The same old dog, just a different collar.

[DannL.]

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.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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.

Then make your own adventure.

What have you not seen in your city or town?
What have you not seen in your state?
What National Park have you not seen within a two or three days drive?
While you are shooting landscapes look around your feet and close by you for close ups.
Give yourself and look for abstract patterns.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

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)?

Ansel Adams was far from the first photographer to document Yosemite - before him were Carleton Watkins, William Henry Jackson, Timothy O'Sullivan and Eadward Muybridge, among others. What makes Ansel different from his predecessors, and each of them different from the others, is vision - he had an unique way of looking at things, and a technical mastery to bring that vision to life in such a way that it is instantly recognizable even to non-enthusiasts of photography.

 

[removed account4]

hi dannL

i kind of agree at a certain level
99% ( maybe more ) of things passing off
as photography are terrible, but that isn't to say
the images i think are terrible have some significance
or meaning to whomever took them.

 

[DannL.]

Like me and many others, it sounds like you need to find inspiration.

I would have to say that what inspires me the most "photography wise" would be astro-photography. But, once you eliminate the bad weather days, and days during the work week, it only leaves about 1.5 evenings a year to chase the stars. Capturing a comet or asteroid that has never been imaged before makes for a good challenge. There was at one time a $10,000 prize if you found one. There's some incentive. I could then afford a decent guiding camera.

 

[DannL.]

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.

I wasn't ignoring your reply. Just when I mention that I've fiddled with cameras since before we landed on the moon, most folks wouldn't care. And not that that has any significance whatsoever. But, over the last 50 years I have observed intently. Eventually, if your eyes have been open, everything begins to repeat and repeat. You eventually crave something new. And that's where I am at with my own work. So, instead of repeating work that I have already done . . . just seeing what others are doing to stay fresh and original within their own spheres.

In fact, I want to thank everyone that chimed in on this thread thusfar. It's a lot to absorb.

 

[David Brown]

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.

Just one example:

Chema Madoz

http://www.chemamadoz.com

The first time I saw one of his photographs (at a gallery in Dallas) I thought: "This is what I want to be doing!" Given your initial premise, there is no small amount of irony in my thought.

I was trained as a musician, although as I've matured, I've discovered that I am a better photographer than a musician. However, there is a school of thought among musicians that there is no new music; everything is re-cycled. A composer can't help but be influenced by everything they have ever heard, and in that sense, creating something completely new is difficult. And when one considers the mechanics of music theory, there is only so much source material. I once read a silly quote that it was amazing what Bach did using only chords and scales. (think about it.) Well, chords, scales and rhythm is about all there is. It's amazing what Bach did with rhythm, too ...

To my mind, here is what sets Madoz, et al, apart from most photographers: He does not wander around until he sees something and then "captures" it with a camera. (Not that there's anything wrong with that.) He envisions a photograph, and then creates the scene in his studio. It is only one style of photograph, the set piece in studio, but it illustrates a point. See an image in your mind and then do what is necessary to create it in a photograph. This can be done on location, too; then the same old rock or tree is looked at with a different eye and a different image results. This is what you were seeing in Weston's "Out of the Shadow" exhibition. Brett attempted (and succeeded) at taking very similar subject matter to his father and "saw" it differently.

It's a challenge.

 

[DannL.]

Thanks David. I find it interesting you presented me with a Spaniard, having live in Spain for many years myself. It's kind of amazing. really.

Interesting work. "Anything goes."

 

[jscott]

Others have hit it. You have to cultivate your own personal OCD regarding this particular photograph being the coolest thing in the world.

 

[blansky]

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.

 

[RobC]

If I had to I guess whose it is I'd take a stab at Tim Flach whose work I admire.

http://timflach.com/

Another person whose animal images I admire is

http://www.rax.is/

 

[Bill Burk]

A word that came up in Eddie's thread, "conceptual art" dawned on me as something relevant here.

Chema Madoz was a great example to illustrate the path you might follow... thinking about an idea or a concept... then shooting what you have in mind.

Then you don't need to worry about what other people think, you measure your success based on whether or not you got what you were going for.

 

[Bill Burk]

A photography teacher of mine once said...

Did you ever think of being a photography teacher? You're getting pretty good at it.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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.

