just did, at least processed a couple of days ago, although I shot it in 1975. They are low IQ since they were taken from old Super 8mm film and have gone through many generations. But they still are consistent.
(nsfw)
https://danielteolijr.wordpress.com/2015/04/05/gone-up-in-smoke-barbara-lemay-doing-a-reprise-of-the-hoochie-show-she-use-to-perform/
My color street HDR has more or less a consistent look. Circular fisheye as well...generally clean and framed well. A Google image search of my name speaks of a somewhat consistent style. Another consistent part of my work is that I only show my best work. I try not to show garbage.
If your serious and wish to put your best foot forward, only have your best work connected with your name. When someone Googles your name only your best images and projects should only show up. Don't dilute a portfolio with lots of garbage like many photogs do. They will have 20 versions of a crapper pix on Flickr. Just pick one, no one wants to see 20 views of garbage. It looks like they don't know what the hell they are doing. It looks like they are using the shotgun approach and saying "Here, I don't know if any of these are any good...you pick."
Also be careful where you leave comments with your name or an account that is connected to your name. The other person's photos will show up on your image search. While it is nice to encourage upcoming photogs that do not produce anything special, I don't want their pix showing up on a search for my name.
Here is an example. I left a comment on a blog and now his pix, circled in green, shows up on an image search for my name.
(nsfw)
http://testarchives.tumblr.com/image/113035786794
I like his pix and it is not a hardship on me. But I don't want an image search of my name to show up lots of bad work that is not mine and dilutes my portfolio. It also works the same if you have your images used by others. Their images can show up in an image search for you and your images.
Same link as above, photo circled in red. I made the mistake of putting some of my lower end photos on Wiki Commons. Someone used it and did a bad job on exposure and now it shows up in an image search of my name. Same with another person that chopped up one of my photo.
I am a museum photog. I have my work in nearly 100 museums and public collections around the world. When a curator looks up my name I don't want them to have to sift through lots of junk and be turned off. So keep a clean profile with Google and where and how your work is used if your interested in getting ahead.
I have 45+ Tumblrs. Every project gets a Tumblr of its own. You want to keep a body of work focused not all over the place...be consistent.
-
Seems to me that there are photographers who have a style, and those that don't. I would define a style as anything which might enable a viewer to discern the photographer (or more generally the artist). A style is not necessarily exclusive; more than one - perhaps many - artists can have similar or the same style. I think Ansel Adams had a style; many have copied it but it's not uncommon for me to hear a print called "Ansel-like". Among contemporaries I find that Ming Thein has a style (like it or not) - strong lines, often straight and regular, etc.). Much of Avedon's most popular work was of a style. Annie Liebowitz seems to have a style.
I am not sure I have a style, although I think I would like to have one.
-
Wow. You really think a museum curator is going to do a google image search on your name to try to get a grasp of your portfolio? That's a very curious belief.
-
I am not sure I have a style, although I think I would like to have one.
I wonder if B&H has one for sale at a good price? :D
-
If not B&H, surely Adorama.
-
Wonder if there's a discount coupon ...?
-
I wonder if B&H has one for sale at a good price? :D
Amazon has them new and used; Free 2-day shipping with Amazon Prime!
-
Better to have test subjects unfamiliar with photography (or painting or other forms of art) and have them try to group the photographs. (Without demanding 1:1 correspondence between artist and style; but in the expectation that there'll be some work in the style of someone else, and that a lifetime of work can encompass several styles.)
That doesn't seem to make much sense, someone unfamiliar with photography is obviously less likely to be able to pickup on differences in style.
-
Hi Jeremy, Please give me a reference to a post where I've indicated I think photography is insignificant and unworthy. I frequently see landscape paintings that are far superior to their photographic brothers, but that's a criticism of a genre, not of photography.
Yes, I do think street photography is what the camera is for. Street photography is far superior to what I'll call "street painting," though I have to give a thumbs up to a few exceptions: Renoir's "L'Absinthe" for one, and Picasso's "The Frugal Repast" for another. You'd understand why I'm convinced street is the best use for a camera if you'd read my essays on the subject, which are on one of my webs for all to see. But from your posts on LuLa it's clear that actually educating yourself on any subject would be too much to ask. Better to shoot from the hip with generalized arguments that will appeal to the equally ignorant. It's what politicians do.
