Too Much Style

I'm not much good at starting threads, and I may be sticking my neck too far out, but I don't want to hijack another thread.

Here goes...

Activity in a couple of threads has me interested in the subject of "artistic" photographic style, where it comes from and basically when does the time come when enough is enough.

The discussion at hand has been the Kenna-likes, but I don't think it can be limited to that. Obviously it is currently a high profile phenomenon in the photography world, but what about all the high-profile Adams/Weston (etc) disciples? John Sexton, Alan Ross, Kirk Gittings just to name a few of my favorites in that genre. There are obviously other "styles" of work and I am not picking on these guys. I use them simply because it is another area of interest personally. Are they too "living off the backs" of the greats that preceded them as was pointed out to me in another discussion? Why is it that for some this is a subject of derision? Is there really anywhere else for us all to go, or are we going to endlessly chase each other's tails? Is anyone really innocent of being knock-offs of the greats in whose shadow's we live?

Does it even matter?

A lot of questions I know... Hoping we can keep this civil as we are all a long way from the schoolyard.

Bill

Ps. No, this isn't an ad for a workshop... (double smiley)

Ya know, this is somewhat along the vein of the article I wrote. But I guess what doesn't occur to some folks in the art critique community is that sometimes it might be just a smidge possible that at least two people's artistic vision can overlap. Yes there is a definite influence between a master and an apprentice and the direction of their art will invariably carry in somewhat differing directions. But there will invariably be similarities. This is not necessarily 'riding the coattails' of another. Rather the short sighted vision of others, I believe. In my humble opinion, that is.

I make my living by stealing from others. I'm a newspaper photographer and when I see a great shot from another shooter I file it away, I sometimes even write it down. That way, when I find my self in a similar situation, I can think WWHCB do? That's "what would Henri Cartier-Bresson do" or whoever. Then I blend it with my own situation, style, historical period and — viola! — an "original" picture.

I'm also a folk music performer by trade and we call this the "folk process." Take an old tune, write some new lyrics and presto. It worked for Dylan, it worked for Woody Guthrie and it worked for every ancient traveling bard who ever used the same tune with new words to flatter a king.

I don't care if I'm breaking new ground as long as it's new ground for me.

Robert Henri wrote, "All the past up to a moment ago is your legacy. You have a right to it." In other words, we have a right to use others' work as a stepping off point for our own.

A conscious (or unconscious) copy is boring, but building on the work of others (which requires us to diverge from their path) is exciting and creative.

Unfortunately many artistically motivated photographers are unable to grasp this and are so hung up on being "new" and "original" that they cannot create anything significant at all (and then disparage others for not being "new" or "original").

Bill I actually attempted to reply in that other thread (it was long, so likely missed by most)... but I truly do enjoy discussing things such as this... especially when I get the chance to "read" the thoughts of people who I am familiar with and even whos work I even admire.

billschwab said:

Here goes...

Activity in a couple of threads has me interested in the subject of "artistic" photographic style, where it comes from and basically when does the time come when enough is enough.

The discussion at hand has been the Kenna-likes, but I don't think it can be limited to that. Obviously it is currently a high profile phenomenon in the photography world, but what about all the high-profile Adams/Weston (etc) disciples?

Click to expand...

I honestly think the "{insert photographer name}-like" is a natural part of being an artist. Perhaps the influence is a living artist or a past one - in my meager stack of books read I've found biographies and autobiographies expressing that photogs such as Adams, Strand, and Weston etc, each have admitted to being influenced by each other along with strongly influenced by photographers that came before them and their contemporaries. It seems natural to me to know what we like, admire it, and even connect with it to an extent that we adopt it as our own.
I started truly making creative work as a painter in college. I was HEAVILY influenced by my painting prof and friend. If you were to look at my work and his side by side, there is an obvious and strongly apparent influence. But because of the time and effort I have put into it, there are distinctly different visual aspects to it... he used more neutral colors, I am drawn to bright and brilliant ones... etc.
I think that when we are truly influenced by fellow artists (and photographers in this case) we may well create work that resembles theirs but if we are truly creating our own work... it will undoubtedly be VERY MUCH ours. It will have our signiature on it.... it may take years to truly fine tune that signature, but that signature is there within each of us, no matter the extent that we are influenced by others... we will eventually truly make it our own if there is commitment to growth and personal expression.
Id be full of sh*t if I could blatantly state that I haven’t been STRONGLY influenced by both past photographers and current ones…. I will always be drawn to the industrial imagery of Weston. I started down the road of this entire passion and practice of large format and ULF because of two distinct people. The view camera article with Clay Harmon’s and Michael Mutmansky’s work. In that article I saw work that I admired but what I saw that was even more profound was a format of photography that resonated with something deep inside me. Add to that I saw a subject matter that was near and dear to my heart…. The skeletal remains of industrialization. Its obvious that people such as clay, Michael, kerik, etc have influenced my photography. I am immeasurably grateful for that…. And out of respect for the influencers both living and passed, I can only commit to continuing to walk the path of creating work that resonates with my true vision and hopefully can eventually create what is truly MY work.

