body of work

<p>Seems to me that a photographers' work is only appreciated (or evaluated) by a large <strong>body of work</strong>, not by (for example) a mere dozen individual images, certainly not by her/his "best" few.</p>

<p>"Richard Avedon Portraits" convinced me of that again yesterday : 27 full-8X10 contact-print size portraits in a Japanese-style book.</p>

<p>I've owned it for months, not understanding why it was Japanese-style until the lightning struck ...I unfolded it on the floor (well over 20 feet long on each side). It's a treasure, an entire exhibition, beautifully printed. And this is only one slice of his work, doesn't include fashion, West, politicians, or the insane (as in his book with James Baldwin).</p>

<p><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Richard-Avedon-Portraits-Morris-Hambourg/dp/0810935406">http://www.amazon.com/Richard-Avedon-Portraits-Morris-Hambourg/dp/0810935406</a></p>

<p><a href="http://www.metmuseum.org/special/Richard_Avedon/portraits_images.htm">http://www.metmuseum.org/special/Richard_Avedon/portraits_images.htm</a></p>

<p>Here's <strong>Christina Garcia Rodero's</strong> body of work (part of it) in another format. Humbling. :<br /><a href="http://inmotion.magnumphotos.com/essay/between-heaven-and-earth">http://inmotion.magnumphotos.com/essay/between-heaven-and-earth</a></p>

<p>I've got thousands of slides, a hundred good soon-to-be-burned wet-darkroom prints, books of tear sheets, but all I care about is the recent stuff, maybe a cat's paw into a future body of work...or maybe the future will just be more scattered images. The only thing I know about them is that the images won't be significant until/unless I've printed them to my satisfaction because their significance (for me, not for Rodero or Avedon or you, necessarily) has to do with being made by my own hands (the craft) and shared.</p>

<p>Are a few images worthwhile as depictions of your work? How many?</p>

<p>Are you <strong>consciously</strong> developing (focused on, working within) your own "<strong>body of work</strong>?"</p>

<blockquote>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=1154645"><em>John Kelly</em></a><em> </em><a href="../member-status-icons"><em><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub6.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></em></a><em>, Jan 17, 2010; 02:30 p.m.</em><br>

<em>Seems to me that a photographers' work is only appreciated (or evaluated) by a large <strong>body of work</strong>, not by (for example) a mere dozen individual images, certainly not by her/his "best" few.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>John, I agree. This is America, where more HAS to be better, it's the law, ya know...........</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>Are a few images worthwhile as depictions of your work? How many?</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, a few images should represent my body of work. Perhaps two dozen should do it.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>Are you <strong>consciously</strong> developing (focused on, working within) your own "<strong>body of work</strong>?"</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, not consciously. I try to shoot a proper photograph, and it should, by definition, fit into my "body of work" by default.</p>

<p>Bill P.</p>

<p>Every shot is part of the "BoW" it's only a question of merit - does it belong among the others?<br>

I wonder if comparing a photo essay (designed and executed as such)- with singular images is valid?<br>

Certainly the singular image can stand alone - while a composite of singular images become a "BoW" I believe it's simply who you are. You can't control the output if your shooting from your gut.<br>

Many photogs strive purposely for their "style" their "look" when to my mind it's there all the time waiting for the shooter to get out of the way.<br>

Don't destroy the history- your history - it will become important one day and your feel great pain.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=2253269"><em>Gary Peck</em></a><em> </em><a href="/member-status-icons"></a><em>, Jan 17, 2010; 03:08 p.m.</em><br>

<em>Many photogs strive purposely for their "style" their "look" when to my mind it's there all the time waiting for the shooter to get out of the way.<br /></em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Great advice for shooters of all levels.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>Don't destroy the history- your history - it will become important one day and your feel great pain.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Important lesson.</p>

<p>Bill P.</p>

<p>Great topic, John. Thanks for introducing it.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Are you <strong>consciously</strong> developing (focused on, working within) your own '<strong>body of work</strong>?' "<br /> <strong>--John Kelly</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I am now. I don't think I did when I first started.</p>

