Avoiding the cliche photo

<p>I spent a number of years incarcerated in a College of Design (Architecture) at a major university during the early 2000s. My recovery is now complete--I no longer have to engage in alcohol therapy to deal with memories of some of the bizarre stuff said and conjured there. The trope of 'authenticity' was applied to a lot of things--as was the concept of 'narrative.' Fine arts programs and artsy literati have been debating this matter for many decades. So much so, that these concepts have become a cliche in their own right...</p>

<p>At the very core of it, the act of someone inserting themselves into a particular place and time--engaging in an act that is unique to them--is authentic in their reality. As to the image if they are photographing a well known subject? Of course--in their individual frame of reference! Where we run into the trouble is when the debate begins over whether the photographer is attempting to escape the common visual narrative of the subject--and changes (or fails to change) the reference point of what the 'thing in itself' is--and how that is conveyed to the subsequent viewer.</p>

<p>Many years ago I came to a conclusion about my own 'art' photography, and framed it this way:</p>

<p><em>“The art of photography is capturing a small slice of four dimensional reality–then crystallizing it into two dimensions–thereby creating something new and meaningful for the viewer to experience…”</em><br /> <em> <br /></em>Often it is only at the stage of "crystallizing it into two dimensions" that the narrative is changed--and the subject moves out of the ordinary into a new narrative frame which contains enough artistic interpretation that the viewer can emote differently and conjure their own personal narrative around the image. Only then does the subject matter become 'authentic' to the viewer. Sometimes this might comprise a thing in its totality--such as the Eiffel Tower--or simply a small element extracted from a greater whole that removes it completely from its context and frame of reference.</p>

<p>As someone said (and I have observed countless times) people tend to see things the same way. Perhaps we are conditioned to do so. We gravitate to the exact same spot--and frame the image the same way. There might as well be a marker on the ground that says "stand here to take pictures." Yet we can shift that reference completely by the angle--shooting upwards from ground level, downward from a point of elevation--or shifting away from the 'Egyptian' dead on frontal aspect of the thing. Hence, we are reinterpreting its presentation, and moving the viewer to sort it out for themselves. Is that not authentic? Is it still a cliche, although it is the same subject matter? And here we have not even approached what can happen post-processing in the digital darkroom.</p>

<p>Ansel Adams had to wait for a scene to match his vision for how it was to represent itself. In this day of digital magic, the visual impact of many of his photos could be conjured through manipulation of a high quality, but mundane view of the subject. Light, shadows, contrast not quite right? We can fix that. So here brings the question. Is our argument whether the photograph is authentic to the moment of 4 dimensional reality--or is the final product however derived authentic to the reference the viewer brings to it?</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Ecclesiastes 1:9<br /><br /><em>...The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Clearly who ever wrote that doesn't view the world from a child's perspective.<em><br /></em></p>

<p>Even at 57 years old I've never seen or even heard of the flower pictured below. No one around my local town I asked knew or could even name the damn thing. It captivated me and I couldn't stop taking lots of pictures from different angles and perspectives.</p>

<p>I'm not a botany, gardening or flower enthusiast except to check if the colors of a bloom challenges the gamut capturing capability of my camera and processing skills.</p>

<p>Parks and Rec folks at the newly built Fischer Park in my local town did know and had a name for it they personally documented as part of their nature center services for park visitors.</p>

<p>At least God isn't a hack and doesn't create cliche subjects. It's the viewer (people) that take a myopic view of the world and write it down for the ages as gospel. <em><br /></em></p><div></div>

Novelty is nice but not necessary. At Yellowstone Park, tourists wait for hours for Old Faithful to erupt once again, pretty much on schedule. Never heard one say " I won't bother taking a photo, the one you bought dear in the gift shop is good enough."

 

Hey ,E.J., you like the National Parks you said, so how would you prepare in advance for a geyser display? How personalize it a la Ansel?

 

By the way, I ma not agree with you Julie H, but I do love your similes. A skin test to tell if one has the right stuff to be among the anointed? Love it!

 

Only an inner priesthood / the kohenim - as Fred and Alan can dig- fully understand the process and the output , but so we say fine. One segment of the craft, fine too, it sets a bar and guide for the lot of us..

 

Suspect the Leviticus writer, Alan, would understand that distinction (wink).

Oh yes, I have several geyser eruption shots. All cliches. No you don't get to see one. I do have a shot of Bryce Canyon that I still treasure. Google be damned. King Solomon knew his stuff, even without a camera IMO. Are we talking elitism here? I think so. And like cliche it does not put me off. Big tent wise..

