a question of genre ...and style

Photographically, I am what the Medical Profession would characterize as a General Practitioner. With a few notable exceptions (Micro, Astro, Fashion, Porn) I do or have done most other genres reasonably competently. There are too many interesting photo opportunities for me to have the patience to specialize -- I take pictures of just about anything.

Others do specialize and obtain results of amazing quality in their chosen genre.

Some photographers, both generalists and specialists have very distinct styles, there are a few dozen on PN that are immediately recognizable to me from first view. Others, even in just two years I've been on PN, have evolved amazingly stylistically, based, I think on both growth, and willingness to take risks and share more work.

So, what is the relationship between genre and style, or is there one?

What constitutes a style or how would you define a style?

Can a photographer define their own style, or is it a bit like the Johari Window Johari window - Wikipedia.

I would be hard pressed to define my own style other than as "Follower of the Light" since dramatic lighting is my strongest motivator.

Questions, no answers -- maybe food for thought -- a first cut at a conversation.

Could you post a link to sample images showing what you see as a noticeable style in a particular genre?

 

If you are talking about the images you see on the home page of PN vs what you've seen here in the forums, it would help make this less a broad and subjective topic to discuss at least for me.

 

Style as in beauty is in the eyes of the beholder but genre can influence this perception of style as well and make it inseparable like say someone who shoots only B&W New York street candid shots of people. Shots of New York city street life to me has a very distinct look which I feel does most of the heavy lifting of presenting a style especially of New York locals. So it presents the question if being in the right place at the right time is part of the style or is just being there enough.

Tim, Though it might be a bore -- I'd prefer to post my own as examples rather than others (better photos) Reluctant to drag someone into my "mess"! Lets wait a bit and see if we can get input that narrows the field a bit. and zooms in on things. I am really asking questions rather than trying to propose answers. Thanks -- good idea! Dinner's on -- later! S

So, what is the relationship between genre and style, or is there one?

What constitutes a style or how would you define a style?

Can a photographer define their own style, or is it a bit like the Johari Window

Ok, I'll take a stab at your questions.

 

With style the viewer if they have the ability to discern knows it when he/she sees it, the photographer doesn't think about it and only follows their muse in relation to the subject (sets the genre) photographed which can vary, obviously.

 

I looked up your Johari Window and saw no relation to photography or any image creation for that matter.

Maybe I slipped a gear in re: Johari -- my intent was to bring in the aspect self knowledge -- what we say, do, how we see ourselves and how others see us. How we present ourselves on line and photographically. It is no magic bullet -- just an additional dimension to consider in relationships. It had some validity in my business years.

 

You brought up an excellent point, actually part of the questions -- what are styles?. Clearly we can all have our own definitions -- the only need for consistency would be in group discussion. Clearly both of us recognize styles personally. When you talk about B&W in NYC, you are right that there is a commonality of subject, even "feel" but there have been at the very least dozens of excellent NYC street photographers who were otherwise as different as separate species in their output.

Damn! You eat fast, Sandy. You already finished your dinner?!

 

Anyway you got me to think on this because it's a subject that has interested me since I was a cartoonist in my youth.

 

There's a way to promote style or telegraph it to the viewer by choosing a limited number of photos to be presented in a gallery that directs the viewer to discern a style no matter the genre.

 

For example I was taken aback years ago by one shot of the grand canyon by a photographer posting in a forum that gave me the impression this guy was a seasoned professional. His gallery was hosted by one of those online image hosting sites for amateurs and I spotted the series that appeared to have the same consistency as the one in the forum.

 

There was about five of them that were keepers, top drawer shots of different areas of the Grand Canyon but they were scatter among the duds of the same subject taken at different angles and time of day. I was distracted from seeing a style because the photographer was all over the map even though in his bio he was a paid photographer for an Arizona tourist magazine. I was so disappointed but I still liked the five keepers. I just didn't think this photographer had a direction on what he wanted to communicate about what he was shooting.

 

You can never underestimate the importance of consistency which requires careful and tasteful choosing of what to show and what to conceal from the public among thousands of images in a photographer's collection.

Consistency of quality, of skill, of image appeal, most of imagination. I have all sorts of interesting birds right behind my house. The tripod, the big lenses, good light, mostly a no brainer to get a good competent shot. The challenge is to cull interesting and unusual from beyond competent.

Genre and style exist and are different.