<p>When I began photographing, I put more stock in getting a "good" photo, was more results rather than process oriented, more singularly occupied, a masterpiece mentality.</p>

<p>As I noticed a body of work developing, I paid attention to that and it affected my shooting, feeling, thinking, choice of subjects, perspectives, lots of stuff.</p>

<p>I'm almost done with my documentary slide shows from the special needs community. Several good individual photos didn't make the slide shows because they didn't adequately contribute to the feel of what I wanted to present, as a series.</p>

<p>I think I get more something different of the body of my personal work than the individual photos. I think someone looking at my portfolio will also get something different from just looking at a couple of individual photos. I think individual photos taken in context will feel differently and express somewhat differently from individual photos seen in isolation.</p>

<p>The individual photo, of course, has great power. I think many -- many of mine included -- stand well on their own and have a lot to offer as individuals. (It's another case where it's not an either/or matter. It's a matter of a variety of perspectives from which to see and experience photos.)</p>

<p>I mostly share images on line and I'm happy with that, for the most part. I'm excited about working on my own web site because I'll have more control over the viewing context, background color, presentation, what else may be on the page.</p>

<p>So, I'd like to add presentation to body of work, two very significant contextual players in the photographic experience.</p>

<p>Also, a word about developing a body of work, and about learning. One of the comments I frequently get is that someone would prefer to see one of my color photos in b/w. I've done several color photos that I think would be more "impressive" or more "attention-grabbing" in b/w. That's not always my goal. And my goal is also not always to make the "best" photo in each instance. With color, in particular, I am trying to develop my own way, my own usage, my own visualization. I will choose to photograph in color as a step in my process very often knowingly sacrificing the "better" photo that b/w might yield. I can do that because I have my eye on a different prize than the necessity to make masterpieces. It's a desire to develop an ability to express myself with a personal approach that requires experimentation and "failure" (in terms of individual pieces) in order to create. In that respect, I find seeing the forest for the trees significant.</p>

<p>I'm not judgmental about those, myself included at certain times and stages, who consciously develop a style.</p>

<p>What will define my body of work is an on-going process and may well not be similar to my past approaches. About a decade ago I ceased entering photo salons and competitions in our city and those elsewhere, because I felt that I had both contributed to (as judge or participant) and learned sufficient from them to want to move along into other spheres. I guess that I had an approach then or small body of work that was identifiable. Other photographers would see the hundreds of images shown before the judges and when the final 15 or so images were placed anonymously before the judges for final comment some of those photographers could generally pick out quite well my images (they did not always make that journey).</p>

<p>More recently, a critique from one of the local film, art and photography magazines came to a show of my B&W work and provided an analysis of the body of images. He noted a theme that pervaded the images (in his words, translated roughly from French, one of his various comments was "the photographer has an ability to deconstruct what he sees in (or what is in) nature and to recompose it in a poetic manner into his images"), which more or less was consistent with what I believe I was attempting to do at that time.</p>

<p>I believe a body of work is what really defines the photographer or any other visual artist. As others have said, some individual pieces can soar above the body of work, but they are often tied to the photographer's philosophy and approach that results in the body of work. I am presently working on a theme called "traces" (of human activity), a fairly common title, but it is too early for me to fully understand what motivates me, to fully explore the posibilities and to see much of what I eventually want to achieve. That theme and body of work may or may not continue, depending upon my satisfaction with own progress. I worked on another body of work a few years ago entitled "1608, re-visited", in which I tried to put myself in the head of a well-known European explorer and what he felt on his travels in the new land. I haven't given up on that body of work, but it hasn't yet progressed as I had hoped it would, so my inspiration has turned for the present to other and different themes.</p>

<p>Style means less to me than the importance of the visual communication I can achieve, and what I am trying to communicate. That others previously denoted a certain style or particular visual pre-occupation in my former work is fine, but that consideration usually only occupies a superficial plane in my personal approach, not the real intent. I am not always conscious of my themes (whether defined by personal creative dispositions or external pulls on me) when making a particular image, but I have found that indvidual images often fit well into the body of work that I am producing at that time.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>question and response and response:</p>