Why is it that for some this is a subject of derision?

Click to expand...

Pure and simple I think because of Ego. Human individuality and a true sense of uniqueness are driving forces behind a lot of derision in society… but the truly ironic thing, in my opinion, is that true uniqueness is inherent and ever present, not something needing to be strived towards.

Is there really anywhere else for us all to go, or are we going to endlessly chase each other's tails?

Click to expand...

As I stated above, I don’t actually feel we are chasing our tails. Unless there is a conscious decision to purely emulate then ultimately we should each be seeking out what is truly our own photography.

Is anyone really innocent of being knock-offs of the greats in whose shadow's we live?

Click to expand...

No, I think relatively speaking each and everyone of us could be categorized as knockoffs….

Does it even matter?

Click to expand...

Not in the least bit, I don’t think.

It seems to me that we each have to answer to ourselves and if we can honestly say we are attempting to walk OUR path towards creating OUR work… then it will inevitably manifest itself in an enormously and immensely diverse and creative group of photographers.

A lot of questions I know... Hoping we can keep this civil as we are all a long way from the schoolyard.

Bill

Ps. No, this isn't an ad for a workshop... (double smiley)

Click to expand...

You mean you aren’t setting up a Kenna-Vision workshop?

Now that I think about it, I do it more like the baroque composers:

I steal ideas, themes, subjects and everything else. Blatantly and unabashedly.

And then I mix it all together and extract the bits I like.

If my wife likes it too, it's a good one. If not, it goes back in the heap to mature for a few years - or maybe to be ripped off for yet another reworking of ideas.

scootermm said:

You mean you aren’t setting up a Kenna-Vision workshop?

Click to expand...

LOL!!! Good one.

Matt... that was a wonderful post.

I have many influences at this point, Weston has taught me much about seeing, Adams has taught me much about technique, Kenna has taught me to abandon the constraints of time, and embrace other dimensions apart from the one I live in, and so on. If my photograph appears to mimic one of my mentors, it may an unavoidable result of my experience, but truly, no matter what I do, it is my experience speaking, through the melting pot of my evolving understanding, touched by those who have spoken to me. I hope they would be flattered.

What I think distinguishes original art from duplication is awareness and refinement of the emotional ingredients that go into the work.

If I stacked a bunch of soup cans and composed a photo without infusing any of my own thoughts, that would of course be mere duplication.

But if I were inspired to make that composition in a way that really meant something, at least to me, then I think it would rise above mere duplication.

If we go out west and find Ansel's tripod holes with the attitude of trying to get the same emotional impact, then that is duplication. But if we stand on that mountain and allow ourselves to be personally inspired before clicking the shutter, then that shot is our art. I think you can let any scene become art just be letting it affect you before capturing it.

As others here have already said, every single one of us owes a great debt to those who have inspired us to pick up a camera. Nothing at all wrong with that. Art has always been a synthetic process - take from those who came before, shake, stir, and add a pinch of salt, and come up with something new.

I have learned "off the backs" of greatness and so I am enfluenced by that same greatness. Photographing the same "type" of subject matter as someone you are enfluenced by such as things in the natural world is not an admission of lack of personal photographic creativity; IMO, it's an affirmation of a creative effort in which you seek to excel. I'm not even sure the word "style" is even correct because I think that it is too hard to define.

To me, style is one's vision (dictionary def #3: vision = "the manner in which one sees or conceives of something). Ansel Adams said (paraphrasing) in one of his interviews I've seen on a DVD that some have told him that his work is somber and his response was: "well, that's my style". I thought about that for a good while because I never would have characterized his style as "somber". So how does someone define style?

Chuck

I think "art" is difficult if not impossible to define as it means different things to different people. Many of my photographs I consider art but others may not so I try to avoid judging them as art or not. If someone likes one of my photographs well enough to hang it in their home I would consider it either art to them or it has some meaning for them. For me I consider something art if the person that created it did it with passion, effort, hard work and commitment including a piece of themselves in the work. I may not like the work that they produce but I appreciate it based on what they have put into it.

As far as using other's work, I was taught in a workshop to do just that and at the same time spend a lot of time looking at and studying other's work. I have on many occasions working with models presented a print of someone else's work as a concept or starting point for the two of us to work from. I have never ended up with a copy of someone else's photo even if I try, it always ends up as something that has been created by the two of us making the photo.