<p>Gerry: I might skip Old Faithful altogether. There are lots of interesting things to see in Yellowstone. In recent years I have focused on the more intimate things to see in the parks rather than the sweeping visions. The vegetation, the geology, possibly a very tight shot on a geyser -- maybe when it is not erupting. The colorful mineral deposits. Photos in the dead of night (geysers don't only erupt in the daytime). I would give it a lot of thought. I have only been to Yellowstone twice and the last time was many years ago. I would know well in advance what I was going after and the images I wanted to capture and I would prepare for them.</p>

A good answer, E.J. Thanks. I worked a summer in that park and I can understand the joy of doing homework on the place. And you clearly love the homework part.

<p>I really don't think about it. As I said above, I just point and shoot. Yesterday I had a portrait shoot for an article. While I was waiting for the subject, I decided to take a few snaps of the area since I have rarely been there and I wanted to check the light and background. I got this shot. I went off looking for other photos because of this thread. I found plenty of shots from the area, even from within a few feet of where I was standing. Nothing looked like this one despite the thousands of photos of the location on the web. So my advice is just point your camera at what you want to photograph and push the button.</p>

 

<center><img src="http://spirer.com/images/lake1.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="467" /></center>

<blockquote>

<p>Originality <em>for the sake of originality</em> is as equally inauthentic.....</p>

</blockquote>

<p>To clarify, <em>for the sake of</em> has nothing to do with my comment. I was using originality in the Oxford dictionary sense, as something (thing, idea) first hand, not imitative. We can question the degree on first handidness or the degree of non-imitative in our creations (Picasso, as it is well known, did not exclude copying as an element in his creations) as we all owe something to our education and experience and that of others, so a part, sometimes small, is based on whatever prior knowledge orexperience we might have.</p>

<p>As for the existentialist significance of the word, Phil, which wasn't prefaced as such in your comment, I agree that it denotes something else, a life of <a title="Freedom" href="http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Freedom">f</a>reedom, joy, meaning, value, and happiness, which are not incompatible with a creative rather than cliché response to situations, and to photography. </p>

<p>I think Gerry has broken the record of speed dialing in his responses to the most number of posters in one single thread.</p>

<p>How do you make it so short and snappy, Gerry? Have you developed a Zen technique in oversimplification?</p>

<p>Gerry, if I'm going to spend time in a special place I'm going to do everything I can to ensure that it is time well spent. That is particularly true if it was an effort to get there and may be a long time before I'm back. </p>

[How do you make it so short and snappy, Gerry? Have you developed a Zen technique in oversimplification?]

 

Relentless government SES executive boss who beat me over the head if I took more than five minutes of his day to brief him. I still have a soft bump there, Tim :-)

<p>Love the explanation, Gerry! Thanks...Got a good laugh out of it!</p>

<p>Why do you seek for it to be different? Will that matter in your life?</p>

Yes, difference and diversity add depth and texture and interest and challenge and excitement to my life.

<p>Yes, Fred, I know that feeling. But it comes down to being different, so people will comment, what a guy! I guess I'm going thru a second mid-life crisis trying to figure out what's important. OK, HDR is the new flavor-of-the-month. So, I'll wait for the next gimmick to make my pictures different. Maybe it isn't about what doing something different is for my ego but rather for what it does for and to others that really counts. Is creating a non-cliche picture to stroke my inner self more important than printing a cliched picture and giving it to a friend or relative to their delight? What about taking a picture that changes others in their thinking and attitude? You've done that with your wonderful camp series. Is watching smiles on others more important than getting a different angle on a shot? </p>

<p>This topic was mainly about separating the established familiarity of tourist shots like the Eiffel Tower from its iconic social symbolism and transforming it by using different approaches involving exploration that defies the familiar aspect of such subjects. Make the familiar unfamiliar is a challenge in itself and is often applied to portraiture. If it's unfamiliar then it can't be seen as cliche.</p>

<p>Fred's camp series doesn't fall into the tourist mindset of the familiar. Fred's clearly showing exploration from his other works. There's no way it can be cliche because the subject in itself is unique. Separating the uniqueness of the subject from the way it's presented by the photographer is often difficult where the viewer must rely only on the overall feeling of the image. Are feelings cliche?</p>

<p>Alan, I'm not sure for whom you think it comes down to being different so people will comment, what a guy. I think for many artists it comes down to being different out of a desire and sometimes a need to create something personal, to find a voice within that expresses something unique about oneself and/or the world, since each of us is unique in some way. And, though we are each unique, that doesn't mean our work will show that. So being conscious of these things may not be for the "what a guy" moment. It may actually be for others, to open them up to something, to share with them, to make a connection through one's art. You've said it yourself, it's not always about ego. Don't assume creating a non-cliché photo is about ego. It may be a way to give something to people that will impact them because they haven't seen it quite that way before. It can help one reach people, if that's a goal.</p>

