Henry Holmes Smith on routine images

I think it's fair to say that being original is not necessarily a high priority for most photographers. That being said, the more you "stretch out", the more you may find that different approachs to your mountain lake/reflection shot will produce something you wanted viewers to see compared to what was your first and most obvious composition. There are no boring subjects, only quick and thoughtless snaps of them.

I think we need to make the distinction between routine and boring: they are

not the same. My original question dealt with the routine, meaning regular.

This classification isn't meant to asign a value to those images. If one applies

this definition to Mr Smith's statement you will find no judgement as to the

value of these kinds of images. The routine image is one which follows the

prescribed procedure. Furthermore, loser's game is imo a game which no

one wins..literaly, because routine images deprive everyone of a desire to

move forward and explore the possibilities of what might be.

 

I fully understand the value of routine images to people. I won't go into the

psychology behind the phenomenon . I think it is straightforward enough for

our purposes here. I will, however, question something William said regarding

'personal taste'. What one likes or dislikes is not the issue. Once you talk of

personal bias you assign an inherant value that only you or likeminded

individuals agree to. I don't believe that has anything to do with Mr. Smith's

statement. I think he is speaking more broadly about successive images

which routinely illustrate the same subject matter in the same way. It is as

simple and complex as that.

 

Sally

I stand corrected. Actually I sit corrected. I am seated at my computer.

 

"What one likes or dislikes is not the issue."

 

What I like is the only issue that interests me. My time, my taste. As the poet didnt say: your mileage may differ.

Okay William perhaps I should have said...what one likes or dislikes is not the

issue here.....'cause anyone who could write Extraction of Joy :

 

falling at the base of the tree

my camera hammers at my ribs

it hates me now

I have not fed it enough light

have not rolled the chemically hungry

grey strip of film

through its stomach

it hates me now ......

 

....is undoubtedly capable of making the distinction. I dig your poetry. I just

don't buy your argument.

 

Sally

Thanks for the feedback. The quote is from the fourth (last) poem on this page "photo verse" - <a href="http://www.bluetyger.ca/issue6/photoverse.htm">Extraction of Joy and 3 other poems</a>

What the **** is so bad about "routine" photos anyway? My portfolio is full of them, and I don't have a problem with that - if they are all 4/4 photos, then so be it... As Steve Swinehart said above, <i>"if you feel confined or constrained by being accepted, or making acceptable photographs, then I'd say do the opposite. Make the photos that you want to see - don't pay any attention to what other people like."</i> - Good advice that, even for me! (I'm not sure if I follow his advice, but at least I do like my own photos).

<p>

So, why are we having this conversation? If we should follow Steve's advice, then this conversation is a waste of time. Otherwise, we should instead be concentrating on pleasing the High Table raters of this site, and then we can all just start churning out a "top page" version of routine photographs instead (where every photo that any of us upload looks like it belongs on the top page - a beautiful, homogenous site!!).

<p>

On a side note, is it <i>so</i> bad to not be able to name-drop the great masters?? If we are ever to take that next step to create our own style, surely studying the techniques of the masters is not the right path: we'll just end up emulating their work. Better to be a clone by accident than a clone by design...

Neil, it's not about "name dropping the great masters", it's about choosing

which great masters you wish to learn from. When you say," surely studying

the techniques of the masters is not the right path: we'll just end up emulating

their work" you are just plain wrong. In the long tradition of art, young artists

studied the masters before them. Even innovators like Picasso knew well of

the work and techniques of those before him. Once you master those

techniques you are free to do whatever you like. Who would you rather learn

from someone who never mastered the craft?

 

www.kosoff.com

Yeah, B Kosoff, we must all learn from the masters,and should not be happy of creating something lesser or even something equal than what they made but should be happy creating something different(something of our own) than they did.

I looked at your landscapes and they look great in being perfectly balanced in the technical aproach( I could only imagine how the real prints would look like and couldn't do it better) but somehow lack of power when I compare them(and I must compare them because they clearly are a reference to that sort of photographs) to say, Edward Westons landscapes, a photographer who I suspect you greatly admire(I certainly do) because your type of landscapes fall somehow in the same line as Weston's type of landscapes. But one can have the feeling : been there, saw that, it's been done before(and more intense) when looking at such photographs because the lack of different vision used by the photographer.I'm not saying you don't have the vision or the tools to show that vision but I'm saying that I see your landscapes as just another great example of technical wizardry and how it's been done before, and that could be interpreted as another routine...