Since you think I have ". . .complete ignorance of most photography outside of HCB. . ." I can only conclude you've never checked my webs. I've been into most photographic genres at one time or another over the past sixty-two years.
Long ago I did commercial work and hated doing it. The reason I hated doing it was that people usually were looking for the kind of clichés I see on your web. I'd rather not.
I see you are resorting to being extremely insulting again. As well as making your usual incorrect assumptions. ::) A bit pathetic really.
-
Well that's a central question, isn't it?
Is 'photographic style' something a layman can see or feel, or is it something only the anointed can?
-
If you substitute "a certain way of doings things" for "style" then that would be a more accurate description of a photographer's way of working? :-\
-
I just finished an illustrated bio. The nice thing about an illustrated bio is it shows the body of work in context. If you have a style it will be obvious. The one connecting theme in my work is this...people are my landscape.
nsfw
https://danielteolijr.wordpress.com/2015/06/19/biography-of-daniel-d-teoli-jr/
If you have not tried the illustrated bio I suggest you give it a whirl. I can't say I invented the concept, but I did not get the idea from anyone else. If you do have an extensive illustrated bio like I do, also offer a text version for the people that just want the facts.
-
Some people on here have reservations about your work but one thing is for certain it is never anything less than interesting and a change from the usual fare on here.
-
+1
-
I would suggest to you that any "style" is only such when others can tell it's your work.
Having attended some Master classes at Magnum etc etc, I can tell you it's a keystone each of the lecturers touch upon, though don't bang on about it too much as it's something that's important but difficult to define per se.
Also, if you're shooting regularly, your "style" evolves over time. Check out Martin Parr's back catalogue of books for example.
Your way of seeing things is your style, trying to produce a body of work that is consistent enough for people to see this style of photography is the real challenge and not something you yourself may be fully aware of.
-
The idea of "a style" in photography, equivalent to a style in painting, is an absurdity on the face of it.
If photography allows the photographer to express themselves via how they operate their camera, where/when they are pointing it, how they are interacting with the scene while making the image, how they are postprocessing and printing the image, why would/could not the set of photographer choices made by a individual photographer constitute a "style" as much as a painter?
Sounds like a piano player cannot possibly have a style because she only gets to press 88 black and whites at a given time and strength, while a violinist can have a style because her strings can be manipulated in many dimensions?
-h
-
Also, if you're shooting regularly, your "style" evolves over time. Check out Martin Parr's back catalogue of books for example.
That applies to most creative people.
-
This whole less than illuminating discussion revolves around the meaning of the word, "style," and nobody's really tried to attack that bag of worms. Does the way you "point" a camera constitute a style? Well, if you want that to be your definition, then I guess you can have that as your definition. The guy to your right will have a different definition and the guy to your left will have a different definition, and Jeremy will have another definition that probably will defy analysis.
-
Close friend plays a lot of online poker, maybe too much. What she finds odd is people often recognize her from the way she plays her hand even though she uses a different name on different poker web rooms. "If I didn't know better, I would swear you are Mary from casino room as you play just like her." Etc.
As to me, I tend to shoot with gear no one uses, like $75 each slow-burn PF-330 flashbulbs that offer wild water colors and blurs, especially with moving things. Can't duplicate that with electronic which freezes movement so I guess it is a style of sorts.
SG
-
People want to define style in terms of what it does, not what it is.
It should identify the artist, evolve over time. You should have to work hard and for a long time to get one.
All of which is sheer rubbish, since nobody wants to say what it IS. Mainly because if you do pin it down, half of these mystical properties, at least, evaporate.
-
This whole less than illuminating discussion revolves around the meaning of the word, "style," and nobody's really tried to attack that bag of worms. Does the way you "point" a camera constitute a style? Well, if you want that to be your definition, then I guess you can have that as your definition. The guy to your right will have a different definition and the guy to your left will have a different definition, and Jeremy will have another definition that probably will defy analysis.
How you achieve your style is irrelevant, plus as mentioned above style evolves and regardless of how it is defined you will continue to deny it anyway.