<p> John- "<em>Seems to me that a photographers' work is only appreciated (or evaluated) by a large <strong>body of work</strong>, not by (for example) a mere dozen individual images, certainly not by her/his "best" few."</em><br>

William- "John, I agree. This is America, where more HAS to be better, it's the law, ya know..........."</p>

<p>John and William- Of course a body of work has greater value- and not just in America. As we commonly see here on PN, anyone can shoot great pictures every once in a while- that doesn't make them a great photographer. Consistency and commitment to the medium are more highly regarded. This doesn't just go for photography though. Any restaurant, sports team, composer, writer, accountant, plumber- everything pretty much- everything where quality is a concern is based upon consistency of technique and product. Its nice to have shining moments, but a body of work is a better gauge of the persons true talents. </p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=3679363"><em>Martin Sobey</em></a><em> </em><a href="../member-status-icons"></a><em>, Jan 17, 2010; 05:43 p.m.</em></p>

 

<p><em>question and response and response:</em></p>

 

<p><em>John- "Seems to me that a photographers' work is only appreciated (or evaluated) by a large <strong>body of work</strong>, not by (for example) a mere dozen individual images, certainly not by her/his "best" few."<br />William- "John, I agree. This is America, where more HAS to be better, it's the law, ya know..........."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Martin, I was commenting on the word "large". The sheer volume of work, good, bad or indifferent, doesn't tell me anything. Show me 10 great photos out of 10 taken, and that's great. Show me 10,000 out of 10,000 and I'll show you someone who needs a life. Like I said, this is America, where having five cars must mean you're worth having five cars. And on, and on, and on.............................</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>As we commonly see here on PN, anyone can shoot great pictures every once in a while- that doesn't make them a great photographer.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's why I appreciate 10 out of 10. If I see 10 out of 100, I'm seeing some lucky shots, that's all.</p>

<p>Bill P.</p>

<p>Bill-<br>

I agree, 10 out of 10 would be nice, but that still doesn't really constitute a true body of work. It does, but small- more like a story. If we were talking about painting, we'd say 10 was a body of work, but photography is too easily accessible to qualify 10 a total body of work. I can see where 10 photographs that are extremely difficult to produce, or has very special circumstances.... I'm really playing devil's advocate. I, like many, would love to show my best 10 and leave it at that, but its just not enough. And as for bigger being soley American, it isn't. The standard of more photographs creating a body of work is universal. I'm not referring to your 10,000 images, but 50-100 is pretty solid. Keep in mind we also talking about professional photographers vs. anyone else. Professionals should have larger bodies of work- its their job to make photographs. </p>

<p><strong>Martin/Bill, </strong>How do you view your own bodies of work differently from viewing various of your individual photos? When you are creating an individual photo, does your "body of work" come into play at all, have any influence? Do you work with themes from one photo to the next or think of each photo as individual? Is it an either/or matter or does some amount of both come into play. If there are thematic or visual or stylistic ties among individual photographs you make, can you talk about those? What are those about? Did they come about accidentally, intentionally?</p>

<p>Fred: That "masterpiece" urge that you've backed away from on a per-image basis... do you find that it's simply moved over to the creation of the body of work, or did it simply go away? You mentioned presentation as an important (context-giving) element of presenting multiple works, but I suppose that - the way you're describing it - that contextualized collection <em>is</em> the work. Though it's multiple images, it's <em>a</em> piece of work?<br /><br />I can think of a novel as a masterly piece of work, though I might also linger on specific, especially wonderful paragraphs (or chapters, or even single word choices). Not trying to play semantic games - just curious if you find you've merely changed the scope of the masterpiece urge, or changed whether it's there at all.<br /><br />In my own modest little photographic world, I've realized that expressive, communicative works - for me - are going to turn out to be far more useful as collections, essays, or perhaps serially shown works meant for an audience that's aware of what came before. Just entertaining that notion completely changes how I think about some shooting, or whether to even do it. <br /><br />That said, I certainly wouldn't use the word "body" of work until I've been doing it for another twenty years. I guess I've cringed a couple too many times at sophomore art students referring to their oeuvre!</p>

