Originality or Quality?

[DanielOB]

Immanuel Kant defined art and rules of the same a long ago (around 200 years ago). All critics and nearly all art historians today are directed by him: art consider Originality and Idifference, skill is not in the game at all, for art is suppos to end up as metaphysics. Some more derived conclusion are in the play too, but is a core.
It is what is, we cannot get out. So many sh*** are arond because of that:

1. we have in painting children like work, as art
2. artist MUST belong to his own time only
3. all works of Reneisance is no more considered as art but as part of history (critics say princioles of art changed...)
4. whole modern art is founded on that principles
....

It looks strange but, again, it is how it works today. All works of Reneisance is based on Old Greek art.... (there are countless exmples more).
Many can remeber saying:
"because of Kant Kamel has more chance to ented art heaven that skilled painter". True.
So the work to consider as art:
Originality and indeference, yes
Skill and technics, no.

Daniel OB
www.Leica-R.com

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

Various comments above imply a certian doubt/skepticism that originality even exists any more, in the field of photography. If that is your feeling, if you really think you can't bring something new, then, by jove, why do photography at all?!

You know the saying: Everything has been already said... but not by me!

 

[Ian Leake]

The main point is that it's important to distinguish between those things which can be perfected by exercise, versus those things that cannot and which require big, creative leaps of faith. Things for which you can't even design an exercise, per se.

...

The danger in photography is similar- people need to feel uninhibited enough, technically and creatively, to deliver their original vision. But they also need to have that essential faith that they have something new worth contributing, something worth working toward. otherwise they will simply fall into any of the well-established channels.

I completely agree. Learning the craft of photography (composition, exposure, lighting, developing, printing, etc.) is a technical exercise, and most people can master the craft if they exert themselves sufficiently.

The world is full of gifted photographers who have mastered the craft and make technically proficient photos. But too often these photos lack soul.

The jump from being technically proficient to being truly creative seems to be a very hard one for many people to make. I think partly this is because of the value the art world places on the search for "originality" - a search that seems to lead people astray more times than not. That's why I much prefer to talk about searching for truth. Truthful art is personal and comes from within.

 

[Early Riser]

I completely agree. Learning the craft of photography (composition, exposure, lighting, developing, printing, etc.) is a technical exercise, and most people can master the craft if they exert themselves sufficiently.

There are quite a few people who master the basic techniques and may have been taught composition or design yet don't produce well lit, well composed work that has feeling. You can teach people general compositional theories like the "rule of thirds" yet the trick is knowing when to break the rules. Composition, light, timing and most of all the feel of the photo is not a technical aspect but is a personal one. It is the "eye" of that particular photographer.

The world is full of gifted photographers who have mastered the craft and make technically proficient photos. But too often these photos lack soul.

I agree, but the creation of a photograph is a huge series of choices. Even the most technical ones have aesthetic and even emotional outcomes. What actually is the "correct" exposure? The one that gives you every tone from black to white? (Well then half my work is improperly exposed.) Your choice of exposure alters the tones, and with that the mood of the image. Is that technical or an artistic choice? What contrast filters you use, where you dodge and burn, even what film and paper you choose ultimately have aesthetic and emotional affects on the image. The creativity and originality of an image is greatly influenced by what choices/combinations the photographer made. And this is only the blatantly technical aspects we're talking here. What about the photographer's choice of angle, of composition, crop, focus, timing? There is a vast combination of elements in play in a photo, and the photographer is not following a recipe but is constantly balancing many ingredients. This balancing act is not technique, it is

The jump from being technically proficient to being truly creative seems to be a very hard one for many people to make. I think partly this is because of the value the art world places on the search for "originality" - a search that seems to lead people astray more times than not. That's why I much prefer to talk about searching for truth. Truthful art is personal and comes from within.

The art world, that is the art critics, curators, etc. want to make their own mark in their field. They won't stand out from their crowd if they show traditional or well established genres (which they will show when wanting to get crowds and raise money), they want to be the person who discovered "so and so" and changed the art world.

 

[Ian Leake]

There are quite a few people who master the basic techniques and may have been taught composition or design yet don't produce well lit, well composed work that has feeling. You can teach people general compositional theories like the "rule of thirds" yet the trick is knowing when to break the rules. Composition, light, timing and most of all the feel of the photo is not a technical aspect but is a personal one. It is the "eye" of that particular photographer.

This is true. There are lots of rules which are helpful when learning the craft but less relevant later on: the rule of thirds is an excellent example, the one about B&W prints having a full range of tones is another.

For me, and obviously this is a personal perspective, that someone is able to consciously put the rules to one side (and get away with it) is a sign that they have moved past the phase of technical learning and on to the phase of seeking truth.

 

[Arvee]

The world is full of gifted photographers who have mastered the craft and make technically proficient photos. But too often these photos lack soul.

I agree completely! My successes have always come from work that spoke to the viewer as opposed to those images that were technically proficient but lacked impact.

