civilized ku # 2826 / diptych (selection) # 7 ~ because the individual is different

stonework / St. Joseph's Oratory ~ Montreal, Quebec, CA • click to embiggen
fence and leaves ~ Plattsburgh, NY • click to embiggenI am in total agreement with Harry Callahan's notion of:

The photographs that excite me are photographs that say something in a new manner; not for the sake of being different, but ones that are different because the individual is different and the individual expresses himself. I realize that we all do express ourselves, but those who express that which is always being done are those whose thinking is almost in every way in accord with everyone else. Expression on this basis has become dull to those who wish to think for themselves. ~ Harry Callahan

In my experience, the art - photography, painting / illustration, sculpture, film, literature, et al - that excites me is that which is created by those who think for themselves and whose thinking is, in many ways, NOT in accord with everyone else. Consequently, many years ago, I lost any and all interest in art, especially photography, which is little more than an imitative rehash / expression of that which came before. That type of expression is, indeed for me and many others, dull, dull, dull.

Robert Adams most definitely had it right when he wrote that The failure of classicism .... is the cliché, the ten thousandth camera-club imitation of a picture by Ansel Adams. That type of picture cliché (and many others) are the result of, plain and simple, people making pictures without thinking for themselves. All they seem to be capable of is, as Brooks Jensen wrote, making pictures of "what they have been told is a good picture", aka: thinking in accord with everyone else, rather than "photographing what they see", aka: thinking / seeing for themselves.

And, FYI, much in line with Adams' ten-thousandth camera-club imitation cliché, it was Brooks Jensen who wrote:

We are fast approaching critical mass on photographs of nudes on a sand dune, sand dunes with no nudes, Yosemite, weathered barns, the church at Taos, New Mexico, lacy waterfalls, fields of cut hay in the afternoon sun, abandoned houses, crashing waves, sunsets in color, and reflected peaks in a mountain lake.

In any event and all of that written, much has been thought / written / talked about the notion of creativity, not just in the arts but in any human endeavor. Many believe one either has it or one doesn't, what many refer to as a gift or a god-given ability. Others believe if you work hard enough at developing it, it will come. In my particular case, I have always come down on the side of the former rather than the latter but ...

... in either case, thinking for yourself is a critical component of creativity. In fact, I would venture the opinion that creativity and thinking for yourself are essentially synonymous concepts or, at the very least, so intertwined as to be nearly inseparable.

Hence, even if you are gifted with creativity, you still need to think for yourself in order to effectively channel and use your gift. If you are not so gifted, thinking for yourself, aka: thinking outside of the box, is about the only way I know of to develop and foster a reasonable and functionable facsimile of the so-called gift of creativity.

So, when I have been asked for advise regarding developing one's own personal vision, picture making wise, my response has been to suggest that thinking for one's self is a form of creativity which inexorably leads to a form of personal vision. Following the crowd will lead one only to imitation, which is, essentially, the death of one's imagination.

Think (for yourself) about it.