What are your influences?

Thomas, "it is my observation that those who are not artists in any sense of the word are the more likely to have a problem with the words art and artist".

Keith wrote<p>

 

<i>Thomas, "it is my observation that those who are not artists in any sense of the word are the more likely to have a problem with the words art and artist".</i><p>

 

Okay, you have trouble with the sense of the word but that's no reason to put yourself down.<p>

Thomas, I can understand and accept that you don't define the word "artist" in the same way as I do, but please enlighten me, how am I putting myself down?

Just a quick aside: <i>parse</i> and <i>define</i> do

<b>not</b> have the same meaning and should not be used

interchangeably. I only mention it because of the irony involved.

Mike, I thought perhaps Thomas was accusing me of arsing around with words but kept hitting the <b>p</b> key in error.

Music. Off the top of my head: The Jim Yoshii Pile-up, Red Stars Theory, Calla, Portastatic...probably other stuff too.

 

 

Family.

 

i snap out of creativity blocks by turning on music, driving to a place I've photographed before, and forcing myself to find something new that i've never seen before.

Mike wrote<p>

 

<i>Just a quick aside: parse and define do not have the same meaning and should not be used interchangeably. I only mention it because of the irony involved.</i><p>

 

The terms, by me, are not being used interchangably. What is happening is someone, not myself, is parsing the definition of "artist" to serve their personal purpose. The term "parse" is being used by it's dictionary meaning; to break a phrase, definition or sentence up into it's smaller component part as in the phrase "parsing of words.".<p>

 

<a href="http://www.pcwebopedia.com/TERM/P/parse.htm">Definition of "Parse".</a><p>

 

When one, not referring to you Mike, intentionally parses a definition for personal gain and leaves the whole or completeness of a definition out of the statement, then context is purposefully being left out for the singular purpose of convenience to support their point of view. I will reserve comment on what I think about this sort of behavior. :)<p>

" An artist is someone who employs creative talent to produce works of art"<p> A definition that can apply to anybody on earth, as appreciation of art and talent are extremely subjective and can lead to never-ending discussion ... like this one precisely. I find some people working in finance, active in politics, living life a certain way, plain 'artist'... I also find some people putting 'artist' on the top of their resume or in the tax payer declaration just full of plain air

Life. 99% life. 1% music :)...okay, more like 90% life and 10% music (but I was a professional musician, so wha'dya expect ;)). I think the same influences that created my music are the main inflences in my photography. Whatever creates emotional stirrings (somewhat mystical in all honesty...I do occasionally think about it, but never quite figure it out...and that is fine with me).

 

Basically, I'll shoot anything I find a connection to. Nudes, abandoned buildings, flowers...sometimes I DO stage still life shots to express an idea (and on rare occasions, someone understands them).

 

I don't experience creativity blocks in photography. I used to in music. I DO experience a week or two where I just don't feel like shooting, but if I had something scheduled, there is never a creativity block (maybe because I have so much to learn and so far to go to get where I wanna be :D).

Jeez, the quibbling here about semantics and dictionary definitions is funny. Strange that people get so wrapped around the details that they miss the entire picture. Language is probably one of the reasons I take pictures. As one who speaks several languages, envariably the idea I want to express to the person with whom I'm talking is best expressed in a language other than the one we have in common (good 'ole Murphy and his Laws).

 

In my experience, most artists don't spend a whole lot of time trying to define what they are and what they do (interesting mind candy, at best). However, the initial question of thinking about one's influences...THAT is worth a whole lotta beach sittin' :).

When one considers influences, what they're really saying to me is, whom have you allowed to contaminate your view of life.

 

Many decry my efforts but my efforts represent my views on life and how I see things. My images don't represent the eyes or mind of another individual. When you view my images, you see images that are made locally, not images from some far off exotic land of foreign familiarity which required the payment of thousands of dollars to visit. I don't have any outside influences with one singular exception as I've always taken my own counsel. The point, if you want original thinking, you're gonna find it by looking inside yourself, not by looking to others for the answers. If you want to get past a block, you're gonna have to learn be your own crutch:)

 

Is it such a novel stretch of the imagination to expect one to look inside one's self for both guidance and inspiration?

"Look deep inside; if it�s there this is where it is. The fleeting images of sleep, nightmares, dreams and daydreams, the unresolved thought and memory half forgotten, these are the clues: pay attention to them."

Painting has become more of an influence in my work, ever since I started experimenting with digital editors and their associated special effects filters. Painters have the freedom of deemphasizing an area of an image by making the area out of focus or by reducing the area's level of detail so to produce results that compositionally work very well, but would seem totally unnatural in a "straight" photograph. The best example of this influence in my own work is

in the image <A href="http://www.photo.net/photo/2287230">Mother and Son</a>

Thomas, you are assigning an idiosyncratic definition to the term

"parse" (note that your usage is not supported by the link you

provide). The irony just keeps piling up--you insist there is a

clear-cut definition of artist, but you use a term (which indeed

does have a clear-cut meaning and usage) in whatever fashion

you choose.

