Personal Style

Do you think some photographers put more value on their personal style than the images they produce in that style?

Hi Clive. The only thing I can add to this thread is simply to say that I don't concern myself with what others do unless it affects me directly. Consequently, I don't care about the style others shoot in, or if/what they choose to collect, or how much money they spend on whatever they choose to buy. That said, I'm not meaning to derail your thread with my opinion.

Obviously yes if they are making photographs as personally expressive art.
Obviously no if they are making photographs serving the interests of a paying client.

frank said:

Hi Clive. The only thing I can add to this thread is simply to say that I don't concern myself with what others do unless it affects me directly. Consequently, I don't care about the style others shoot in, or if/what they choose to collect, or how much money they spend on whatever they choose to buy. That said, I'm not meaning to derail your thread with my opinion.

Click to expand...

Thanks for your thoughts and I don't think it derails the thread in any way.

Maris said:

Obviously yes if they are making photographs as personally expressive art.
Obviously no if they are making photographs serving the interests of a paying client.

Click to expand...

In terms of personally expressive art, may I divert to Picasso as an example that doesn't fit that statement.

some

Some photogs do get hung up in attempting to get into a certain style groove to the detriment of their images. But there is a lot of silly stuff always going on. It's how human beans are made. The thing to do is to figure out what is blather and what is real.

cliveh said:

Do you think some photographers put more value on their personal style than the images they produce in that style?

Click to expand...

Some photographers may put more value on a body of work, than individual images.

A well defined "style" can help the photographer achieve cohesiveness, and help a viewer see several photographs as individual parts of a greater whole.

So the answer is a qualified yes.

cliveh said:

Do you think some photographers put more value on their personal style than the images they produce in that style?

Click to expand...

Let me rephrase this question by asking do some photographers put more value on their personal style than the images they produce in that style and if so, is this detrimental to some of the images they produce in that style. In other words are they sometimes sacrificing aesthetic values to maintain that personal style?

cliveh said:

In other words are they sometimes sacrificing aesthetic values to maintain that personal style?

Click to expand...

Clive- Isn't it their aesthetic values which leads to their personal style? This could be a chicken and egg question.

parts and wholes? conflation? . . . .. Well if a photag is concerned with style, then each image would have correlating "parts" that would be identified ( or at least in talking points) with said "style". So a photag would have to make many individual prints that exemplify those "chosen" style. After "this" portfolio is created what he/she says/ does with it . . . . could be considered by some to be overtly sensational, by always talking about"the style" meaning the entire portfolio. Not addressing each individual print. Many Artist will talk about their work in terms of style, not addressing any one specific piece he/she has created. addressing style in a political forum compare/contrast to other movements or styles is what what many artist strive for- ( pulling away from the heard- isolating yourself as some one who does x,y, or z. Picasso had many styles, and always championing his work regardless of what period he was in. distinguishing himself from others, Similiarly to any other Politician out there. NO good politician( artist too)talks exclusively about "ONE" piece ( art or legislation) and carries that into the halls of importance. It usually has to do with a hasty generalization of taking over or moving away from such and such. . . . .
I think it is important to be able to talk about style a lot, it is equally important to illustrate how each one of your pieces is emblematic of that style, and why other should care. You always have got to be a great salesmen/women. In art if you want to match a niche for yourself.
I might go on to say that today nobody really cares if your art even remotely addresses or is emblematic of your style you are totting. They just want to hear the talking points and is your artwork selling, if so, how much ? how much initial investment and how soon will it appreciate. I think most artist understand that, and really only want to address/speak to the consumer( purchaser) on those grounds. whether in fact or in fiction their artwork is referential to that style. If need be, Just snow 'em with B>S>

hi clive

i have no idea what my personal style might be, but others might. i have been taking the same sorts of photographs for the better part of 30, maybe 40 years ..
things change images are made. i don't sacrifice anything, i just do what i want. and if it has to do with a paying client, well the client knows the work that is made
and commissions me to make the photographs, whether it is some weird things that looks like a frozen pond, or a portrait or a portrait / last rites photograph of a building.
its all the same ..

if peopel sacrifice their art to maintain their style they might be in a rut or a poser ... art is an evolution as is style .. but what do i know

I shoot what looks pleasing to me aesthetically or the content strikes my fancy. If that creates a style, I don't know. Since I don't think about style, (do I even have one?), then I'm not shooting from a style perspective first.