And give it up with the petty personal attacks Russ, they only demean you and your arguments.
-
Explain what you mean by "style," Jeremy.
-
This whole less than illuminating discussion revolves around the meaning of the word, "style," and nobody's really tried to attack that bag of worms. Does the way you "point" a camera constitute a style? Well, if you want that to be your definition, then I guess you can have that as your definition. The guy to your right will have a different definition and the guy to your left will have a different definition, and Jeremy will have another definition that probably will defy analysis.
How is "the way you point a camera" fundamentally different from "how a painter holds her brush"?
The perceived significance is highly subjective - my Aunt would perhaps not have a specific way to handle her camera that would be recognized by Art Photographers as an individual "style". Then again, she might do something that does make her stand-out from the typical photographer (in a neutrally way).
Perhaps the issue is that some like to use "style" to also mean some positive description (i.e. "good", "well thought-out", "art"), while others use the term simply to mean "those aspects of one photographers image that tends to be different from those of another photographer".
I tend to think that for a photographer using e.g. "highly visible HDR/tonemapping" or only snapping "Moose in the sunset", it can make sense to describe this trait of their photography as it separates them from many other photographers. Call it "style" or whatever you want.
-h
-
I have defined 'style' as a set of photographic choices made the same way across multiple photos.
While not a prefect definition, it has the singular virtue of existing so that discussion can, in theory, proceed past an endless circlejerk of 'what is style, anyway, and how does one get one?'
Now we can cue the usual suspects saying 'no, that definition sucks' so they can get back to the circlejerk.
-
I always keep my style in a pocket of my gadget bag, along with my rocket blower and a microfiber cloth. ???
-
How is "the way you point a camera" fundamentally different from "how a painter holds her brush"?
Surely you're not serious! With a brush you pick up a thick impasto or a thin glaze and make deliberate strokes and touches. Your brushstrokes are as individual as your handwriting (at least if you still can do cursive). Do you really think how you point your camera, or how you press the shutter button constitutes a "style."
Perhaps unfortunately, the word, "style" is like the word, "good." It doesn't mean a damned thing standing alone. I think Eric has it right. Best to keep your style in your pocket -- but be careful it doesn't bite you!
-
It appears that the concept of "style" is as hard to define as the concept of "art" is. ;)
-
Your brushstrokes are as individual as your handwriting (at least if you still can do cursive).
Not very -- "At one point there were thought to be over 700 paintings that were attributed to Rembrandt (http://www.unctv.org/content/rembrandt/supremecourt). That number has now dropped to a little over 300."
-
'When you get a style, you’re sort of dead’ - Harry Callahan.
-
How you point the camera is certainly a "photographic choice". The way you push the button isn't.
The only reason "style" doesn't mean anything is because photographers refuse to allow it to, because they insist instead on a basket of magical properties "my style" ought to have which are incompatible with reality.
Pick a definition and, lo, you will find that the word has meaning. That's kind of what a definition does. No, wait, it's exactly what a definition does.
-
How you point the camera is certainly a "photographic choice". The way you push the button isn't.
The only reason "style" doesn't mean anything is because photographers refuse to allow it to, because they insist instead on a basket of magical properties "my style" ought to have which are incompatible with reality.
Pick a definition and, lo, you will find that the word has meaning. That's kind of what a definition does. No, wait, it's exactly what a definition does.
Exactly, Andrew. Once you define it, it can be given at least some meaning.
But, bottom line, who the hell cares? A picture either knocks you down or it doesn't. The idea of a "style" in photography is an attempt to extend the significence of a photographer's successes to his failures.
-
I think a "style" can be useful. I have become convinced that single photographs are, for a variety of reasons, pretty much dead. Where there is work to be done it is in bodies of work, collections of pictures.
In a collection, a coherent "style" becomes a mechanism, a tool, for pulling the pictures together and for emphasizing and clarifying the ideas in play.
It's closely allied to the retail/commercial photographer's choice of a distinctive toolbag of uglification tricks they use to separate themselves from the other blokes.
-
Andrew,
I have become convinced that single photographs are, for a variety of reasons, pretty much dead.
What convinced you?
-
Andrew,
What convinced you?