I don't claim myself to be a technical talented photographer , hell no!, there are the advertising photographers for example with all their technical practical knowledge who would kick the butter out of me, but I do understand photography as a form of expression and how it's been used by the 'masters'(and a lot of myth comes into this ) and sometimes I feel like I want to copy the great ones, just to 'be like them' but then I remember that I only have to be whatever I choose to be,and that's just plain me.

I think the key of not beïng routine is that photographers/and all who wish to express themselfes must learn and see and than learn how to forget what they have learned and saw before somehow, someway( I'm still working on that one, and damn it's hard).

'Cause sometimes even achieved ignorance is bliss...

Phylo, I agree with you completely! May I express my own views on this? First, we must learn <i>how</i> to take photographs (ie. we must learn <i>how</i> to use our equipment: camera + lens(es) etc). Next, we must practice by taking lots & lots of photographs - these can either be the routine photos we often see, or they may also be original; it doesn't matter as long as we're practicing - this develops our ability to <i>see</i> what's in front of us. Only then, when we know all about <i>using</i> the equipment and <i>seeing</i> what's there to photograph, can we hope to move on to our own style.<br>

If we 'learnt' from the masters while we were developing our skills, this is fine, but then we need to 'unlearn' before we can avoid becoming a clone...

Phylo, my work is nothing like Edward Weston's with the exception that we

both have images from Death Valley. Clearly you do not know enough about

his work or mine. Maybe it's hard to tell from my website but my work is

pictorial, it's diffused and more painting or illustration like than photographic,

Weston's is from the F64 Group way of thinking which is anti pictorialism. As

for "technical wizardry", you must really mean technical competence, which is

merely a basic requirement for any serious artist. Only those who lack

technical competence would consider such competence to be wizardry.

 

Taking lots of photographs, without having a basic reference library in your

head of what is possible with a camera, is a waste of film. You can learn about

exposure and some basic technical issues, but you won't learn what you can

actually do with a camera. Style is usually just a consistent pattern in your

work, people shoot what interests them. and they shoot it in a certain way

because either it's the only way their technical limits allow them, or it's just that

they like to view something in a a certain way.

 

Nearly every reknowned artist of the last 500 years studied the works of the

artists before them. I'm curious Neil and Phylo, where can I see samples of

your work? Are you published? Exhibited? Surely you must be very

successful as photographers to steadfastly promote a methodology that goes

against nearly all of art history and art education. I'm sure your work must be

revolutionary.

 

The only people who become "clones" of established artists after studying

them, are those who lack any creativity.

B Kosoff, I have not attacked your work as yet... I have agreed with Phylo Dayrin's general comments so far, but am not affiliated with him/her in any way, and would not presume to join him/her in attacking another person's work. My appologies if I gave you this impression! I have not been exhibited (but does this make my views invalid? I'm told over and over again that critics needn't have portfolios, so surely I don't need to be wrold-renowned to write my opinion here?). However, I do have some works on this site - just click on my name and feel free to browse them (although your comment does seem to be somewhat sarcastic, so you've probably already looked, I guess). By the way, any constructive comments and/or suggestions will be welcome.

<p>

One other thing: the fact that you have been exhibited and (presumably) sell your work doesn't prove your point over ours. Perhaps the buying public prefers what it has become used to, and (maybe) the more commercially successful photographers are also the more 'clone-like' - I wouldn't know, I'm simply speculating. Don't react emotionally; give me a considered reply...

OK, I can only speak about my own work, but speaking of others work in a critiqual way doesn't mean that I attack it in a personal way, it only means that I view it in relationship to where I want my photography to go...

 

B Kosoff, you where curious where you could see samples of my work, well I took the time to upload 15 of my photographs in my portfolio so you can view them anytime now.I think by making these photographs that I have reached a certain technical 'competence', 'wizardry', to express a certain vision and feel that I must move on now to a higher level in order to avoid the routine,and reach the full potential of photography as a medium of personal expression. I'm not yet confinced with my photography as it is right now 'cause it could be and should be so much more intense. I want to break with the rules, or maybe not break with them but bend them so that they become my own instead of just following them like a handbook, like many photographers do.

 

"I was lucky because I never went to photography school and I didn't learn the photography rules. And in not learning the rules I was free. I always say, you're either defined by the medium or you redefine the medium in terms of your needs." Duane Michals

 

I want to be free too.