Mike

 

And your response confirms why I feel like I've stepped through the looking glass. There was nothing idiosyncratic about the definition. It was vary plain and straight forward. If you don't like my choice, then post a counter definition that makes you happy.

 

Either which way one can be an artist with or without making any money for the effort and one can be a photographer with or without the act of making any money. You can parse words all you want and it's okay.

 

And to keep on thread, the above has nothing to do with photographer's block or how to snap out of it. :)

Thomas, here are the ways you've used the term "parse:"<P>

 

<i>No it's not! One can produce "works of art" and not make a

living at it. I swanny! I'm through the G. D. looking glass here as

many have obviously lost their minds. You're doing nothing

except <b>parsing</b> words for your personal convenience.

<p>

 

Why have dictionaries as it seems some like to rewrite the

meaning of certain words because it serves their purpose. We

can all waste our time sitting around the conversational table,

while we <b>parse</b> words long enough until we can come to

a mutual agreement on what we "might" be saying. <P>

 

The word "artist" has a clear cut and well defined meaning. The

meaning of the word is not enigmatic. And your attempts to <b>

parse</b> the meaning of the word isn't gonna play with this old

city boy! Find someone else to run your game on.</i><P>

 

In the first two cases, you're using it to mean "define." In the last

case, you're using it to mean "change" or "redefine."<P>

 

Consult the definition you have linked above, or the definitions

listed <a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=parse">

here</a>. I've done of lot of parsing of sentences both as a

student and teacher of English, and I've even parsed a bit of

basic computer code. I am very familiar with what it means to

"parse." The way in which you employ the term is NOT a

standard usage.<p>

And again, I'm only laboring this trivial point because of the great

irony involved.

<I>�When one considers influences, what they're really saying to me is, whom have you allowed to contaminate your view of life.�</I>

<p>

<I>I don't have any outside influences</I>

<p>

No disrespect but I find thess to be pretty strong statements. Seems to me that everything ever created in any art or profession has had some sort of influence. Artists, architects, musicians, scientists, chefs, photographers�are always trying to expand or draw from previous accomplishments whether their own or someone else�s. Even Picasso who in my eyes had one of the wildest imaginations drew his influences from African art. You gotta start with a seed before you can watch it grow.

<I>"Look deep inside; if it�s there this is where it is. The fleeting images of sleep, nightmares, dreams and daydreams, the unresolved thought and memory half forgotten, these are the clues: pay attention to them."</I>

<p>

Keith, your quote? I heard or read somewhere that David Lynch keeps a pad of paper next to his bed and notes visions in his dreams which he later uses in his films.

<a href="http://www.keithlaban.co.uk">Keith Laban Photography</a><p>Ed, yes my quote. I originally penned it in response to a question by Thomas about "photographers block" and it was intended to summarise the often bizarre ideas and visualisations that I (and I hope others) have on the verge of consciousness, some of which have undoubtedly influenced my work.<p>Thomas my friend, don�t be so defensive, I re-posted my <i>"look deep inside�"</i> response because I thought that it also had some relevance to this thread and to your own <i>"I don�t have any outside influences�"</i> response. We are all the product of our experiences and are all bound to be influenced, consciously or otherwise, but I tend to agree with you, the really valuable ideas do come from within.

Ed wrote<p>

 

<i>No disrespect but I find these to be pretty strong statements.</i><p>

 

The statement is not intended as bravado but it is intended to be a strong statement of encouragement in that the more you depend upon yourself, the more original your efforts are going to be. Whether or not your efforts will be seen as such by others, time will tell. But what's important is how you, personally, view your efforts.<p>

 

For clarification purposes, I'm speaking as an experienced person that has gone through the learning processes as opposed to one just starting out. But while going through the learning processes, I have consistently come up with the thought that I want to create images with my vision, not create images that reflect other's point of view. When I create images that reflect another's view point, I chatise myself for being so weak of mind that I don't consider my view point "good enough" for me.<p>

 

As to the likes of Picasso, many people, myself included don't appreciate his art. Although his art speaks to many, there are many that it doesn't speak to. Count me in the group who his art doesn't speak to. :)<p>

 

And yes, you're correct about the notables, their education processes, influences and how they got where they did. Much was dependent upon politics and sucking up to the power structure. But in the end, originality comes from within, not from without.<p>

 

I started out my formal training studying under a student of Ansel Adams and ate and lived the "Zone System". I termed my training being that of the "West Coast School of Grand Landscapes". :) You will see this reflected in my efforts but you won't see either Edward, Immogene or Ansel in my efforts, unless it's quite by accident. :) I, intentionally, have rejected much of what I was taught about composition as I don't like the intensity of the images so I've decentralized much of what I do. I have rejected B&W as I see and feel in color although I will work mono chromatically. I have rejected overly saturated images or intense colorations as the impact on my mind fatigues my mind's eye easily but I will work, on the occasion with a sunrise or sunset. I reject most of the psycho babble as to why images are created or for what purpose. Why this rejection? Because none of it reflects "my" view. :) Now I encourage others to look to themselves for inspirational answers when it comes to their art work.<p>

 

Hope the above helps.<p>

Thomas,

<p>

<I>�Hope the above helps.�</I> It helps understand your thinking better and the only part I can agree with is how we personally view our own efforts.