Careful study and a lot of thought over several years. You can read more of the reasoning behind it here:
http://photothunk.blogspot.com/2015/05/the-death-of-iconic-photo.html
if you like. There's some other posts about it on my blog but that's probably the closest thing to a single "nugget of thought" I've written.
-
Surely you're not serious! With a brush you pick up a thick impasto or a thin glaze and make deliberate strokes and touches. Your brushstrokes are as individual as your handwriting (at least if you still can do cursive). Do you really think how you point your camera, or how you press the shutter button constitutes a "style."
I can't paint at all, never tried it. Do you think that however I hold a brush constitues a "style"? Do you think that there is some clever thought behind how I hold a brush, and do you think that I do it consistently from stroke to stroke or painting to painting?
Just like peoples handwriting, how they walk, how they make food and what they search for on the internet is somewhat individual, I think that the way they operate their cameras is somewhat individual. If the word "style" is a red herring for you, fine, lets call it something else. Since english is not my native tongue anyways, let me suggest a word that probably carries no connotations to you. Håndlag? The english translation would be something like "the way in which one carries out work; often used in a positive manner, i.e. having a good håndlag".
-h
-
Andrew,
Careful study and a lot of thought over several years.
Thank you.
-
Only if you think that definitions are exclusive :-)
Even if they are not mutually exclusive, both concepts are difficult to define.
-
Explain what you mean by "style," Jeremy.
Not sure if you are being obtuse or argumentative.
Not sure how to answer that, because if you've got your age and still need such very basic things explaining, are you really going to understand it now? ???
Anyway lets try really simple - Style is a distinctive appearance or look. And if you need that explaining to you, then obtuse it is.
With a brush you pick up a thick impasto or a thin glaze and make deliberate strokes and touches. Your brushstrokes are as individual as your handwriting (at least if you still can do cursive). Do you really think how you point your camera, or how you press the shutter button constitutes a "style."
Two things wrong with that argument. Firstly comparing end result with process, brushstrokes are the end result of however you paint and holding a camera is a part of the process. Comparing how you hold a brush and where you position a camera would be more meaningful. Platon's work with his seated portraits is immediately recognisable because of his camera positioning . Which is a major part of his style.
(http://www.americanphotomag.com/sites/americanphotomag.com/files/styles/large_1x_/public/files/gallery-images/APH1012_PP_026.jpg?itok=Pmwa_xI_)
A change of grip or handhold on camera rarely has any impact on the photo, particularly as you do not even need to hold a camera to take a photo.
Secondly if brushstrokes were indeed that individual, then all the art experts that have been fooled by forgeries over the years would not have been.
As already illustrated by Isaac in the case of Rembrandt and all the Rembrandts that he did not in fact paint.
-
Style is a distinctive appearance or look.
That general description works for me.
And in addition, a single person can explore different styles. Take for example Piet Mondriaan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piet_Mondrian), best known for his abstract geometric paintings, like "Victory Boogie Woogie". He started out as a landscape painter and later was influenced by, and then adopted, a Cubist style of abstraction, which evolved into his best known abstract geometric style.
And as to what some others have mentioned, technique or skill is something different, and can be (with practice and the right tools) more easily copied.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Anyway lets try really simple - Style is a distinctive appearance or look. And if you need that explaining to you, then obtuse it is.
Okay. The Golden Gate bridge has a very distinctive appearance or look. It's one-of-a-kind. Is that a "style?"
-
Okay. The Golden Gate bridge has a very distinctive appearance or look. It's one-of-a-kind. Is that a "style?"
A single object is unique, that is not a style (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Style_%28visual_arts%29). Knowing the other works designed by the architect(s), may that show if a similar style (is not the same as technique) was used for all objects.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Russ,
To me, unless there's something about an artist's work that makes it almost always identifiable as his, there's no "style" there. (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=82268.msg667743#msg667743)
BobDavid (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=101637.msg833664#new)
-
Andrew,
I maintain that there is such a thing as style, but that style alone is not sufficient to identify a photographer. (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=82268.msg668740#msg668740)
BobDavid (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=101637.msg833664#new)
-
Yep. That was a pretty good thread.