Neil, I don't feel that my work has been attacked, Phylo has a right to his

opinions, even if they're wrong. I know the reaction my work gets, from both

the public, curators and collectors and a rare critical comment from someone

in a newsgroup registers as an infrequent anomaly. His comments regarding

my work relating to Weston's illustrates his lack of education in this field. But it

also points out that many photo hobbyists think that they have the sure fire

answers to photography and it's processes without having any real

experience to support their view, it's all conjecture and speculation. The bad

part of that is that the more novice photographers might latch onto this

misinformation and be misled. That is why it is critical for people attempting to

really learn photography to seek the advice of those who have succeeded in

it, both artistically and commercially. I had the good fortune to have assisted

many well regarded photographers, some of whom are world reknowned.

That, serious study and a commitment to shooting are by far the best way to

learn. To not learn from the works of the past is just stupid. Should a rocket

scientist ignore, or never have studied the work of Sir Issac Newton?

 

I have not come by my views without many years of training, education and

professional experience as a photographer. I also taught photography and

am well aware of the process, and that process includes studying the works

done before. Any good art school requires art history classes. As for my

being exhibited, I am , all the time. And I do sell my work, since I closed my

studio in NYC to pursue my personal work, print sales have been my sole

income. My work is available exclusively through brick and mortar galleries

and is sold to the public, collectors and institutions.

 

When you write," the fact that you have been exhibited and (presumably) sell

your work doesn't prove your point over ours" Actually it does prove that I

have followed a method that has brought me success as a photographer, if

you have had similar success then maybe your philosophy might show some

merit. But to pontificate a methodology that hasn't even worked for you just

seems more ego driven than reality based.

Well, I don't sell my work. I never have sold my work, and I probably won't in the future. You have found your niche market; for financial reasons, you would be foolish to turn your back on it - I don't expect you to. However, I don't think that you can judge art only on its selling power. For any given work, if it is by an 'unknown' artist it will likely not reach the price of the same work credited to a famous name. Has attaching a famous name to the work suddenly made it better? Or is it more sought after because of its higher resale value perhaps? Once again, I agree with Phylo: <i>"I want to break with the rules, or maybe not break with them but bend them so that they become my own instead of just following them like a handbook, like many photographers do."</i> We learn the rules so that we can break them. In photography (and probably most visual art) a lot of the rules can be learnt through personal observation.

<p>

That's why I'm visiting this site, and perhaps it is why Phylo is too. It's not that I refuse to 'learn from others' but rather that, on this site at least, we can see photographs from many different people - I just study the ones I like the best and maybe they get incorporated into my work. I don't want the style of others to overwhelm me, so I do not study the masters as an apprentice would. Photography is not Rocket Science! It may be difficult for you to believe when you look at my work, but I am very happy with it. I'm vain enough to want to be admired, but if no-one else likes my work then I can live with that too. It wouldn't change my style too much because I'm not seeking to sell my work. If your work stopped selling, what would you do? Would you re-invent yourself? Often, completely original work won't sell at all, mainly because it's 'before its time' (I don't class my own work in this way, just so you know).

<p>

Finally, this is the Philosophy of Photography forum: surely, any of us can voice our opinion here, not only the commercially successful ones? Obviously, these forums are simply a collection of opinions, not facts. Photography is an art (at least in terms of style) - art courses may well teach formal history, but art is simply self-expression. As long as the photographer can develop a style which pleases them, this is all that matters (as far as art goes). If we want to sell our work, then we have 2 options: either find a group of people who like our style enough to pay us for our work, or change our style to suit our customers. B, which are you?

Neil where did i say judge art by it's selling power? I used the word "success"

and for me success includes just as importantly doing work of high merit. I

didn't close my studio in Manhattan after 25 years of shooting ads for the

largest corporations in the world to pursue more money by doing my personal

work. And regarding whether i change my work to suit my "customers", if I

wanted to do work that reflected someone else's needs I'd have stayed an

advertising photog. I shoot for myself, I shoot images I want to see. I am just

very fortunate that the work that interests me, seems to interest many others.

You wouldn't believe the emails I get almost daily from all over the world.

 

Does the fact that my work is sold in galleries all across the country and

abroad mean that i am only a commercial success? Are you more of an

artistic success than I am because your work does not get exhibited in

galleries?

 

 

I have to agree with you when you say,"We learn the rules so that we can

break them." however the way you learn the rules is by seeing the application

of the rules in other people's work, most notably the masters, and also seeing

where the masters choose to break them. It's best to learn from people who

know what they're doing and what they're talking about.

