You have your own standard

[Ian Grant]

Give me a me a capon, and some roguish companions, a wench and a bottle of sac, take me to the ale-house, take me to the whore-house . . . . . . . . .

Part of a recording based on a soliloquy taken from Shakespeare, Henry !V Pt I. Loudon Wainwright III.

When you begin shooting and defining your own style, how true do you remain faithful to those aims.

I ask 23 years down the line

Ian

 

[DannL]

I consider "style" and "stale" to mean the same thing. I'm not particularly excited about putting myself in an endless rut. I like for example how Picasso continuously reinvented himself throughout his lifetime. Occasionally he revisited old ideas and viewed them under "new light", but was never stale. I think it's challenging to be "original and fresh" in photography.

 

[Kirk Keyes]

The Golden Rule?

"Shoot unto others as you would have them shoot unto you."

 

[Ian Grant]

I consider "style" and "stale" to mean the same thing.

Then your no artist.

Style doesn't mean stale because boundaries move, and you evolve the style, but the broad concept might remain the same.

At this point you should go look at the work of John Davies, The Beckers, any member of the extended Weston family etc tec.

IOan

 

[Domenico Foschi]

Wow, DannL, short, concise, elegant and down to the point.

I agree.
Style is something that the Art market needs to box the artist and make it more marketable.
An artist who explores different "styles" is bound to make many collectors unhappy.
An artist who keeps forcefully his/her own "Look" will please the collectors, the gallerists and his/her own family by putting food on the table, but will make himself miserable.
Conclusion: Artists are art's worst enemies.

 

[Photo Engineer]

"This above all to thine own self be true and thus thou canst not be false unto any man."

PE

 

[Ian Grant]

Didn't realise you could speak proper English Ron. But I guess the Mees influence

But an apt staement.

Ian

 

[Photo Engineer]

I left out part of the quote though. "thus as the night shall follow the day thou" it should be, but I finally decided to pull out all of the stops. Just for you.

PE

 

[Ian Grant]

Ta, thanks Ron

After studying long ang and hard I wrote part of my Masters Degree about an internationally renowned landscape photographer. and realised he had't wavered from his early style, although the subject matter might changed, from rural landscaoes, through to industrial landscapes and to city-scapes. Thats over a period of 30+ years/

Ansell Adams and all the Weston's were the same (inc Kim) in many ways, work evolves.

Ian

 

[DannL]

Then your no artist.

Don't you mean to say I'm not your favorite artist

I hope I didn't derail your thread. I'll try harder next time.

 

[BradS]

I generally think of style as an innate quality of the artist.
You don't define your style anymore than you define the color of your eyes.

Your style just is...you cannot help it.

 

[Anscojohn]

"This above all to thine own self be true and thus thou cans't be false unto any man."

PE

****************

It's cans't NOT..... PE.

 

[Ian David]

Different people use the word "style" differently. But I tend to agree with BradS. I tend to think that over a long period of time, an artist's personal style develops all by itself without any conscious planning. It may be a subtle thing, but it is some sort of reflection of how that artist views the world, how he/she uses his materials, etc. If you try too hard to achieve or maintain a consistent style, there is a danger that your work starts to become contrived and stale.
I do agree with you Ian that not every photographer - or painter, or whatever - can call him/herself an artist. I think that is a judgment best left to others.

 

[Photo Engineer]

****************

It's cans't NOT..... PE.

I stand corrected, to quote someone.

But to be more precise, it is "canst not". The apostrostroph is not needed. That latter quote is from Jimmy Durante.

Ian didn't catch any of it either or he was being very polite, either of those being equally possible.

However, the sentiment is apt in this context. Be true to your standard, whatever it may be and your photos will reflect a certain "truth".

PE

 

[Christopher Walrath]

I have always thought a true creative soul put as much of themselves into their work as they could. And these are brave people. To bear themselves too such scrutiny, not knowing what they might be met with; applause or scorn.

As for myself, I photograph for myself. I do it to please myself. I try to place my vision into my work, whether it be through a landscape or a portrait or a photograph of some minutiae of detail. As with the magazine, I continually hone what I suppose others might consider style until I am left bare of exterior motivations and all that remains is my hope and vision. Little by little I get there. I may never arrive but the journey will undoubtedly continue to be an exhilerating one.