<p><strong>Matt</strong>, food for thought. Thanks. When each photograph seems like part of a process or a continuing exploration (not that it is the case with all my photographs), I don't feel the tendency to think of the body of work as developing a masterpiece because the end result seems less important to me than the expressive process. That may be because time is much more stretched out over the development of the body of work. Also, for me, the goal is less obvious when it comes to the course of my work than when it comes to individual photos, though with individual photos there is plenty of room for spontaneity and forks in the road on the way to the completed screen image or print.</p>

<p>I didn't mean to suggest that presentation is any more important to presenting multiple works than to presenting an individual work. Presentation is something we don't talk about that much and I think it is really crucial to the experience of a photo or a group of photos.</p>

<p>"Though it's multiple images, it's <em>a</em> piece of work?" --Matt</p>

<p>I find significant differences. Water running out of a faucet is water just like water sitting in a glass. I can call them both water, but "running water" and "still water" contained in a glass express different experiences for me. "Photo" and "body of work" express different kinds of experiences for me as well. I think there's a substantial difference between <em>a</em> piece of work and <em>a collection</em> of pieces of work. There are relationships among various works in a collection that I think are different from the internal relationships of elements in one work, though there are, of course, similarities as well.</p>

<p>I also think we have to differentiate between a series, on the one hand, and a body of work, on the other. Because, in a series, I might well not consider each individual work a "complete" work in itself. So there, the analogy from individual photos in a series to various elements within a single photo might be more more interestingly applied. But when it comes to a body of work, there is more "completion" to each individual which would affect the interrelationships within the body. Probably, in a body of work, though relationships are significant, those relationships might be more <em>emergent</em> than with a series. With a series there is likely to be more intended and actual <em>dependence</em> by individuals on each other from the start.</p>

<p><strong>"I guess I've cringed a couple too many times at sophomore art students referring to their oeuvre!" (Matt)</strong></p>

<p>Therein lies the more general issue as well. As Matt says, twenty years is probably about right in defining what constitutes someones "body" of work or "oeuvre".</p>

<p>This doesn't stop us from either being deterministic in our approach (recognizing of course that, that too is a moving target) or attempting to recognize and reconcile in our approach the more personal and anything elements of our photography.</p>

<p>There is nothing wrong, I think, with attempting to not create a body of work but to achieve only some single or few images that are remarkable, that define what we are trying to achieve, or who we are and what want to communicate.</p>

<p>I can think of some singer/composers who have made great individual works, but little else (I forget the name of the author, but "...Down on the Levy..." ("American Pie"?) and also Quebecker Georges Dor's essential romantic song "Manicougan", are two examples that come to mind, not to forget Bizet's only symphony (G. Bernard Shaw's favourite), but then he did also compose "Carmen").</p>

<p>Fred, your point about a series versus a body of work is good. A series is often one thought manifested in fragments. A single work in fact.</p>

<p>I don't determine a time frame to define a legitimate application of the term "body of work."</p>

<p>I have a "body of work" and I've been photographing seriously for 6 years. I had a body of work after one year. It's more rich and more substantive now than it was after 1 year and I assume it will mature and evolve over the next ten. But my body of work as compared to my single images had the same considerations it did after 1 year as it will after 10 or 20. That I have a body of work doesn't mean I'm any good. One has to determine whether someone is using it to fluff themselves up or simply to describe something, but the term itself does not have the connotation of artificial fluff to me. I'm glad when I hear newcomers to photography or sophomore students taking themselves and their work (individually or as a body) seriously. Plenty of academics and photographers spin their wheels for 20 years and wind up with less compelling bodies of work (in my opinion) than young kids who've had a cell phone for a year or two. It may not seem fair, but it happens.</p>

<p>My favorite example of having one stand-out with no other film-directing body of work is Charles Laughton: <em>Night of the Hunter.</em> The film certainly stands on its own merits regardless of whether it was a one-note wonder.</p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2361079"><em>Fred Goldsmith</em></a><em> </em><a href="../member-status-icons"><em><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub3.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></em></a><em>, Jan 18, 2010; 10:27 a.m.</em><br>

