There have been quite a few threads on the subject of originality in art lately, and it is quite common in other forms of art to focus on originality. One comment that I've been thinking about went something to effect of, "Your work is technically very good and shows a strong connection to early to mid 20th century photographers of the Group f/64 type, but this connection makes it highly derivative." Is derivative a bad thing? How can what we do not be derived in any way from the past?
In my opinion it is important for a work to be technically excellent, in addition to original, for it to be a "good" work of art. This opens many doors of uncertainty regarding technical quality. With photography, is sharpness a sign of technical quality? Not necessarily, many beautiful and emotionally impactful photographs are not in sharp focus. Composition? I think most would agree that good composition is critical, but how do you define it short of "I know it when I see it"? With representational art composition is fairly easy to judge but I struggle when it comes to highly abstract work such as Jackson Pollock. Archival stability may also be a consideration, but sometimes it is the instability that is a part of the art. I recall hearing of a photography exhibit in which the photographs were intentionally fixed poorly and the degradation of the image was an integral part of the art.
Another problem is just how original is it necessary to be in order to be called original? Is possible to make an original work involving fruit, since there have been countless works of art involving fruit? People and the natural world have been a part of art since pre-historic antiquity, can any work involving them be considered truly original? One could even break it down to the medium or technique, and say that all works involving currently existing media or techniques are derivatives of the first. Would it matter to you if a work was undeniably original but had no other redeeming or evocative qualities? Could you still call it art? I'm thinking of the the "Definition of Art" animation in which the first response was along the lines of, "Art is anything anyone does that evokes an emotional response from someone, even animals."
There are a lot of questions in this post, but my most basic question are how important do you consider originality in your photography, or art in general? Beyond that, how original do you have to be to be original, and how does the quality of the work impact originality?
FWIW, the simple version of my own current view is that I would rather produce excellent photography in a derivative manner, but with a distinct sense of "me" about them rather than create poor work in which I do not get a sense of myself that came about as a result of trying to be original, or may actually be original. But in the end that statement only raises more questions. :rolleyes:
- Justin
In my opinion it is important for a work to be technically excellent, in addition to original, for it to be a "good" work of art. This opens many doors of uncertainty regarding technical quality. With photography, is sharpness a sign of technical quality? Not necessarily, many beautiful and emotionally impactful photographs are not in sharp focus. Composition? I think most would agree that good composition is critical, but how do you define it short of "I know it when I see it"? With representational art composition is fairly easy to judge but I struggle when it comes to highly abstract work such as Jackson Pollock. Archival stability may also be a consideration, but sometimes it is the instability that is a part of the art. I recall hearing of a photography exhibit in which the photographs were intentionally fixed poorly and the degradation of the image was an integral part of the art.
Another problem is just how original is it necessary to be in order to be called original? Is possible to make an original work involving fruit, since there have been countless works of art involving fruit? People and the natural world have been a part of art since pre-historic antiquity, can any work involving them be considered truly original? One could even break it down to the medium or technique, and say that all works involving currently existing media or techniques are derivatives of the first. Would it matter to you if a work was undeniably original but had no other redeeming or evocative qualities? Could you still call it art? I'm thinking of the the "Definition of Art" animation in which the first response was along the lines of, "Art is anything anyone does that evokes an emotional response from someone, even animals."
There are a lot of questions in this post, but my most basic question are how important do you consider originality in your photography, or art in general? Beyond that, how original do you have to be to be original, and how does the quality of the work impact originality?
FWIW, the simple version of my own current view is that I would rather produce excellent photography in a derivative manner, but with a distinct sense of "me" about them rather than create poor work in which I do not get a sense of myself that came about as a result of trying to be original, or may actually be original. But in the end that statement only raises more questions. :rolleyes:
- Justin