 

Example:

Genre: portrait painting

Artists: van der Weyden, Campin, Caravaggio

 

Painters of people, different styles from each artist.

 

Another example:

Genre: portrait photography

Artists: Karsh, Halsman, Leibovitz

 

Photographers of people, different styles from each artist.

Genre and style exist and are different.

Absolutely, and styles within genres.

Can a photographer have a style across genres?

So, what is the relationship between genre and style, or is there one?

An interesting question. I don't think there's much relationship between genre and style. Within a genre, there will be countless styles.

 

What constitutes a style or how would you define a style?

That's a tough one. I think we use "style" in different ways, depending on context. For example, within portrait photography, I'd say there are a few different styles, including but not limited to Environmental Portraits, Lifestyle Portraits, Formal Portraits, Street Portraits, etc. But then we get into the nitty gritty of your OP, which gets at style as a means to recognize someone's work or a particular type of appearance that repeats itself in various permutations in someone's work. Examples: He has a rough-hewn style. He has a very polished style. Someone may lean toward hi-key or hi-contrast as their "style," though they may veer from that at times.

Can a photographer define their own style

Yes, though they don't always do it consciously or deliberately. I think some artists are very conscious of their style and hone it over the years. Others fall into it. It's a continuum on which people fall all over the map, IMO.

 

_________________________________________________________

 

In terms of the photographers found to be immediately recognizable, I think I'd want to bring in the idea of voice (or vision) as well as style. To me, style would be the manifesting aspect of what we find recognizable. Voice or vision would be a little less visual and a little less strictly sense-perception oriented. There are people who seem to pick a consistent type of subject matter even when they're doing various genres. There are also people who engage with a determined sensibility somewhat consistently. (Some sensibilities I'm thinking of would be: ironic, sentimental, romantic, demonic, oddball, etc.) To me, this voice or vision encapsulates their chosen genres, styles, and techniques. Most often, I think, a voice or vision comes with the ability to take aesthetic/social/political/narrative/technical stands. I think those photographers who take stands in any or all of those realms tend to develop voices and tend to be somewhat recognizable.

Fred -- Voice -- a useful compilation -- possibly what I was reaching for with style across genres. The vision is theirs to me, possibly the voice is the displayed public expression - the results across time.

Can a photographer have a style across genres?

IDK for sure. I hope I learned to see a "Sandy sky" over landscapes, especially B&W ones, after scrolling through your portfolio. I'm not into deer & birding so IDK if you have a style there.

A style is an individual handwriting, shown while tweaking variables in a typical and distinguishable way.

I am sure you can change your own style or adopt somebody else's.

It takes a bunch of pictures to display something that can be considered your style by others.

A cross genre style would need a common denominator.

Absolutely, and styles within genres.

Can a photographer have a style across genres?

 

You partially answered that question yourself in an earlier post:

 

 

It is this 'thing' that I am just now getting my head around. What separates and categorizes a way of seeing things--and moreover expressing them than the 'style' a photographer chooses to render them in? Some are the master of gritty black & white studies. Others have a particular way with Kodachrome-like saturations of color. But it is a particular way--and yes--it often evolves across time--and even genres.

 

I myself am a "scattershot" photographer--finding interest in many subjects and genres without any predilection for any one. Wildly varying stylistic approaches--none to date concentrated upon enough to master the element and underlying mood. A lack of such 'style', combined with a small or nonexistent portfolio of similar expressive genre is what keeps many VERY competent artistic photographers out of galleries and showings. The photo Illuminati of the world want to see this--usually to the exclusion of all else. Professional "critics" (a term for socially connected smug arses who have been educated well in excess of their native intelligence) will urinate all over a spectacular image--just because there is no body of feng shui to go with it... :(

Professional "critics" (a term for socially connected smug arses who have been educated well in excess of their native intelligence)

Ahem . . . sorry, what were you saying about smug arses? ;-)

 

You paint with too broad a brush for me on this one.

 

Get Andrew Sarris's (professional critic) book, if you can, The American Cinema. I've learned a lot about photography by watching movies and his short writings on many different directors are extremely insightful and inspiring. He has a broad knowledge of both art and cinematic history and writes in a very easy-to-understand manner. He often articulates things in such a way as to make light bulbs go off for me.

 

Check out Arthur Danto and Clive Bell, two art critics (probably a little more dense reading than Sarris) who've had some very significant things to say.

 

Or don't!

Proust loved style: "Style is a quality of vision."