<em><strong>Martin/Bill, </strong>How do you view your own bodies of work differently from viewing various of your individual photos? </em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not really. I enjoy my individual photos, and where they fit into the body of work is where they fit. My body of work sorts itself out, it wasn't created as such, it just evolved.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em></em><br>

<em>When you are creating an individual photo, does your "body of work" come into play at all, have any influence?</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>No. Not to sound glib, but really, I see what I think is beautiful and I drop the shutter release. If I'm shooting a project, then I have an itinerary, and that's a different story.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em></em><br>

<em> Do you work with themes from one photo to the next or think of each photo as individual?</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's an interesting question, Fred. Looking at what I think is beautiful, I seem to have an attration to the Empire State building, Chrysler building, and how they fit into their environment (NYC). I'm not doing this consciously, which I find fascinating. Sunsets also interest me aesthetically.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em></em><br>

<em> Is it an either/or matter or does some amount of both come into play. If there are thematic or visual or stylistic ties among individual photographs you make, can you talk about those?</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I shoot from the heart, without thinking about themes, connections, threads, collections, etc. So when you see my work, you're seeing what I think is pleasing to look at. After the fact, when all is said and done, there are obvious thematic elements in my work, but you're seeing my soul, not my photography. The photos are just the gateway.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em></em><br>

<em> What are those about? Did they come about accidentally, intentionally?</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>The themes just evolve unconsciously. There is nothing telling me to shoot tall buildings, dark alleyways, etc. They are not accidental, the intention is to shoot my version of beauty. The themes evolve by themselves.<br>

I am not trying to prove points, make statements, etc., although sometimes it seems that way with my love for the unretouched photo, but I want to present the honest view of what I see and feel, that's all.<br>

Fred, I hope I have shed some light on the questions you've presented. Since it's a holiday, I get to spend a bit more time addressing your thoughts.</p>

<p>Bill P.</p>

<p>Thanks, Bill. There's a lot you bring up about intention and consciousness that I would find worth pursuing in another thread, and someday I'm sure we will. But for the purposes of this thread, you've given us a great picture of how you view your process.</p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=2361079"><em>Fred Goldsmith</em></a><em> </em><a href="/member-status-icons"><em><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub3.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></em></a><em>, Jan 18, 2010; 11:52 a.m.</em><br>

<em>Thanks, Bill. There's a lot you bring up about intention and consciousness that I would find worth pursuing in another thread, and someday I'm sure we will.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>You're welcome, Fred, and I look forward to those topics, too.</p>

<p>Bill P.</p>

<p>I think that few well-known artists whom we have viewed in recent years have declared that they have a "body of work", unless thay have been compelled to do so for interviews (although declaring that is a rare desire for many of them) or on CVs sent to Art Councils or other funding agencies, or someone has described the ensemble of their work in that manner.</p>

<p>It makes a nice "package" or "classifier", to describe what we are doing as our "body of work", we feel empowered by the thought and cited position. But to mean anything distinctive (as in different, unique or highly specific to us) I think that we must let the dust first settle.</p>

<p>Quantitatively, a body of work may mean something. In a qualitative and not quantitative sense, a (unique or distinctive) body of work is I think often best recognized by the viewers, and not the artist or photographer, who is often concerned more (or simply) with his or her approach to (and why of) making images.</p>

<p>I'm concerned with making photographs, with thinking about them, and with discussing them (among other things). Athur, if you want to concern yourself and judge others ("cited position") for how they refer to their collection of photographs, you are of course welcome to do so. I sometimes look to the photographs I have so far completed for further insights and stimulation in the continuing of my work. Sometimes, a new photo I take feels like the first one. Looking at my own body of work may well have to do with empowerment. Making photographs does empower me on many levels, yes. It also has to do with learning, utilizing context, understanding relationships, developing a voice, none of which I shy away from discussing for fear that others will completely misread my doing so. After a period of time and when the dust settles, yes, I will have a different and perhaps richer perspective on my body of work. That seems to me no reason not to discuss it now.</p>