B Kosoff said :

 

"Phylo has a right to his opinions, even if they're wrong"

 

If you really believe that I have the right(and therefore equal to yours) to my opinions you should have said "even if they're not mine" instead of "even if they're wrong"

 

"His comments regarding my work relating to Westons illustrates his lack of education in this field. But it also points out that many photohobbyists think that they have the sure fine answers to photography..."

 

It illustrates that I like to compare the work of others/my own to the work of photographers who made their mark, who's work can't be looked over when viewing photographs in the same manner (in this case landscapes,that's why I brought up Weston,because I like his work and because he's known for his landscapes).I ask myself does this photographer (or myself) has something new to ad instead of following the tradition,instead of following the easy way...

I am not a 'photohobbyist', I feel good with photography but I don't do it to relax myself or because it's fun,it's not a hobby ,I do it because I feel that I have something to say that's worth saying,I'm still searching for my voice though, regardless if I make money with it or not.

 

"Actually it does prove that I have followed a method that has been brought me succes as a photographer"

 

Following a method in order to achieve succes is clearly justified in todays world where either you eat or be eaten but as a photographer who's sole concern is expression and bringing out the personal message,the way I look at this world, I 'm not interested in 'following a method in order to achieve succes' so that argument goes up in smoke for me.

Again Duane Michals who's own experience is a good example in how not beïng routine,and I prefer his way instead of the saver,'easier' way to follow :

 

"If I was concerned about beïng accepted,I would have been doing Ansel Adams look-a-likes,because that was easely accepted.Everything I did was never accepted...but luckily for me,my interest in the subject took me to that point that I wasn't wounded by that and eventually, people came around to me."

 

I like this viewpoint and I want to use it on my own photography as well, wich is right now, a little bit to 'clean' I feel,I don't know but there's just something that has to change...and I wont care about being accepted or not 'cause I will try hard not to care, 'cause the road that way much more fueled with meaning.

So yes I agree with what Henry Holmes said about too much routine, I agree with it looking at my own work and others, it all has to change at some point...

It's not 'the truth' but just another viewpoint, a way of looking at things and photography.

Come on B, you have accused me of being an egotist: <i>"But to pontificate a methodology that hasn't even worked for you just seems more ego driven than reality based."</i> Well maybe I am at that, but it seems that I'm not alone:<br>

<i>"Does the fact that my work is sold in galleries all across the country and abroad mean that i am only a commercial success?"<br>

"I didn't close my studio in Manhattan after 25 years of shooting ads for the largest corporations in the world to pursue more money by doing my personal work."<br>

"You wouldn't believe the emails I get almost daily from all over the world."</i><br>

<p>

and...

<p>

<i>"Are you more of an artistic success than I am because your work does not get exhibited in galleries?"</i> I have never stated either that I am an artistic success at all, and certainly not that I am more of an artistic success than you are for what<i>ever</i> reason! Firstly, I know nothing about your work; and secondly, it is not for me to judge my own level of artistic success - this is for others to do. I only said that I personally was quite content with what I myself produce.

<p>

My intention was never to get involved in a personal slanging match, but I feel that's what has happened here. Let's just call it a day shall we? You win. Everyone, my suggestion in my original post in this thread has been shown to be invalid. However, I can recommend B Kosoff as an authority - please defer to him...

Phylo;

 

If you believe the earth is flat you have a right to that. I'd still think you were

wrong.

 

You bring up Duane Michals. Have you ever called Duane Michals and

asked his advice on your work or on photography? I have. I've met with him

one on one specifically to talk about his views on photography, and to get his

advice on my work. I did this with many notable photographers. These

discussions are part of where my own philosophies about photography were

created.

 

 

Neil:

 

Saying that you might be doing something that is ego driven is not calling you

an egotist.

 

As you seemed to infer that my reasons for photography were based on the

financial aspects, and that my work was merely commercially successful I felt

had a right to give you additional information about me to give you a better

understanding of where I come from and what experience has formed my

views.

Well. I think this discussion has created another vein worth investigating .

Given none of us live within a vacuum to what degree do we allow our

thoughts and subsequently our work to be invaded by outside influence? Do

we welcome such input or does it seep into our subconscious? If we allow the

flow of ideas are we then tainted by them or enriched by them? If we choose

not to look for examples are we somehow less influenced? I think not. The

human condition, in my opinion ,is not wired to exclude the constant

bombardment of visual stimuli forced upon it daily. Are we even able to filter

out imformation that we consider harmful? Again... I don't think so. So how is

it that we are able to assign a value to information, accessing what is of value

to us and repressing what isn't? And given that once foreign ideas are now a

part of our being are we really able to sucessfully repress anything?