-
A single object is unique, that is not a style (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Style_%28visual_arts%29). Knowing the other works designed by the architect(s), may that show if a similar style (is not the same as technique) was used for all objects.
Ah, so Jeremy's idea that "a distinctive appearance or look" represents a "style" doesn't hold water? A "style" requires repetition? But it's "not the same as technique?" How does a "style" differ from a "technique?" Would Winogrand's frequent tilt out of the horizontal plane represent a "style?" If so, would his photographs aligned with the horizontal plane also be part of his "style," or would they be aberrations?
-
Rita Gilbert in her book Living with Art describes style as "a characteristic or group of characteristics that we can identify as constant, recurring, or coherent.” She also wrote “Artistic style is the sum of constant, recurring or coherent traits identified with a certain individual or group.”
If we are to accept her concept of style, then a style does require some level of repetition. That repetition can either be by the individual or a group of individuals.
-
Ah, so Jeremy's idea that "a distinctive appearance or look" represents a "style" doesn't hold water?
How do you come to that conclusion?
A "style" requires repetition?
Are you serious?
But it's "not the same as technique?" How does a "style" differ from a "technique?"
see previous.
Would Winogrand's frequent tilt out of the horizontal plane represent a "style?"
Not in isolation, or do you want to declare any image that is tilted, a Wynogrand style???
Cheers,
Bart
-
I don't think "style", however you define it, is particularly meaningful without repetition. It might exist in a single object, but it's not apparent as an identifiable entity until you see it repeated.
This especially applies to photography, where anything can be an accident. It's pretty hard to just "wing it" and get lucky on a bridge, but it's easy on a photo.
In the simplest case, whatever you take style to be, you need to see several instances to identify which parts are shared between then instances. You might see a big red canvas and say "the style is big and red" but later you might see more canvases and realize that it's actually "big and monochrome" because there's a blue one and a green one too. The "style" was arguable there all along, but you couldn't identify it.
This is starting to sound like philosophical navel gazing.
-
Sometimes style, at least for me, is getting into a rut and shooting the same thing over and over again. Maybe to the point it becomes a cliche like railroad tracks (Love trains, but enough!), sunsets, lighthouses, trees, flowers, ocean waves, etc.
Sometimes I wonder about copycats who want to know "How do I 'duplicate' this shot?" against someone who ventures out and does something on their own. Duplicating a style doesn't seem that original - or even a style, imho.
SG
-
But trying to reproduce someone else's style can be a good learning tool.
I have looked at photographs I have admired and tried to do "something" like it... sometimes with humourous results. But it does help me learn specific aspects of composition.
-
How do you come to that conclusion?
A single object is unique, that is not a style (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Style_%28visual_arts%29).
Are you serious? (about repetition)
You said so yourself.
see previous.
You're the one who said there's a difference between a "style" and a "technique." What's the distinction?
Not in isolation, or do you want to declare any image that is tilted, a Wynogrand style???
I'm not sure. How would you describe a "Winogrand style?"
-
I think "a distinctive appearance or look" is perfectly OK. It's a definition, for sure.
Can I now answer questions about "style"? Let's try out some of the usual questions, and see if the answers become more obvious:
How can I get a distinctive appearance or look for myself?
Can I identify an artist from the distinctive appearance or look in the work?
How does one develop a distinctive appearance or look?
Is a distinctive appearance or look the same as a technique?
-
Strikes me that if you're trying to get a distinctive appearance or look you're not really trying to get a photograph; you're trying to create a "style."
-
One might say that Bach or Mozart has a recognizable style in the way the they write scores for musicians to play on various instruments. Certain musical elements are commonly found in Back and seldom found in Mozart - and visa versa.
This does not necessarily make Bach uniquely identifiable, other composers of that era (I believe that Bach was considered old-fashioned by his contemporaries) might make use of similar instrumentation, similar melodic lines etc that makes the music "similar". Even an artificial "Bach generator" might make "plausible" Bach-type music (but not "great" Bach-type music). A Bach expert might know all of Bachs (known) work and instantly recognize if a piece of music is actually Bach, but I am guessing that she won't have a 100% hit-rate on hitherto unknown Bach music vs works in a similar style?