So I stick to making the photos that I am passionate about and don't dwell too much on the "art" thing. I have also realized through experience that when photographing what I'm most passionate about, the pictures have more of me in them. May sound goofy but I've looked at photos that I've made of other people and seen them as self portraits to a certain extent. This gets me very excited and validates that I am photographing what I want to photograph for the pictures have a bit of me in them.

I hope I've not gone off topic here.

Cheers,
Bill

First: Bill excellent start of a thread!

In Dutch we've got a saying: "High trees take a lot of wind". So when you're famous you will get a lot of things thrown at you.

more serious:
I think every Photographer looks at other Photographers. It is not said that what you see in the photographs of them directly viewed back in his photographs. But when the photographer thinks about it is has altered the view of the photographer. The photographer adds a bit of knowledge or vision of the other photographer in his view. Also when he dislikes a photographers vision his is reinforced with the knowledge of what he will let out of his vision.
Also I think there are not as much styles as there are photographers so there will be always photographers with styles that are close to one or another.
third and last point: I think that when you are such a great/well known photographer like Kenna, Horn, Schwab that you always get critique from people only because you're a great name in the business and a brilliant photographer.


I'm going to bed.

good Night,

Reinder

Ole said:

I do it more like the baroque composers:

I steal ideas, themes, subjects and everything else. Blatantly and unabashedly.

And then I mix it all together and extract the bits I like.

If my wife likes it too, it's a good one.

Click to expand...

Ole: I could not have said this better for myself.

My formal training was in music. We musicians have a long history of "borrowing" and (most of us) are not the least bit concerned about it. We all steal from the best.

I have no pretensions as to the originality of my photographs. I have said that I would die happy if anyone ever looked at one of my prints and said: "Wow, that looks just like a Weston!" But nobody ever has. On the other hand (not to brag, just to make a point), I have had someone pick up one of my prints and say simply: "Wow!"

Maybe I'm on to something.

Great stuff here, like Matt I enjoy this sort of discussion and find it at least sends down the road to look inside a bit - can be scary stuff some times.

We can not help, but be influenced by someone - after all, there was a moment I think when we fell in love with photography and it would have been the result of one work or another. Does it matter? Not one damn bit in my mind.

I do not go out looking for the tripod holes of others, for sure, but my choice of format, film, technique can only come from the experience of viewing the work of others. Be it oil paintings, water color, cast in bronze, or made of stone the art work that moves us will also influence us I think. It could be as common as a lamp or light fixture, a fine piece of woodwork, the fine work of an architect, or as simple as a chair in a room - we are I hope moved by something such as light and form. Be it a photograph from HCBresson, AAdams, EWeston, WESmith, PStrand, M. White from the past or works by a contemporary artist such as T.Crane, KCarter, MKenna, Kerik or even yourself Bill - if we are inspired by the work, we are likely to take it with us in one way or another.

Have we seen all there is, or we left with only copies of vision of others? I do not think so, there is a big old world out there and I haven't seen it all - doubt if anyone has. So we bring on those new works of art, share your vision - tell me where you've been and I will try to do the same. After all Bill your the only person to show me a photograph of a statue of a dog, in a park, covered with snow....and it is one of my favorites of your work - it makes me smile - what more can I ask for?

Great thread, Bill.

I'd also like to bring up the idea of "Zeitgeist"... that is... an artist lives and works in certain time, and even if they don't know other influences... their work may relate to others. For example, in the 40's, 50's and early 60's a group of artists lived and worked in St. Ives, Cornwall in the UK. They did not have much contact with the outside world, and yet... they created paintings an sculptures that are incredibly similar to what was going on in New York with the abstract expressionists at that time. Not exactly the same, but similar, and yet there was really no contact between them.

The artists in St. Ives were Barbara Hepworth, Ben Nicholson, and Patrick Heron among others. I always have found it interesting that these artists seemed to find similar expression at the same time without really knowing of each other.

Don't get me wrong. I think it's great to find work that inspires you, but I also think you can find extraordinary strength in floundering on your own, too. And you never know... you may find another photographer or artist at some point grappling with similar issues.

hi bill

great thread!

i think it is hard to shut out all the influences
that one might have buried inside them and do
anything truly original. whether we are living now
or we were creating images 100 years ago
we are still being touched by the world around us
emotions and thoughts inside of us
and images we see on paper and canvas and 3d ...
while it might be ez for someone to suggest
he/she is creating never before
seen ... it probably is there somewhere ...
i don't really think it is living off the coattails of ...
but mimicking, doing something similar, borrowing from and everything
else that creative types do is the best form of flattery there can be.
and usually the person doing the "similar" brings something else
to the table besides something bland and tastless ... their own spice ...
so, no it doesn't matter ...