Fred

 

[phenix]

I would resume my previous (long) post, in the following way:

In order to reach originality, there are two stages to work on: questioning and re-questioning.
- Questioning what others have done before you and why (and less how) – this is understanding;
- Re-questioning what you did understood at the previous stage – this is creating.

 

[Ian Leake]

I would resume my previous (long) post, in the following way:

In order to reach originality, there are two stages to work on: questioning and re-questioning.
- Questioning what others have done before you and why (and less how) – this is understanding;
- Re-questioning what you did understood at the previous stage – this is creating.

May I suggest rephrasing this to:

- Questioning what you yourself have done before and why (and less how) – this is understanding;
- Responding to what you understood in the previous stage – this is creating

 

[Early Riser]

The more I read this thread the more I come to the conclusion, "who are you trying to impress with your originality?" Personally I think you should just shoot the images that move you, that motivate you to do photography in the first place, and forget about whether or not someone else is going to think that you're original or not. Everyone talks about self expression yet so much of this seems about caring too much about what other people think of your work. Just get out and shoot.

 

[Ian Leake]

The more I read this thread the more I come to the conclusion, "who are you trying to impress with your originality?" Personally I think you should just shoot the images that move you, that motivate you to do photography in the first place, and forget about whether or not someone else is going to think that you're original or not. Everyone talks about self expression yet so much of this seems about caring too much about what other people think of your work. Just get out and shoot.

Originality isn't about impressing people, it's about being yourself. I totally agree on your, "just get out and shoot" sentiments. I'm spotting prints

 

[Early Riser]

Originality isn't about impressing people, it's about being yourself. I totally agree on your, "just get out and shoot" sentiments. I'm spotting prints

Ian, the perception of originality is ALL about what others think. When someone sees a scene that moves them, do they ask themselves, should they ask themselves, "Am I being original?" Whether you're being original or not is not being true to yourself, shooting the pictures that move you emotionally, without having to analyze or over think them, is being true to yourself.

If you were the last person alive on the planet would you question whether a favorite image of yours was original or not? Originality is in itself about whether something is already widely known, overly done or completely new. And all of those reference other people and other people's references. So if you're concerned with originality, then you are concerned not with producing images that truly matter to you, but with how your images are perceived by others.

 

[Ian Leake]

I may have been unclear so let me re-phrase. Being truthful to myself and making photos that are important to me is what counts for me. I believe that being "original" is a by product of that goal; it is not the goal itself.

 

[Chuck_P]

There is a vast combination of elements in play in a photo, and the photographer is not following a recipe but is constantly balancing many ingredients.

Reminds me of this statement:

"Photoghraphy is a complex and fluid medium, and its many factors are not applied in simple sequence. Rather, the process may be likened to the art of the juggler in keeping many balls in the air at one time!"
AA

 

[keithwms]

The more I read this thread the more I come to the conclusion, "who are you trying to impress with your originality?"

Right. And I don't think it's about impressing people at all. Doing photography is a personal pleasure. And this thread isn't about diminishing that in any way, or applying rules, or postulating formulas for success. Or expecting recognition- or even dreaming of it. Perhaps even the mere act of anticipating recognition as a significant contributor to the art could turn a person away from their own originality and toward the formulaic things that are already known to "work." Or to shock. Or simply to stand out for no core reason.

I think Ian's idea of seeking truth is closely related; I think we need to have a faith that something we seek through photography is worthwhile and achievable.

Some time ago I learned of the unconventional teaching methods of Minor White, which seem so opposed to the traditional formula-based approaches. I learned that White routinely had his students read Zen in the Art of Archery. So naturally, I read it. I recommend it highly. A word of caution: one has to read it the right way, first accepting the sincerity of the [Western, academic, ~1950s] author. In any case, I think you will find many locations in that little text in which the word or the concept of "archery" can be replaced with "photography," revealing some essential truths about why we do what we do. In the spirit of that text I will just say, I can't explain it to you, nor should I; you have to find your own answer when you are ready to ask the right question. Read it and you will find out why the ultimate target for the archer is his/her own heart. Sounds corny, right? But it was a profound discovery for that particular author.

 

[catem]

On "originality" - Everything has been done before and everything remains to be done. We do not have collective memory when it comes to being-in-the-world and dealing with it in the everyday.

Striving for 'originality' gets you nowhere if its not based on authentic experience, but if it comes from within you - as plenty of people have said - then it may say something in an original or at least individual way, (and I don't have a problem with people who seem to do it in a highly individual way as long as it comes from on those authentic feelings, followed by ideas). However, it's also unnecessary to be outlandish or shocking in order to say something deep and meaningful. The rest of the human race haven't got the answers either, no matter how many times the old themes play themselves out (otherwise there would be no room for yet another song on the theme of love - people will never stop writing love songs, or people would stop listening). Every individual voice and perspective can say something worthy of attention, because the world is complex enough for it.

"Quality" is highly subjective, and therefore indefinable, is not the same as "technique", and is to do with 'striking a chord' (whoops - song analogy!) with someone.

just my 2p

 

[bjorke]

"I once heard that a great poet among the ancients had declared that it was difficult not to write satires" - Cervantes