Composing music can be seen as navigating in a large landscape of possibilities (88 keys on a piano, 10 fingers on a human, 64 16th-notes in a 4/4 beat, 3 minutes in a typical pop-song) while restricting yourself to an incredibly narrow subset of constraints (e.g. harmonic and temporal structure) that might be called style to produce music that is recognizable as e.g. "Western pop music" or "Bollywood dance tune" while containing unique and new moments. Successful musical composition is a hard-to-describe/predict balance between the safe and the unsafe. White noise adhers to few such stylistic elements, but most people don't recognize white noise as art. 12-tone music is not my cup of tea, either.
Therein lies my belief: "style" can be thought of as those broad features that one or a group of artists use consistently or partially. It does not (should not) be used to describe the quality of art nor the complexity of the art.
Some think that photography is "easy" while painting is "hard" because any photographer can get a visually recognizable landscape image, while a painter might need years of training (and lots of talent) to paint a visually recognizable landscape. I tend to think that this is wrong or irrelevant. Whenever something is "easy", we as humans tends to raise the bar correspondingly. While jazz musicians may snob at certain electronic artists for not being able to play instruments themselves (rather sampling others work), there will be a competition between those electronic artists for doing their thing as good as possible. Some will be perceived as "the best of their generation" and chances are that they will have to have lots of talent and do lots of work to reach that position.
-h
-
How do you come to that conclusion?
Because Russ. ::)
-
Strikes me that if you're trying to get a distinctive appearance or look you're not really trying to get a photograph; you're trying to create a "style."
Why are you so determined to prove that photography and style are mutually exclusive?
They are not no matter how often you say it by the way.
You are like a blind person shouting that there is no such thing as the colour green.
-
I think "a distinctive appearance or look" is perfectly OK. It's a definition, for sure.
Can I now answer questions about "style"? Let's try out some of the usual questions, and see if the answers become more obvious:
How can I get a distinctive appearance or look for myself?
Can I identify an artist from the distinctive appearance or look in the work?
How does one develop a distinctive appearance or look?
Is a distinctive appearance or look the same as a technique?
Style should not be confused with uniqueness. Which some posters seem to be alluding.
-
Whatever you call it, people can and do make bodies of work, collections of photographs, which are visually related in ways that strengthen the work.
I do this by doing certain things the same way from photo to photo across the collection.
-
I can spot some people's work by their style. Example would be Robert Alvarado and his pinup work, saturated color, and white backgrounds. It's his signature and style, and pretty unique too. https://www.facebook.com/pages/Robert-Alvarado-Photographer/162114487181780 (https://www.facebook.com/pages/Robert-Alvarado-Photographer/162114487181780) People attempt to copy his style, but there is just something in the posing and setting that makes his work easy to pick out.
Sometimes consistently doing a style leads to being in a rut though, and maybe why some burn out too. I knew the owners of a baby photo mill in a mall and they burned out quick. Too much of same thing and that's all they could take. Some wedding pros shoot the same style, and almost identical shots for each wedding event too, almost a style rut.
Ansel Adams had a style, but he could never break out from it and do portraiture work well as it was awful when he tried. Probably couldn't translate landscape and zone system to headshots and got too wrapped up in the technical style verse trying to get his subjects personality to emote. Landscapes seem to emote differently for the technical people, and much in post work is done to make them emote like using HDR, etc., which is a style for some.
SG
-
Ansel Adams had a style, but he could never break out from it and do portraiture work well as it was awful when he tried. Probably couldn't translate landscape and zone system to headshots and got too wrapped up in the technical style verse trying to get his subjects personality to emote. Landscapes seem to emote differently for the technical people, and much in post work is done to make them emote like using HDR, etc., which is a style for some.
Being good at one kind of photography doesn't necessarily mean you can do others. Portrait photography is more about people skills than camera skills. Plus I'd say a more creative bent is needed too, as often you are creating the entire scene from scratch as opposed to capturing what is already there. Much easier for a good portrait shooter to transition to do landscapes than the other way around I'd say.
-
Why are you so determined to prove that photography and style are mutually exclusive?
I guess you're right, Jeremy. I probably shouldn't say that. Actually, photographs have a style. They all look exactly like photographs.
