civilized ku # 410 ~ surprise
Friday, March 5, 2010 at 10:48AM 
toilet, tile, & "stains" ~ Montreal, CA. • click to embiggenIt has come to my attention that a certain picture making friend of mine has begun to whine about or, perhaps more accurately, lament the homogeneous state of the world - a sameness to all things that has enveloped the planet like a deadening blanket.
Included in this homogeneous-osity is the state of they-all-look-alike pictures as found on certain websites. What this picture maker longs for - at least as it applies to shedding his personal homogeneous doldrums, picture viewing wise - is to be surprised. The implication behind that desire seems to be that picture makers should stop what they're doing now and get out there and do something different.
For the average "serious" amateur, that advice is most often very well received - they are constantly driven by trying their best to make their next "greatest hit" picture. A stand alone image that by its technical virtuosity and/or its idyllic/iconic referent hits you eye like a big pizza pie. Now, that'sa picture making amore.
But my question is this - why is it that "serious" amateur picture makers have little or no appreciation for bodies of work - work that evidences a protracted exploration of a thoughtful and cohesive vision? You know, like ... say, those engaged in the other visual arts.
Has anyone ever viewed the work of a painter who has churned out one different style of painting after another? Each one different from the last? Bouncing from realism to impressionism to abstract to Renaissance classic to postmodern .... ?
All in the name of satisfying the viewer's urge to be surprised?
Reader Comments (5)
I was waiting for this post. My wife and I enjoy different things in our little amateur world. Wednesday we were at the Saratoga Battle field doing some outdoor shooting and Thursday afternoon the back streets between Menands and Albany NY.
The city images are everywhere, I will be sharing many of these in the coming weeks.
Being different.
This same thought has crossed my mind recently, after reading a short series of photography articles on "What is Art?" and reflecting on my own humble efforts.
IMO, the short answer to that question is "Art is the better stuff produced by artists". My proposal is that one characteristic of an artist is some-one who creates "bodies of work", rather than "one offs".
A body of work allows the artist to explore a single topic, to help them resolve their own thoughts / feelings on that topic. Also, by staying with one topic and trying to express it as best they can, the artist is more likely to develop + refine their own personal style (in that medium).
The non-artist (e.g serious amateur) is not "using" photography to resolve a mind / heart in turmoil - it's simply a means to capture a visual moment. A picture that receives a "wow" is their yardstick of success (and why wouldn't it be?).
Why is this situation prevalent in photography? Because it's easy for an inexperienced person to pick up a camera and take a photo. It's much harder for an inexperienced person to pick up a chisel and carve a sculpture.
Following on from the above point, a person generally needs to get some formal training in the other visual arts to make a start. By doing so they get to see the recognised works of Art in that field. They might also get to rub shoulders with people who have a genuine artistic bent.
I suspect many amateur photographers exist in a "photographic vacuum" and have little idea of the culture within the photographic world.
Reading the better photography blogs on the 'net has been an eye-opener (pun intended) for me.
Like Don, I was "waiting for this". Some day you'll "surprise" me my friend, but not today.
And, as usual, you've managed to be condescending. Although the image of the toilet doesn't exactly put you in the "bodies of work" Artistic community, does it. Nor did it "surprise" me. I pretty much got what I expected - anyone who is tired of seeing the same infinitesimally small variations on the same old theme day after day is labelled an "average serious amateur". Not to be confused with Artists who create "a protracted exploration of a thoughtful and cohesive vision". Whatever that means.
Anyway, what makes you think I was only referring to "stand alone" images? I was more referring to exactly what you're trying to elevate (those "Artistic" bodies of work).
I really don't care if someone takes a million pictures of dead leaves, grass, twigs, snow on the street or the neighbor's porch. Do whatever makes you happy. But please, please show me something that's got some shred of nuance to it.
It is, after all, pretty much the same argument you've made about the photographer you refer to as "Saint Ansel".
when I get back from Rochester I'll have a comment or two to make
Looks like the Ritz-Carlton.