i am a big foodie ... i watch iron chef and iron chef america as much as
i can. i am always amazed how these folks can take something mundane
and boring and turn it into something inventive, and tasty. that tends
to happen with photography too. we see something that might seem mundane
and we somehow turn it into something else, through whatever filter we may
have ... whether someone was looking at work of another photographer, painter,
musician, author or whatever stuffs might be churning inside his/her head ...
not sure if i even addressed ur question

hope so

It was the discovery factor that caused me to put down the tools, in the shop building and refurbing cameras, and in the taking and darkroom work, because I realized that what time I have left would be better used if I had a retake and evaluated just what I wanted to accomplish in the next two decades, more or less. I started buying the books I always wanted and reread the one's I already had. I hunted down the DVD's movies made on photographers and just yesterday I received the movie Lust for Life with Kirk Douglas as Van Gogh. He had a very short artistic period as did Paul Gauguin. It's interesting how Van Gogh's struggle paralleled what I had read in the Day Books of Edward Weston. The struggle to earn a living and do the art was difficult for them. I don't have that specific problem but like a lot of people I want more than I can afford.

I always have found it interesting that these artists seemed to find similar expression at the same time without really knowing of each other.

Click to expand...

Edward Weston remarked about one of his photographs looking similar to another mans work and was embarrassed, thinking the wider public would think he was copying. It is interesting to see similar work done by individuals that aren't aware of each other, whether in art or science.

I think a person just has to work hard at the craft, keep in touch with what's going on in the World and enjoy creating. I'm thinking more of the journey and not the destination these days.

Curt

As someone above said musicians have always borrowed. When I started learning jazz improvisation most teaching methods I came across encouraged studying one player and learning as many of their solos as possible. This helps understand the relationship between chords and scales. Unfortunately it's easy to become stuck in that persons style. The 'art' I suppose is in taking what you've learnt, then finding your own voice and moving it forward in some way.

My philosophy of photography used to be "if it looks neat, press the button"

..but as I grew as an artist it became "if it doesn't suck, don't hide it"

All art, music, writing, etc is built on the foundations of what went before it. Even if you're vehemently against everything that went before you still have to have a reference of what went before to know what to revolt against. I can't speak for anyone but myself, but i think it's a fair bet that most people, even if they are doing the most cliche work, are doing what they themselves like and want to see. We may criticize them for their lack of originality but ultimately you are the first person, and the most important one, that you have to please with your own work.

I read the OP and the first three or so following posts.

It seems to me, Bill, what you're asking is to define the line between "inspiration" and "imitation".

To my mind, the works of Steichen, Weston, St. Ansel, HCB, Arbus, Capra, Lange, Strand, Stieglitz, Evans, Liebowitz, Atget etc. etc. should be an inspiration that informs the work we try to achieve.

But ONLY an inspiration.

If, instead, we seek to imitate these masters/mistresses of the art form, then we limit ourselves.

Now it's a lot easier for me to say this because I am just a "duffer photograher" - an amateur. I can flip through an Aperture-edition of one of the aforementioned photogs and feel "inspired" by more or less simply "imitating" their eye. But you carry the more heavy burden of advancing the art by finding inspiration that informs you - but also demands that you go beyond simple imitation.

I think that is a bit of where you were going with your Brodie curtain thread.

In that subject - there is no current "iconic" version. Just the fact that the curtain caught both yours and Kevin's eye.

But, perhaps the real test would be to choose a classic "iconic" subject and see how different folk would shoot it. Would some seek solely to "imitate" it (with perhaps a slight difference to feign originality)? Would others use the icon image as a "take off" point and come back with something that "advances" the concept of the image?

Early Riser said:

All art, music, writing, etc is built on the foundations of what went before it. Even if you're vehemently against everything that went before you still have to have a reference of what went before to know what to revolt against.

Click to expand...

Kind of remind me of the kid with the pink hair and the bone through his nose, trying so hard to be different, announcing to the world "IDGAF what you think."

If he really didn't care what anybody thought, he wouldn't need the pink hair and the nose bone. That is where I got to. Let my hair go back dark, and got rid of the bone, because IDGAF enough anymore to make an show of revolt. Nowadays, I just do my thing, trying too hard to be different is an affectation sure as mimicry. Do your own thing, untie your brain, and it will lead to "original and different" easy as pie.

FWIW Bill, I've never looked at your stuff and saw Kenna. I saw you.

You've got to be yourself.

Yes we learn from others, but eventually, you've got to put your own voice out there.

"Nancy Newhall asked to see my portfolio. That was 1972, and I was very proud of those prints. They were fifteen black and white landscape photographs, selenium toned and mounted on white mat board. Nancy was a critical and negative person. Yet her talents and reputation were obvious. She told me that in my photographs she saw the influence of several other photographers. Ansel Adams, Wynn Bullock, Edward Weston, Hal Halberstad and William Garnett. I was flattered. She did not mean it to be flattering: Her final question was to ask when I was going to stand up and be my own photographer:"

Al Weber