Reflections on the "cliché" in photography

<p>I like that idea, Julie. That folklore: “also includes the set of practices through which those expressive genres are shared.’(Wikipedia) sounds a lot like: “easily grasped form of representation but are none the less capable of condensing a great deal of complex information and a host of connotations".(Pollen article).<br>

Marc, yes, your nude guy certainly seems to be a form of documentary photography, which is a genre a lot of us practice, as opposed to "nude photography," which seems to me to encompass several variations ranging from the harsh lit porn style to the soft, gauzy "arty" style.<br>

I guess unless you are inventing a completely new style of photography you will inevitable be following in the footsteps of others in the path of certain genres and/or cliches. I'm OK with that. I love doing "documentary" or "candid" portraits, and, outdoor scenes and misc. abstracts which fall inevitably into various genres and cliched categories. </p>

<p>I actively avoid shooting what I feel are clichés. I have a DO NOT SHOOT list that includes the homeless and people using cell phones.</p>

<p>Abstract nudes are often clichés. Landscape photography at famous locations tends to be full of clichés, especially in the American Southwest. How many photos of Delicate Arch, the Mittens, the Wave, and Horseshoe Bend does that world really need? If you're going to shoot at these locations, at least come up with a fresh perspective.</p>

 

<p>A cliche is a sentimentalized portrayal of a sunset, stream or other common scene. Clear-eyed views of such scenes, such as the ones you picked to hang in your hallway, are not cliches, in my opinion. </p>

<p>This subject got me to question whether "The photo that comes with the frame/wallet" type stock photography image style can be considered a cliche. Though professional looking these types of portraits are never mistaken as being nothing but commercial filler and in a sense somewhat cliched. Some very successful photographers will shoot portraits in this style. Wedding photographers often do as well. Sometimes shooting in a cliched style pays the bills I guess.</p>

<p>For instance the original ethnically vague female model that adorned the first iteration of Obama's Healthcare.com website and was later removed comes to mind. We all knew instantly that it was stock photography. It has that look but I wish I knew or could deconstruct the image to help me understand what tells me this.</p>

<p>I've thought a little about the photos that come with frames too . . . they are sort of cliched masterpieces that induce customers to buy the frames . . . only to replace them with pictures that are much less perfect, but have personal value.</p>

<p>"I" actively avoid shooting what I feel are clichés. I have a DO NOT SHOOT list that includes the homeless and people using...."</p>

<p>I shoot anything providing it has something to say...what is it telling me?</p>

<p>Handcuffs are restrictive.</p>

<p>They put them on prisoners.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>On cliches I always have one link for starters:<br>

Amadues Leitner http://www.amadeusleitner.com/<br>

I have no problems with people shooting cliches, so long as they do not call it "fine art". When I see a gallery of many images and after first photo nothing changes, I can't bring myself to being nice in my comments.<br>

I completely agree with gear being the focus and not the ability to see what's before us.<br>

Unfortunately, with millions of "photographers" out there, most of whom rely on developing their technique through camera ads, photo magazines, and garbage books produced in endless numbers, it is no wonder photography of today is a far cry form what it once was. Perhaps there should be a new name for this medium, just so it is clearly differentiated from the "other" photography.<br>

It seems the more bells greedy manufacturers put into cameras, the more we want. It's an endless game that has really no purpose, except for setting the ever new standards of who is ahead in offerings (and of course to make us "upgrade", since the new has got to make our photography better). What suffers in the process is photography itself, and those who wished to be unique, but due to the overwhelming publishing of "cliches" they find themselves struggling to see through it.</p>

 

<p>The pic of the old nude man is an example of one's total insensitivity to viewers. It is disgusting and makes me wonder how a thread on cliche photography wound up getting this ugly pic in the mix. As one suggested there is no excuse for this and I don't see how even a link would fix this as it has no relevance to this discussion.</p>

<p>"The pic of the old nude man is an example of one's total insensitivity to viewers. It is disgusting and makes me wonder how a thread on cliche photography wound up getting this ugly pic in the mix".</p>

<p>Well, it is not cliché.</p>

<p>Why would a Photograph of a nude middle age man be so disgusting? he is a member of humanity. Some nude young girl would no doubt tickle your middle/old age fantasy!</p>

<p>But is nude Photography just about about satisfying some old blokes fantasy or about going into the unseen places.</p>

<p>Fred G explores these areas in a sensitive creative way.</p>

<p>Open your mind.</p>

<p> </p>

<p><a href="/photos/fjaygoldsmith">photo.net/photos/fjaygoldsmith</a></p>

<p>I don't think being clichéd is boring, unimaginative or bad. As far as photography is concerned, I believe in reaching to the core of the piece of art an artist captures. Like it happened with you so you don't know how the final result will be no matter how uniquely you try to capture the essence of the scene.</p>