I try to avoid that last sentence
This is true if two techniques cannot end up in the same style. Which is mostly true. I just wanted to separate them because I cannot make any proofs.
Technique for style. Style for feeling. Feeling in story. Story informs technique.
...keeping it circular...
Techniqe and style are what you choose they aren't sepeparate they go hand in hand.
<snipped>
B&W film photography is a pursuit that rarely if ever allows selling a print, and just getting an exhibit together is extremely difficult, as galleries think in terms of "fine art". Working in a vacuum like I and most people are, just occasionally showing stuff and getting feedback, man, that's a stone drag,
We need more artists in this field. People who will push the boundaries and do things you're not supposed to do just to see what happens, then put it on a wall and exhibit it to see what people think. Maybe if that occurs we can get something going. If the general public is not that interested in this form of expression, then there's a reason. The direction of photography needs to change or it will be seen as just a way to record events. I saw more of this type of work in our online galleries when we were still analog only. Why that's made a difference is anyone's guess, but it has.
They are.APUG used to have print exchanges but I'm not sure they're still active.
Technique facilitates style, and style (or expression) drives technique.
I'd say any artist content with their 'style' is pretty much dead in the water. Artists continually go romping down tangents of both technique and style questing for the clearest expression of what they want their work to say. Some tangents can be decade long dead ends, but invariably, things learned on past tangents will be useable or open windows to completely new possibilities which can then start a new tangent, etc...
Talking about artists here, not commercial photographers, because if you have a 'style' and people are hiring you, that's a pretty good incentive not to change...not too much anyway.
...Style is not something an artist does, but how what an artist does is catagorized by others. An artist might explore one avenue for years or decades. The exploration becomes seen as a style. It might be difficult to take another path if the one one is on is lined with fame and fortune. I'll let you know if I ever get there.
What is an "artistic attention span". The kind that one can write a symphony with, or perhaps produce a 20 print portfolio?Just about every professional or working artist I have met has had an artistic attention span that has lasted their lifetime.
Style is not something an artist does, but how what an artist does is catagorized by others. An artist might explore one avenue for years or decades. The exploration becomes seen as a style. It might be difficult to take another path if the one one is on is lined with fame and fortune. I'll let you know if I ever get there.
Perhaps a fluid style?...To me? It's a blend of technologies and uses to get my so called vision captured. I've not confined myself to one avenue. Really because I'm having too much fun. If I don't enjoy the journey what's the point?
Perhaps a fluid style?
And there are those whose style is not to have a style...
Saying you specialize in scat singing will give you street cred in the jazz world...saying you're a scat photographer (fluid, ping pong style) just doesn't have the same panache.
I believe if you learn technique then style will follow automatically. You may then have to adjust and change your style to suit your own tastes.
I never thought to separate the two.
Technique and style influence each other.
The things you like to do, and become good at doing, influence how your work evolves.
And technique is a lot more than just accomplishing technical goals. Technique can be expressive too.
If you don't have fun in the darkroom/print making room, and you don't feel that you are creating things there, then either change what you are doing there, or get someone else to do it for you.
After a long day in the darkroom, I'm likely to be both tired and grinning!
Maybe I don't identify as an artist.
Don't need cred to have fun.
Artists have fun, too.Maybe I don't identify as an artist.
Don't need cred to have fun.
Artists have fun, too.What is 'cred'? Anything like crud?
I think artisan is more correct if you need a noun.
Working in the darkroom is good for my mind, gives me a creative outlet to occupy my brain so it doesn't start thinking of scenarios that I have no control over.
As someone starting out....this was an absolute pleasure to read. Thank you for sharing your thoughts and how you view your older "rejects"Technique and style. Like apples and oranges. Both are fruits, but different fruits. In a fruit salad, they complement one another. Eaten separately, they are just as delicious.
Since I retired, I also have started to look at and print my old negatives. For me, this was not just about revisiting my past experiences, but about how my 'style' (if I dare to call it that) evolved, and why.
I am amazed at what I now see in those old so-called 'missed' shots. Elements pop out that I somehow consciously missed at the time, but my subconscious picked up and pushed me to make the shot.
Some of my best style of images are the out-of-focus ones. Obviously, the technique/s I used to make them I regarded at the time as wrong approaches. I am now so thankful that I kept those failures.
As an architect now retired, for several decades I fussed (unnecessarily, as I now see) over keeping the verticals perfectly vertical, the exact moment when the lighting was at its best, and the elements I could remove in the foregrounds. In analogue days it was infinitely more difficult to 'edit' images in the darkroom than it now is with scanning and post-processing. My Nikkormats and Rolleiflex had to be carefully positioned to eliminate unwanted things in the foregrounds like fire hydrants, power poles, TV aerials and suchlike. I had to work almost entirely with tripods and spirit levels. In the 1980s the lenses I used (20mm, 85mm and 180mm Nikkors) usually cost more than the cameras, especially those super expensive and annoying to use PCs (perspective control, not politically correct!). All this was the 'technique' I used. The 'style' basically came out of how I presented my images to my clients or for publication or even as displays on my office walls, and in my case this mostly came out by itself, seemingly on its own, mostly out of the back parts of my brain. As I now realise when I revisit my now-ageing negatives and slides.
Now in the 21st century, my digital DSLRs and scanners have freed me from all that unwanted tyranny. Recently, an old client asked me to attend a shoot for a company brochure of an office I designed in the late '90s. An excellent lunch was offered as pro quo payment and for old time's sake I accepted for old time's sake. On the site, I was surprised (and I will admit, quite dismayed) when the photographer, a charming 20-something young lady exuding wonderful confidence and a great presence, arrived with two somewhat dated DX Nikons and 18-55 kit lenses. She obviously knew what she was doing and so I bit my tongue, but I did wonder what the results would be and how the client would react to possibly "inferior" images. My fears were groundless. The results, when I saw them, were as good as anything I could have produced with one of my Hasselblads, the standard lens for which cost more than this young photographer's entire bag of gear.
So yes, technique and style have their places in photography, but I believe it is important that we keep them separate, and not confuse one for or with the other. they are, as I have said, like apples and oranges, and while they can be enjoyed together as a salad, they are also excellent when eaten on their own.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?