A new kind of cute.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Did you ever think of being a photography teacher? You're getting pretty good at it.

Blansky could even teach film photography.

 

[Bill Burk]

DannL.

A little comment about what "I" think of conceptual art. It's great for those who take it to high-falutin' arty-ness.

But my take on it is simpler than that. If I say to myself "I want to be able to make very nice 11x14 black and white prints of my kids caught in the act of living their day-to-day life so that my grandkids will fight over who gets the pictures of their mom" - Well that's a clear enough concept to work from. It sets the stage for the pictures that I will take.

Really, I like the ideas of a simple concept like that.

When I approach a Giant Sequoia tree, I want to take a picture showing it at its best. If I can't get the picture I want, I know there's a 200-mile stretch of habitat on this planet where I can look for other possible subjects.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Here's an example I stole from the internet.

That is one symmetrical cat!

 

[Ian Leake]

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.

Just do what you need to do and the rest will follow. In other words: photograph what you like, seek pictures that feel right to you, keep making more of them, keep honing your sense of what feels right, and stay on the bus (link to Jeff Curto's podcast).

 

[RobC]

If you look a the world of painting (some call it art, most of it isn't becasue it has bugger all to say about anything except the painting style) you find endless movements. Pictorialism, pointillism, cubism, fauvism, realism, expressionism. They were all copying each other. Rarely did someone evolve their own very personal style. The world of art and photography and graphic design and architecture and music and performing arts etc etc has only one common movement and that is plagiarism. (they call it inspiration, LOL). Say no more...

 

[Doc W]

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!"

 

[RobC]

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!"

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).

Most of us hobbyist photographers (and professionals too) are doing just the same. Is it any wonder that the topic of "I'm getting bored with what I'm producing, what should I do now" keeps cropping up. It seems it has just never occured to a lot of people to do completely their own thing. Maybe they lost their imaginations when they reached pubity or their life has stifled their individualism.

 

[Maris]

In a sense photography is always renewed.

Even though everything is photographed daily by millions the art of photography is made fresh every time someone does something for the first time or someone sees something for the first time. Photography is not advanced by the eternal pursuit of difference but by the repeated affirmation of personal creativity.

 

[Arklatexian]

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.

More than once, at the local photo society, I have stirred up a hornet's nest by making the statement: "the only good pictures are made 100 miles/150 kilometers or more from home. Don't know why, it just seems to work out that way. Maybe it is because everything seems "fresher". Also if a scene or subject doesn't say "Take My Picture" to my sub-concious, I pass it by. Try turning 180 degrees when viewing a scene. The good picture could be right behind you. I received that idea from a lecture by DeWitt Jones. He said it worked for him and the example shown proved him correct.....Regards!

 

[Doc W]

Sounds like the typical photography club in the UK.

I have no idea what you are talking about. I don't live in the UK and I have never been a member of a photography club, unless by "club" you mean a few guys who drink beer and talk photography occasionally. In any case, most of what I said in my first response to you was pretty straightforward art history.

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).

At the risk of repeating myself, artists tend to gather in groups of friends or colleagues and borrow liberally from each other. This is a good thing. Not surprisingly, their work shares many similarities. To you, this is a bad thing - mimicry, or worse, plagiarism. I think you imagine that the primary purpose of art is to be purely innovative as opposed to simply good, i.e., rich in meaning, expressive, perhaps provocative, and so on. My favourite example is that of Bach who was never considered to be an innovator. His children thought he was an old outdated fart. There is a lot of overlap in his music with that of Handel and many others. They were all working in the same period, with the same historical forces at play, and were engaged with many of the same stylistic issues. Yet he was probably the greatest composer who ever lived. Perhaps you would think him a plagiarist.

 

[Arklatexian]

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.

"Just an enthusiast. Landscape, some portraits, still life, astro-photography, macro-photography, micro-photography are areas of photography that I find most interesting." Just in your "most interesting" there are three types of photography (astro, macro, micro) that you could spend a lifetime exploring each. We have not identified all of the insects that exist in North America. With some serious study, there is a very real possibility that you could photograph something not photographed before. I hope all of us are "just enthusiasts". And the day that "California Landscapes" have run their course, I hope that I will have finished "running my course" sometime before.......Regards!