-
Still being patronising I see. But I guess it's all you have left when your bizarre point of view has run out of woffle and rejigging of the English language.
-
It's okay, Jeremy. You're keeping me entertained.
-
Russ, do you have a word you prefer for "That thing where a bunch of photos in a collection are clearly visually related"?
-
Russ, do you have a word you prefer for "That thing where a bunch of photos in a collection are clearly visually related"?
I think his word (or two) is "Street Photography." ;D
-
Hi Andrew,
I guess in response I'd first ask what makes the collection a collection. I'd suspect the main reason the collection is a collection is that the photos are visually related. For instance, I made a book on the Manitou Springs Penny Arcade. The pictures are related because they're all about the Penny Arcade. But I don't think they represent a style. I think they represent a collection.
Let's go back to painting for a moment. Renoir and Monet worked together at La Grenouillere on essentially the same subjects with very different results. The results came from a difference in style. That difference in style persisted and the work of both is easily identified by what I'd call style.
Jeremy has a point: that others were able, more rather than less, to copy various painters styles, but the styles they were copying were, in fact, styles. The copies were copies.
I think what you see in the work at La Grenouillere is something that has no parallel in photography. And it's what I'd call "style."
-
Go over, for instance, to sallymann.com. CLick on Selected Works and click on, say, Southern Landscapes, or Proud Flesh.
These are collections which are tied together quite tightly. There's subject matter, there's the way she's framing the subject matter, there's materials and technical methods, there's the way she's arranging forms in the frame, and probably half a dozen things I am missing. Each collection, well, each of the *later* ones, has a pretty clearly developed set of things she is doing The Same Way within the collection, which things generally speaking not only tie one photo to the next, but also support and clarify the thing she's going for in the body of work.
It's pretty quintessentially the thing I try feebly to do.
I call it style, but that's just a word. It's a very definite thing, whatever you choose to call it.
-
I'm familiar with Sally's work, Andrew. It's interesting stuff, though I'll confess I don't particularly like it. I think the point is that if you take one of Sally's photographs out of a collection, there's really nothing there that tells you it's a Sally. On the other hand, if I take a Renoir away from a Renoir collection it's still clearly Renoir.
But I think you hit the nail on the head with your last sentence. "Style" is just a word. As was the case with Humpty Dumpty, the word always means exactly what the user of the word intends it to mean, no more and no less.
To go back to something I said earlier: It strikes me that if you're trying to develop a "style" you probably are concentrating more on that than on the individual photographs you're setting out to shoot. Did HCB have a "style?" I don't know the answer to that. He certainly had an eye for composition, but so do many other photographers. He produced a body of work that's very wonderful, but I can't really see a thread of commonality in it I'd call a "style," at least not in the same sense I see a style in Monet's work.
But then I come to the bottom line: What difference does it make? The guy's work was excellent. He doesn't need to have had a "style."
-
I'm assuming that Sally works roughly the way I do, which is groping around in the dark a lot.
I feel like I want to record something, to say something about.. an object, a scene, an idea. So I take some pictures and try stuff out. After a while, if I'm lucky, something gels. Usually some sort of list of things like the following seem to me to be good for what I am trying to do.
- a set of materials to use
- an approach (literally) to the subject - how I frame it, where I put the camera
- some notion of how to render the final pictures (contrast, color, cropping, whatever)
This is somewhat fluid, and may not really fully settle down until the project is fully shot.
All this creates a commonality of appearance, or at least some sort of flow. They don't always look the *same*, there might instead be a progression or something. But there's flow and connection, one photo to the next, once the curation and editing is complete.
But it begins with groping around almost at random, for a subject, for an idea, for the materials, for the visual idioms, that are going to come together.
You definitely CANNOT recognize my work from a single picture. You might from the finished product, but that mainly because it's in some handmade book thing full or murky photos.
Is the word "style" applicable in here someplace? Well, the way I use it, sure. What relationship does that have with, say, Rembrandt's "style"? I dunno. I do know that as a photographer I have the luxury of changing stuff up to suit my mood and the subject or whatever I like, as often as I like. Rembrandt had less scope for this purely on the grounds that paintings take a long time.