civilized ku # 2079-80 / food ~ a loose canon vs. focused
Thursday, February 16, 2012 at 08:57AM 
Sign post at Macs ~ Keeseville, NY - in the Adirondack Park • click to embiggen
Carrot on plate ~ Au Sable Forks, NY - in the Adirondack Park • click to embiggen
Red tangle ~ Au Sable Point / Peru, NY - in the Adirondack Park • click to embiggenWithout a doubt, the canonical vernacular of the medium of photography is extremely diverse. One could even say that it is indeed, as a canon, a very loose one at that.
Within the medium's very wide-ranging boundaries of related-to-the-real images made with a mechanical device on a light sensitive surface, there is plenty of room for creative improvisation and tomfoolery. It is no stretch at all to state that, with a mechanical device at the ready and the world at large (and everything in it) at hand, if one can imagine it, picture-wise, one can create it. However ......
.... it never ceases to amaze me how many picture makers run into a dead end / a wall / a what-to-picture brain lock. One might think that, with the world and everything in it as one's picture making oyster, there would be an endless array of picturing opportunities. More than enough to fill up a life time of picturing, no matter how long that life might be.
Unfortunately, when it comes to making meaningful / good pictures or breaking out of a what-to-picture funk, one of the most oft heard / read dictates of the medium's canon - to concentrate / focus on a referent which interests one most - might just be the problem. Setting aside the fact that a whole lot of people (to include a whole lot of picture makers) are only interested in themselves, there are a fair number of people / picture makers who have no real passionate interest in their lives which can serve as the fuel for a blazing fire.
Add to that fact, there is a danger inherent in picking a referent one cares about and then falling into the trap of working to that particular genre's dictates and mores (as defined by the "purist" gurus of any particular genre). What one could end up making are pictures that one has been told are good pictures rather than actual good pictures.
In my experience, it seems quite clear to me, from my viewing of and "studying" the pictures of many of the medium's Greats - as well as the near Greats, potentially Greats, never-to-be-discovered Greats, and garden variety Greats, the one simple characteristic they all share, picture making wise, is their passion for making pictures. Not necessarily a passion for making a particular kind / genre of pictures, just a plain and simple passion for making pictures.
IMO, that passion is the stuff from which good pictures are made. Picture making wise, the fuel that feeds the fire. The obsession which drives the mind and soul.
And armed / driven by that passion, one is free to make pictures of not only what one wants to picture (unconfined by genre, with the world and everything in it as one's picture making oyster) but also, perhaps more importantly, make those pictures in a manner dictated by how one wants to make them, not how one is told to make them.
IMO, that's the recipe for making good pictures.
Reader Comments (2)
All very good points.
I'll also add that I've committed to paying more attention to the little voice inside my head; the one that says "hey, this looks good - take a shot". Later, when I review the images from the camera, I try to stay in the subconsious zone to pick the keepers. It's only when I get to editing that I have to be very conscious of what I'm doing.
"What one could end up making are pictures that one has been told are good pictures rather than actual good pictures."
That was a trap I fell into - and a very easy pitfall to get into when you're looking for validation rather than truth. For me it's been a learning experience to trust my own instincts and pay attention to what I'm drawn to rather than what I think I should be drawn too.