counter customizable free hit
About This Website

This blog is intended to showcase my pictures or those of other photographers who have moved beyond the pretty picture and for whom photography is more than entertainment - photography that aims at being true, not at being beautiful because what is true is most often beautiful..

>>>> Comments, commentary and lively discussions, re: my writings or any topic germane to the medium and its apparatus, are vigorously encouraged.

Search this site
Recent Topics
Journal Categories
Archives by Month
Subscribe
listed

Photography Directory by PhotoLinks

Powered by Squarespace
Login
« man & nature # 244 ~ yesterday's light | Main | ku # 628 ~ more autumn color »
Tuesday
Oct132009

civilized ku # 207 ~ see spot run

1044757-4426625-thumbnail.jpg
War Memorial ~ Bolton Landing, NYclick to embiggen
So I'm in the car the other day and I tune in to a local NPR variant which lands me in the middle of an interview with a Vermont photographer. The interviewer was, of course, gushing with praise for his wonderful pictures as well as asking some rather inane questions. It was a rather trying time for me, sitting in my car and screaming at the radio as I was doing - the photog was dispensing some of the worst picturing advice that I ever heard.

Such as - I like cliches. Cliches are good. If I see a clich-picture that I like, I go out and try to imitate it.

The rationale behind that little ditsy was that if a picture of a location that is made in a specific manner has been viewed (and imitated) ad infinitum, it means that it is very popular and therefore very profitable to whomever made it (the picture being imitated). So, get out there and imitate it.

Good f***ing grief.

But the one that got to me the most was his variation on the ever-popular simplify theme - he tells his students (academic? workshop?) to determine what the one and only one element that caught their attention in a scene is and then focus, to the exclusion of all other elements (obviously, as much as possible), on that single thing.

In other words, isolate the thing from its environment, from its very place in the world, from any connection it may have to the rest of the planet and life in general, so that the simpletons in the crowd can "get it".

No thinking required. No discernment. No ambiguity. No complexity.

Duh. See spot run.

Reader Comments (2)

Yeah, I hate hearing that advice, and I hear it a lot.

It's terrible advice as a way to produce a final picture.

And yet, for me, it is something I remember when I am trying to figure out a scene--for whatever reason, I need to make a bunch of pictures of a setting before I get to the point that I am making ones that interest me. I know if I just need to warm up, or I need to get the bad ones out of the system (and they are always at the top of the queue) or what.

So identifying what drew my eye and simplifying to the point that it is all I see is a great exercise for me, freeing me up to see the scene and get about the business of making the real pictures.

But so often what I like is not one thing--it's that thing there, and that one over there, and the way they relate to that thing way off to the side over there and there's this light and this color and.... Well, that exercise I described rarely works because what I am drawn to is an entire scene, not parts of it in isolation.

October 14, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterTommy Williams

Mark, I'm not sure what you are striving for with your criticism of other people's picturing styles.

Just as there are many possible photographic subjects (landscape, people, street, still) there are a number of styles. Some styles call for accurate colour, others don't - over-saturate, under-saturate, sepia, B&W. Some styles call for simplicity (right down to being an abstract), others don't. Some styles call for stylised perfection (e.g postcards), others don't (e.g street).

I wonder if a photographer's style (dominant style) is based on their exposure to other people's imagines?

Most new photographers would be influenced by advertising images which tend to have simpler compositions, enhanced colour, photoshopped contrivances. As the photographer becomes more experienced, some might realise there's a "real" world out there with host of picturing possibilities, right "out of the box".

I believe your blog does a great job of raising a photographer's awareness to the wonderful photographic opportunities in the real world. Imperfections & messy details are part of the style.

I'd be interested on your thoughts on "classic" B&W street photography. Most people - including new photographers - would recognise & appreciate it's Real World credentials. What about you?

If I had a gripe with the photographer on the radio (I didn't hear the programme) it would be if he stated that "simple, cliched" photography is the only style in town worth pursuing.

October 14, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterSven W

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>