 

Sally

Sally, I believe that we cannot exclude the works of others (photographic or artistic, for example) from our conciousness, and then - once we have 'noticed' them - we cannot but be influenced by them to some degree. This is why I *personally* try not to seek out too much external influence; I am sure I get more than enough from what I see here on PN. I think that it becomes too easy to become swamped by outside influences, and this is likely to supress our 'inner artist'. Note that I am not saying that my 'inner artist' is better, or more pure, or more important, or even more original, than anyone else around the place... rather, I just think that becoming swamped by outside influences will increase the chances of becoming a clone of what's already there. Perhaps I already am a clone myself - outside influences will probably effect all of us more than we realise! How ever mistaken I am, I just want to *try* to produce some original work - whether it is considered good or not is another question!!

Sally, that's a very interesting look on things,thank you for sharing it, and I see some truth in it 'cause lately I've been felt overloaded with different kind of visions in photography and how these visions result in different kind of pictures. The internet is great in collecting such information but sometimes it can make you think too much, at a point that you don't have any clear reference anymore. I have a lot of photography books of a lot of different photographers and I like looking at them thinking how I could gain some usefull information to reflect on my own photography but sometimes it gets just to much and I think : just forget about all of it and stop thinking and start doing what you really feel worth doing instead of thinking how everything you do will be judged in relationship to what you already known. For people who truly want to express themselfes that's the hardest thing to do I believe, to set themselfes free to a point where they can't go any further.It's knowing that 'the answer', any answer is just another illussion and that searching for it in vain isn't very constructive and lets you wonder in circles...I wouldn't know how to express it otherwise.

It's impossible not to be influenced by outside sources. We are bombarded

with imagery. What is important is in what you choose to have influence you.

There are images that have stood out for 500 years and have influenced art

for centuries, and images that are seen for 30 seconds and have little or no

value long term. You pick and choose what influences to carry with you.The

idea of cutting yourself off from imagery in some misguided belief that it will

cause you to be more original is ludicrous.

 

All art is derivative, just as language is. In order for people to understand

what you are communicating with your art, you have to speak a common art

language with them. Then again there is art that does not communicate or

express what the artist wants to say, and that is the type of art that is so

abstract that it relies solely on the differing interpretations of each member of

it's audience. I don't consider such art to be art, I think it's a Rorshak test,

because for me art is about expression and communicating. And if you are

speaking to your audience in a way in which they can not understand your

actual meaning, then you are not communicating or expressing yourself. If

the audience has to come up with their own interpretations, it's they who are

expressing themselves, and not the artist.

 

Does a writer need to create a new language in order to be original? When a

writer writes a ficitional story, but uses realistic common occurences for the

plot, is he not being original? It's the same with photography. A good artist

picks and chooses through their lifetime of seen images and influences and

creates their own original work by their choices of ingredients.

Art critics and academics in industrialized affluent societies have had an ever growing fascination with novelty for the last 100 years or so. Chronologically, it seems to coincide with the industrialization and increasing affluence itself. Perhaps the urge to discover the next new thing pervades all corners of the culture.

 

There was a time in art history and art education where "better routine images" was a winner's game. Not now. Artists today must "find their own voice" if they stand any chance of recognition. Otherwise, their work is old hat. Unique is good. Routine is bad.

 

Yet, in music, although there is plenty of room for finding new horizons in all genre, we still celebrate classic compostions and are keen to notice new interpretations. Why not so in visual art? It seems fickle at best.

 

We should appreciate those who blaze new trails in artistic expression but to condemn those who choose to refine or merely explore familiar (routine?) compositions might be seen as arrogant. It says a lot about the person making the claim but says little about Art.

 

Life as we know it is a successful blend of familiar and new. Too much of either ruins the brew.

Ansel Adams once said "Any photographer who has not taken 10,000 bad pictures for every good one is not a good photographer".

 

Now that isn't exact. My memory is getting old along with me, but you get the idea of what he was saying. Every photographer is going to have a lot of trite, routine stuff in their portfolio, and as they increase their experience, their ratio of poor to good goes down. But still, there is going to be a lot of trash in any portfolio.

 

Ron Mowrey

A corrollary I believe was attributed to Adams was "people don't judge you by the pictures

you take; they judge you by the picture you show them."

 

on the matter of "routine photographs", sometimes they can be quite interesting--Bernd

and Hilla Becher have made a career out of the routine.