Everyone of us has unique DNA and also unique style. We can not escape from that. The valuation of styles is usually in the domain of art critics. And these bastards are servants of money.
So, you have your personal style and it is also possible to buy another one.






my tumbir: http://crnomelj.tumblr.com/

my flickr:https://www.flickr.com/photos/92377102@N08/

Let me rephrase this question by asking do some photographers put more value on their personal style than the images they produce in that style and if so, is this detrimental to some of the images they produce in that style. In other words are they sometimes sacrificing aesthetic values to maintain that personal style?

Yes, IMO, but the flip side is he/she has "a personal style" that aesthetics aside, maintain their "relevance" is the politico. Let me put another way. If I have an opportunity to place something (*object)in the scene to be photographed which aesthetically enhances the composition, BUT my Schtick( personal style) is "REAL PHOTOGRAPHY" like I do not alter the landscape like Brady civil war images. "i only shoot what is in front of my me, I am just an observer" S**T, Then I am sacrificing aesthetics for personal style. Now I may have credibility? i may have "other noble" traits, But i did sacrifice aesthetic value in order to maintain personal style.
I think over all, most people are not driven by an over reaching aesthetic or politico style, They shoot what is curious to them at the moment. Most photags here(apug), enjoy being in the moment when they shoot and by and large reflect that in the gallery here on a pug. Most do not set up elaborate compositions which takes e-gads of time to set and light, for some "higher" purpose, i.e. aesthetics. Most do not go out and re-shoot time and time again, in different seasons, sun/light condition, to get the right "aesthetic". of course for, Aesthetics.

In the fine art world "ideas", or AKA "personal style" is WAY MORE IMPORTANT, than minutia debate of/on/about aesthetics. for a Fine artists, going out every day and selling the brand is paramount. you need to be able to separate the wheat from the chaff! I mean do you want to be known as the the FRANK CAPPA "look alike-guy"? I'm serious. Most people on apug are Far more into the moment of photography as meaningful expression, to be caught up in "style". However on the flip side, most of us on apug are not distinguishing themselves from one another, in terms of style. Most of us enjoy the moment and the process. Its extremely rare that the person who is caught up in the moment has a "style" other than "being caught up in the moment", which is the natural attitude.

hi gzinsel

you mention brady ... arthur fellig ( weegee ) is the same sort of thing ...
i don't think they altered scenes for a personal style at all, they altered the bodies for compositonal purposes
i think there is a difference. in photography and painting and everything else, composition is everything, if the composition
doesn't work, the the "work" doesn't work. if you put a different FL lens on your camera to crop a view
( or you crop a view while enlarging &c ) are you changing your personal style? its a lot more than that,
to me at least, style is different than composition... it is the way someone works, and the concert of the way they think behind
a camera ( or whatever ) and composition, tonality, printing, presentation ... all of it, not just posing ..
but as i said before what do i know ...

Forget the style. Here is the recipe in 3 steps, how to shot without style:

1: lock the brain
2: press the shutter
3: share your happy experience with other APUG members

kobaltus said:

Forget the style. Here is the recipe in 3 steps, how to shot without style:

1: lock the brain
2: press the shutter
3: share your happy experience with other APUG members

Click to expand...

but if someone does this for every photograph they make ( less #3 if they aren't a subscriber )
this method of photographing might become his/her style, no?

hmmm seems like i am sort of agreeing with gzinsel above
although brady and fellig did their thing to compose / design an image
if their composition is a style i guess gzinsel is right

if it becomes habitual, then pattern occurs! some people will recognize the habit/pattern, and say "you've got style!"