Like me and many others, it sounds like you need to find inspiration.
Frank, I think you are absolutely correct. And looking through the internet galleries, I'm not alone. If we made a list of all the subjects that are regularly photographed, I'm sure there are gaps in there where few, if anyone, has ventured. That might make an interesting subject in itself. "Things that have not been photographed". I'm always keen for an adventure.
Remember that the photographers whose work you have seen before didn't actually find anything new. Many of Ansel Adams' most famous works were of geologic entities that had been present for millennia. How many Native American's walked past those same locations and admired the view (but didn't have cameras)?
Like me and many others, it sounds like you need to find inspiration.
Why do you want to see someones work who has vision? All the great photographers had/have "vision" but it's there's and not yours. So tell us what is your vision and how would describe yourself as a photographer? A landscape photographer, a portrait photographer or what? And tell us why your photography is different or are you trying to be like someone else and realising you can't be them and don't know who and what you're about?
You might think I'm being harsh but in reality I'm trying to make you think about what YOUR photography is about. I don't know how far you've got into photography but once you've learnt the basic technique and how to print the next really big plateau to climb to is developing your own style and and vision of what you're trying to do. That ain't easy and a lot of people get stuck on the lower plateaus and never reach the higher ones becasue they don't think enough about it and why they are doing it. They just repeat parrot fashion what those who have gone before have done.
So, let's run with this. Point me to someone who has vision. I'm chomping at the bit to be impressed. ;-)
Stipulation . . . New and current work only.
A photography teacher of mine once said...
A photography teacher of mine once said, photograph the most common thing in an uncommon way and you have impact.
Here's an example I stole from the internet.
Did you ever think of being a photography teacher? You're getting pretty good at it.
Here's an example I stole from the internet.
Without creating a completely abstract image, and by pointing your lens at something "tangible and identifiable", do you have any advice for creating photographs that are "completely original" both in subject and form? ie; Not another version of Pepper No. 30.
Rob,two things. First, labels such as the ones you mention are handy ways of differentiating and getting at something particular about a style. Are you suggesting we simply call it all "art" and leave it at that?
Second, your idea that all art is plagiarism is a little over the top, I think. Most artists work in a milieu and there is a lot of mutual influence. Various artist who worked with a particular style were often friends who shared ideas. That is huge step from plagiarism which is outright theft of ideas without giving any credit. After the first performance of Brahms' first symphony, a critic noted wryly that is sounded a lot like Beethoven. Brahms replied "Any fool can see that!"
Have you ever had any trouble being "original" using photography? In other words . . . Not repeating what has already be done by so any others. It seems that no matter what photograph I am looking at, I've seen this before. It's just another version of the same old theme. There's that old tree again. There's that rock and ocean scene I have seen a thousand times before.
Without creating a completely abstract image, and by pointing your lens at something "tangible and identifiable", do you have any advice for creating photographs that are "completely original" both in subject and form? ie; Not another version of Pepper No. 30.
I can carry a camera for months without ever finding something that I consider original. So, I just shoot to be shooting something. And sadly, the few times a potential "original image" has presented itself . . . I wasn't carrying the camera.
Sounds like the typical photography club in the UK.
The point is that the vast majority of what is produced by "Artists" or "Photographers" etc, constitutes little if any original thinking. It is pure mimickery (if that word does not offend you so much).
Excellent question. But, I don't want to see this discussion being just about me. It's an open topic.;-)
If this group of photographers knows of someone that has vision, and who's works are original and truly impressive, please do share. I think it would be interesting, if not educational.
As for myself, I'm just an enthusiast. Landscape, some portraits, still life, astro-photography, macro-photography, micro-photography are probably areas of photography that I find most interesting. Back in the 60's, I was introduced to the darkroom by a family member. He was a photographer who did some nice landscape work. His "winning card" was living in Crescent City, CA and working in the redwood forest. Having access makes a difference. But, even that subject "California Landscapes" has probably run it's course.
"Pick a theme and work it to exhaustion... the subject must be something you truly love or truly hate."
Dorothea Lange
If I truly loved, or truly hated something, it might make things easier. I'm almost tempted to send a mission to Pluto to find something interesting and new to photograph.
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?