<p>

A few questions first to further help my understanding of your thoughts and ideas.

<p>

�I'm speaking as an experienced person that has gone through the learning processes as opposed to one just starting out.�

<p>

When, where and are you done with your education process?

<p>

<I>I want to create images with my vision, not create images that reflect other's point of view. When I create images that reflect another's view point�</I>

<p>

We all do�there�s a difference though between replicating someone else�s view and using someone�s work as an influence or as point of departure for our own journeys.

<p>

<I> As to the likes of Picasso, many people, myself included don't appreciate his art� </I>

<p>

Nobody has too, and it�s irrelevant who belongs to what group. You can insert any artist�s name in lieu of his, they are all influenced by someone or something else. He was just an example.

<p>

Take a look at Duchamp�s Nude Descending the Stairs and how many countless paintings, sculptures, pieces of literature, poetry and music have been created using this painting as an influence.

<p>

I also noticed you use the term �I reject� a lot�.loosen up a bit. Too many rules always hinder creativity.

<p>

In one of my first design studios we were given a painting (nude descending stairs, fittingly), a piece of literature (Calvino, I believe) and a piece of sculpture (can�t recall). From these three pieces we had to come up with a three-dimensional piece, a two dimensional piece and an essay respectively. Ultimately we combined the three pieces that we had created into one piece. I�ll tell you it was an f�ing blast and the stuff the students came up was very, very creative. Try it you'll like it.

<p>

Anyways,<br>

Ed

Ed wrote<p>

 

�I'm speaking as an experienced person that has gone through the learning processes as opposed to one just starting out.�<p>

 

<i>When, where and are you done with your education process?</i><p>

 

I hate it when people do that. :) Of course, one will beat on their brain until the day they die, we all know that. :) The comment was ment in the sense that I have a fairly extensive background as opposed to a neophytes background. But as you correctly pointed out, try as we might, the learning process continues until we die. :)<p>

 

"I want to create images with my vision, not create images that reflect other's point of view. When I create images that reflect another's view point�"<p>

 

<i>We all do�there�s a difference though between replicating someone else�s view and using someone�s work as an influence or as point of departure for our own journeys.</i><p>

 

Now where's the originality in that?<p>

 

"As to the likes of Picasso, many people, myself included don't appreciate his art�"<p>

 

<i>Nobody has too, and it�s irrelevant who belongs to what group. You can insert any artist�s name in lieu of his, they are all influenced by someone or something else. He was just an example."</i><p>

 

And I have no qualms with your above. I encourage independent thought, not thought based upon what other's have done. It's a different way of thinking. Think about it before you reject it and then do with it what you will. :)<p>

 

<i>Take a look at Duchamp�s Nude Descending the Stairs and how many countless paintings, sculptures, pieces of literature, poetry and music have been created using this painting as an influence.</i><p>

 

And I would hope that people's thinking would have moved forward and not continued to hang in the past. Duchamp would probably laugh if he realized that his effort had become iconic. Probably say something like, "Don't these poor dolts have any original thought?" "Or am I to believe that I've become the pinnacle to be climbed?"<p>

 

<i>I also noticed you use the term �I reject� a lot�.loosen up a bit. Too many rules always hinder creativity.</i><p>

 

No rules being rejected, just stereo types.:)<p>

 

I'd like to see more rejection going on as opposed to more influencing. :)<p>

Thomas, hmmm..all valid points you make.

<p>

<i>�Now where's the originality in that?�</i>

<p>

Everyone�s entitled to his or her own opinions and nevermind the same page we are not even in the same bookstore.

<p>

Now you have piqued my interest, anyplace I can see some of this original uncontaminated work. Either by yourself or anyone else for that matter?

Ed wrote<p>

 

<i>Everyone�s entitled to his or her own opinions and nevermind the same page we are not even in the same bookstore.</i><p>

 

What? You still go to bookstores?!!! :)<p>

 

<i>Now you have piqued my interest, anyplace I can see some of this original uncontaminated work. Either by yourself or anyone else for that matter?</i><p>

 

You're welcome to follow my name to some of my images and then you're welcome to come back and post for all the world to see how low you hold my images. But hold one thing in mind as you think what you will about my images, this is how I see the world and this is the view of the world I want the world to see.<p>

<i>you're welcome to come back and post for all the world to see how low you hold my images</i><P>

There's a distinction you're choosing to ignore: people can say that your images are capable enough examples of what they are while disputing that they are anything original or free from influence. I see images that are competent but strikingly conventional--I see no evidence in your images (or those of many highly skilled, talented, and creative photographers) of bold originality devoid of influence. There's little to distinguish them from the sort of shots commonly seen in popular photography magazines.