<p>It's wonderful that you've gotten into and appreciate the series I've done. One of my goals is to help establish some connections among communities that don't necessarily know each other. And to help familiarize the unfamiliar, which Tim has addressed. You ask <em>"Is watching smiles on others more important than getting a different angle on a shot?"</em> And this brings up a couple of important points.</p>

<p>It's not a competition. One doesn't have to be more important than the other. There's room in good photography for originality <em>and</em> authenticity in varying degrees depending on the photographer. Avoiding clichés is not limited to finding new camera angles, using the latest push buttons in Photoshop or apps on the iPhone, or other matters of stylistics (which are often the superficial signs that are most obvious). As a cliché is something that's trite and has become meaningless because of overuse, one can repeat and not be cliché if one doesn't make it trite or meaningless. One's feeling for a subject, even if shown in a non-original way, doesn't have to be cliché. If it's real, palpable, that gives it meaning and therefore, by definition, it is not cliché. Why focus on HDR or tricks of the camera, or angles, or any of those sorts of things? Avoid cliché by having a sincere and genuine relationship with what you're shooting. But, don't just have the relationship (at least in terms of photography). The job is to <em>show</em> it.</p>

<p>__________________________________________________</p>

<p>Tim, you bring up a good point which has been swirling throughout the thread and often does in these conversations. There are all different types of photos and we often forget that some people are talking about doing photography as a weekend hobby, some are talking about making art, some are talking about taking vacation photos, etc. There will, naturally, be different motivations and different types of results desired depending on what the purpose is in taking the picture. Most people taking vacation snaps (and I think I said this above) are just wanting their own version of a famous place. They couldn't care less about cliché. They just want something they took that looks nice. And that's fine. There's some overlap among art, snapshots, family pics, and vacation snaps. And there are many differences. But when we don't stop to realize that there are many different types of photographers out there, we usually wind up talking past each other.</p>

<p>How did the saying go? If you pictures are a cliche, your not close enough? Oh..never mind.</p>

<p>I'm with Fred on this. When I look at an image I hope to see what the photographer saw, not necessarily what was in front of the camera. I enjoy photography because I want the communication with other photographers via the images. In the Internet of Things maybe we could just let cameras talk to each other and we wouldn't need the photographers. In my mind what makes a cliche photograph is how many times it is repeated. The first time in was creative -- the ten thousandth copy is just that -- a copy and it becomes a cliche. When the creativity is gone is what drops it into the cliche bin in my point of view.</p>

<p>Most post cards are cliché ! </p>

<p>Phil, it doesn't get any better...</p>

<p>Not cliche!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Art is a form of controlled <strong>psychosis</strong> ( the origin of the word means <em>to animate, give life to soul / mind</em> )</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So why does that word have such a negative connotation in society? People are known to avoid, even run from psychotics.</p>

<p>Really!? That's the origin of that word?! Are you sure, Phil?!</p>

<p>That really is an original and unique take on that Eiffel Tower shot. And no, I'm not saying that because you think I'm psychotic.</p>

 

Too deep for me, this psychosis business; also the authentic versus -what- the inauthentic;, but what word for the obverse of authentic can we use if we find trite too confining a term. Fraudulent, no I don't think that, or just casual and incidental to the daily point and shoot practice. Part of the unexamined life, no that is too much of a philosophical stretch.

 

What I may have learned and still digesting -like too many Krispy Dreme jelly donuts in the stomach at one setting- is that all these negative words, and the ideas behind them, try to define a form of the trite and cliche / overcooked and menu driven. Which is to be avoided but aint easy....A start for some is being more aware and more sensitized to the inner self. Or by pre planning and study of terrain for others.

 

Except though, and exceptions are plentiful, when it may actually be healthy and expressive to learn by imitation. As a beginner. Or even just for consumption by the ' non visually literate.

 

 

Bottom line for tonight anyway. I may have to look for a permanent suppository,- er- I mean a permanent repository for all the overworked Kodak moment pieces in my gallery and drive .Daunting. Depressing/ Too bad we cannot share our visual themes by extra sensory transmission.. Leaving the image as a concept shared in some transcendental space Topic must hit a chord or a nerve with many.

<p>You can do what you want to avoids taking what are clichés to you. But that won't avoid some of your photographs being considered cliché by others. </p>

<p>As cliché images pass into history, they morph into "archetypal images that were originally created at the secret heart of this culture as silently and thoughtlessly as the blink of an eye." [Michael Lesy]</p>

<p>If they persist as archetypes (originals long gone), they eventually morph into cultural mythology. Of which Barthes said: "purifies them, it makes them innocent, it gives them a natural and eternal justification, it gives them a clarity which is not that of an explanation but that of a statement of fact."</p>

<p>We form them and they (eventually/may) echo us back to ourselves, down the ages.</p>