 

De Kooning hated it: “Art should not have to be a certain way.” “Style is a fraud. I always felt that the Greeks were hiding behind their columns. It was a horrible idea of [Theo] van Doesburg and [Piet] Mondrian to try to force a style.” “To desire to make a style is an apology for one’s anxiety.”

 

Gerhard Richter doesn't like it either: "… I like everything that has no style: dictionaries, photographs, nature, myself and my paintings. (Because style is violence, and I am not violent.)"

 

Likewise, Philip Guston didn't approve of style. He loved: “the nervousness of the maker [ … ] — very little else. [That’s why I tell myself] do not make laws. Do not form habits. You do not possess a way. You do not possess a style. You have nothing finally but some ‘mysterious’ urge — to use the stuff — the matter.”

 

But film director Robert Bresson loves it: "Dig into your sensations. Look at what there is within. Don’t analyse it with words. Translate it into sister images, into equivalent sounds. The clearer it is, the more your style affirms itself. (Style: all that is not technique.)"

 

And so does Balanchine. Here is Edwin Denby writing about him: "... style demands a constant attention to detail which the public is not meant to notice, which only professionals spot, so unemphatic do they remain in performance. The idea, too, of style as something a man who has spent many years of his life working in an art loves with attentive pertinacity."

style rhymes with stile which is something you have to climb over.

Lady & Gents, processing, processing. So much comes down to semantics, and nuance.

Three ranchers in town on Saturday Night, each dressed in their "go to town" western best. One looks like a pile of old clothes, one just looks "normal" and the third has Style. physical characteristics can be very similar.

Obviously we, nearly all of us, have our own filters on input.

Want to think about this before I write back. Appreciate all the ideas.

So much comes down to semantics

I caution you against taking refuge here. Seeing this as "semantics" can very well prevent you from substantively considering the matter you're questioning. If you chalk up what you hear to semantics, it's easy to gloss over it as just different people's way of saying something or, worse yet, as "subjective," a word I've grown to hate. "Subjective" and "semantics" usually means to me we're not going to get anywhere because it's been decided that it's merely superficial differences or differences of opinion. That everyone has their way of saying something and that everyone has their own definitions and usages. That's too easy. You asked about genre and style. Don't lose focus. You're actually getting there. This is not semantics. It's IDEAS. You're right to pick up on the nuances involved. They're significant. And they're not semantical.

Yes style across genres exists for an individual artist. Leibovitz has done some good still life work. It is recognizable as her style if you are familiar with her other work.

 

Ansel Adams did some portrait work, badly, in my opinion. His portrait style did not match the emotional content of his landscape work, for me.

Having no style is a style as long as it appears consistent.

Sandy Vongries said: Can a photographer have a style across genres? Thinking about my own work over the years, I have noticed that interestingly, my portraits of people have a similar "style" as my portraits of animals. Go figure. I think I am looking for the same essence in the capture, the connection between camera and subject. Take a look and see if you agree!

Genre and style are independent attributes.

Genre and style are independent attributes.

Been thinking about this thread riding in the car on a trip to take some photos. I will post more at greater length. but IMO it is a bit like symbolic logic to me, style encompasses /overlays genre. Another interesting idea. Thanks, Brad.

Genre and style are independent attributes.

 

That point got me to think of where that might not be applicable. Georgia O'Keeffe's style she became known for was to paint flowers (genre) as sexually suggestive abstracts but rendered with a photographic realism.

 

Therefore, I would think there probably have been photographers shooting similar genre of subjects with a unique POV that defined his/her style to where you couldn't separate the two as independent attributes. But that could have a lot to do with marketing.

Been thinking about this thread riding in the car on a trip to take some photos. I will post more at greater length. but IMO it is a bit like symbolic logic to me, style encompasses /overlays genre. Another interesting idea. Thanks, Brad.

 

With respect to photographic genres, I think of broad categories, such as landscape, sports, wildlife, fashion, wedding, documentary, journalism, forensic, portraiture, architectural, food, street, pinhole, event, underwater, music, etc. Regarding style, I think of descriptors, such as, gritty, high-key, edgy, emotional, gravitas, energetic, dark, in your face, color/b&w, introspective, intense, narrative releasing, tranquil, surreal, high-contrast, solemn, etc.

 

But then there are some genres that are shot in the style of another genre; i.e. journalistic wedding photography.

Edited June 25, 2017 by Brad_