Ryan, are you are thinking of what is referred to as a "museum set" which is representative of the broad spectrum of the artist's career--- Something like E. Weston's 50th anniversary portfolio? Since the individual pictures represent the photographers cohesive vision, they would not be considered random pictures.
Generally, no one really cares about the process when viewing a portfolio. They care about the importance of each picture and the relationship between the pictures. I think that the process should be consistent throughout the portfolio for the sake of unity. But, I dont think process should be the basis of a portfolio.
Like a portfolio, a book should be more than a collection of random pictures.
RyanMcIntoshPhoto said:
I can see that doing a series would be good for making a book, for example Michael and Paula's Tuscany books.
I can assure you that the Tuscany books were born from finished photographs that were intended to simply be seen as individual pictures. They did not do a series to make a book.
So, just what does make a series? I can only think that a series is summed from individually made pictures. The series comes into being as the pictures are made.
A series can sometimes be nothing more than a body of work that was made in the same place or with the same subject (be that a single window or Route 66). Sometimes a series can simply be as few as five or six pictures that, in some way, go together. From a series, single images can, and should, be able to stand alone. That, however, does not remove them from the whole. Within the series certain pictures might not be as strong as some of the others but they might remain in existence to help unify the series.
What is most important for a photographer is to work for the sake of working. I would not go out photographing with the intention of making a book, or a portfolio, or anything other than making a picture. Then, when each picture is made just for the sake of that picture, personal visual characteristics will begin to emerge and a cohesive vision will be recognized by the person viewing your finished photographs.
When showing your work to someone, especially if you want them to buy or give you a show, it is important that they see you are serious and that they remember you. If you do a lot of work that is consistently good the viewer will pick up your coherent vision and will simply see that you are serious. Most photographers who are remembered are remembered for doing something, which is usually thought of, or referred to as a project (try thinking of a photographer that just made a bunch of random pictures.) The somethingfor which they are remembered could be many things or projects. But, think of Carl Chiarenza and you think of abstract photographs of foil and paper assemblages. Think of Emmit Gowan or William Garnett and you will think of photographs made from the air. Think of Ansel Adams and you will think of the grand landscape. This could go on and on, but there is something they all have in common. The photographers made each picture just for the sake of making it and their body of work naturally evolved and developed into a whole.
There is a considerable difference in doing work within a "theme" and concentrating on a specific subject. A theme is something that can be seen and reflected on after a good deal of work has been done by the artist, usually after many years of working spontaneously and organically . I believe style can be thought of as something similar to vision. Style though, seems to sound superficial. Whereas vision is something that is looked upon as a naturally-developed visual and conceptual concern. Those could more accurately be called aesthetic concerns.
Brett Weston can be remembered by his work in San Francisco or New York City. Or, he could more easily be remembered for his landscape and close-up work. Those four things previously mentioned are simply areas or subjects with which he worked and should not be confused with the common theme of his work, abstraction.