As to aesthetic style, I have truly been drawn to and identify with contrast. Not necessarily sharp-edged contrast, but including as complete a range of luminances as possible. As I have only been printing and processing for a year or two now, I was forced to gain as much control on camera as possible as my work was at the mercy of others once removed from behind the lens. And that quality persists today. Only now I am beginning to truly learn how to improve it through processing and printing. And I have to tell you, the printing is coming very easily for me. It has proven to be second nature after only a handful of sessions. I have no delusions of being a master. Nothing could be further from the truth. However, I can rapidly see it as a further tool for self-expression and I am using the hell out of it.

So, call it style, self-projection, creative growth, what have you. Each photographer (artist for that matter) has a style. It only takes a persistent soul to identify it and bravery to follow it wherever it may lead.

 

[wayne naughton]

Well, for starters I wouldn't be carrying a camera into your local whorehouse unless you want to have the crap beaten out of you. Style, for me is nothing more than part of the mechanical process. The whole nub of the process is the ability to create substance or content if you like. And you won't learn that in graduate school.

 

[Maris]

If your pictures come out the way they do because of what's in your head then you're an artist and that's your style.

If your pictures reflect what is in someone else's head then you are an illustrator and that's their style.

Good, bad, or indifferent qualities shadow both enterprises.

 

[removed account4]

if it is a road 10 rods wide, i pretty much keep to it.

 

[Paul Jenkin]

"Create your own visual style...let it be unique for yourself and yet identifiable for others"
(Orson Welles)

Style is something I've struggled (and, in my opinion, failed...) to achieve in my photography over the last 30+ years. And yet my friends, colleagues and acquaintances who've seen my photographs say they like my "style". There's no accounting for taste.

Having been to dozens of photographic exhibitions by some of the most eminent photographers, it's true to say, I feel, that they have their own style - insofar as it's often possible to attribute a photograph to them or to their "style". However, some photographers repeatedly use the same devices and visual tricks to give an impression of "style" when in fact they are simply mass-producing "cliches".

It's a fine balance to achieve to be "recognisable but still original". However, if I had to define "style" and differentiate it from "cliche'd", that's how I'd do it.

 

[WolfTales]

My two golden rules:

1. Learn from the best available. If nothing's available, there's always nature. That ain't a shabby place to start.

2. Try not to piss off the Big Guy upstairs too much.

I like PE's take on it too.

 

[Ian Grant]

Paul, I think personal style comes instinctively and is intuitive. The harder you try to make personal images the less they work.

I was at a workshop with Peter Goldfield & John Blakemore (around 1988/9) and a photographer showed his Portfolio, beautiful large format prints, but every image was in the style of a different well known photographer and no originality at all. Needless to say he was slated heavily.

Well, for starters I wouldn't be carrying a camera into your local whorehouse unless you want to have the crap beaten out of you.

Some excellent and well known photographs have been shot in whore-houses, there's a reconstruction of Brassai at work in a couple of scenes in Henry & June, and plenty published in Paris by Night & other books.

If your pictures come out the way they do because of what's in your head then you're an artist and that's your style.
If your pictures reflect what is in someone else's head then you are an illustrator and that's their style.
Good, bad, or indifferent qualities shadow both enterprises.

Thought that was well put Maris.

Ian

 

[benjiboy]

The Golden Rule?

"Shoot unto others as you would have them shoot unto you."

And do it first.

 

[Curt]

Every man's work is always a portrait of himself.
Ansel Adams, Carmel, California, 1979

 

[colrehogan]

Paul, I think personal style comes instinctively and is intuitive. The harder you try to make personal images the less they work.
Ian

Maybe this is why so many of us cannot define our own styles. I know I have struggled to "define" what my style is, yet have had others mention that they like my style.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

From my perspective, I always print an image to represent, as much as possible, what I felt and how I felt at the time of exposure. At the time of exposure starts a dream, and the dream is fulfilled when I have a print of it that I am happy with. I know WHAT I want/wanted to describe immediately, rarely do I know exactly HOW until I'm in the darkroom after some pondering.
Style = reflection of my inner being.

Now for style of prints - I really try hard to make series of images look cohesive; usually there are many images representing the same dream. If I ever want this amazingly expensive craft to pay for itself, I have to sell some images, and a hodge podge of randomly printed images just won't cut it, methinks. So I try to be cognizant of that fact also. I know, I'm selling out a little bit, but I still feel like I'm being true to my original intent. Sometimes, I admit, it's emotionally tolling to print in this manner, because I just want to go nuts with my materials and push boundaries and limits to what's possible and beyond. So it feels like a restriction sometimes to make prints have a cohesive look in series. I believe that represents the hard work and chore about photography that is part of any craft, hobby, or vocation. Kind of like doing laundry.