<p>Fred-<br>

I almost certainly shoot every photo for itself. That being said, we as photographers have the capacity to shoot many photographs in the same scenario to get the best results, per our desires. If I'm not just shooting from the hip, say with my iPhone or just walking and seeing something intriguing, I usually have some sort of agenda. I do, like most photographers, have several categories to potentially work with and always keep that in mind- but most of my shooting is done with specificity. My various bodies of work are definitely differing in style and theme. Sometimes they come up quite naturally with no intent in the beginning, just something overall that I wish to further explore. Other times they have been chosen- New York street photography in B&W in the year 2000, documentation of my street art (ongoing), abstract work. Some work of course is driven by the career as photographer, but that tends to drive a body of work in itself- you've got to have stories, themes, consistency and relevance. Of course some bodies of work accrue over time- like my photographs of my kids. I have known it from the start that these photographs would be a body of work, but you can't always see the long story, as changes continually, along with life. </p>

<p>Arthur- "Quantitatively, a body of work may mean something. In a qualitative and not quantitative sense, a (unique or distinctive) body of work is I think often best recognized by the viewers, and not the artist or photographer, who is often concerned more (or simply) with his or her approach to (and why of) making images."</p>

<p>Yes I think viewers can help to identify a theme- but I disagree that a photographer would be unaware of it or more concerned with their approach. Actually the photographer's approach to photography will guide their body of work and sometimes keep them on a track to creating a body of work, not just doing impassioned shooting. I don't think you are giving photographers enough credit here. </p>

 

<p>I don't think selecting beautiful subjects and photographing them perfectly/beautifully qualifies as a photographer's own "body of work." </p>

<p>The results seem too generic to be credited to an individual . <strong>No sense of origination.</strong> </p>

<p>Photographed a Dan Flavin fluorescent tube sculpture at DIA Gallery in a novel way (from outside the building)..is it my photo or just a record of part of a famous artist's body of work?</p>

<p>Watched a dozen photographers with max $$ DSLRs and studio-scale tripods photographing sunset cranes at Bosque del Apache (in New Mexico) recently. Bizarre mechanical-looking birds, exploding orange sky, the whole disaster. The photographers had made fine purchases and gotten themselves to the location in their RVs and SUVs, but the boids and weather own the images.</p>

<p>I made gorgeous studio photos of oysters for a pharmaceutical company...I don't think the results were "mine," and not just because I was paid. They're in his tear sheets, but I'm not that guy anymore. Still, when I look at them I remember the pleasure of eating those oysters with the food stylist, drinking champaign with her...etc... so I'll keep the tear sheets, whether or not I think the images are relevant to my body of work.</p>

<p>There's a fundamental apples/oranges difference between postcards/calendars/kiddie-snaps and the kind of photography I personally find interesting. But that's just me, a culture snob. I read lit and history, listen to Mingus, go to experimental theatre, posture in non-tourist galleries etc.</p>

<p>Nothing wrong with this: Somebody does buy truck loads of postcards/calendars after all. And there's endless justification for kiddie snaps and vacation memories :-)</p>

<p>Incidentally, I don't understand treasuring old images unless they appeal to today's rendition of who we are as individuals, or to our families as we understand them in retrospect: I'm simply not that interested in who I was decades ago. When <strong>Georgia O'Keefe</strong> was asked, late in life, about her response to <strong>Stieglitz's</strong> images of her genitals, she said it didn't bother her because that wasn't her (anymore). Americans are said to be uniquely able to reinvent themselves...how about you? are you the same person you were a decade ago?</p>

 

<p><strong>John</strong>, are you consciously developing (focused on, working within) your own "body of work?" Or, if you're not doing so consciously, do you see something developing anyway? If so, what can you say about the body of work itself and some of the processes that may tie that body of work together?</p>

<p>Fred,</p>

<p>possibly you misunderstood what I was saying, about "body of work" versus one's personal approach or artistic approach (which eventually and hopefully defines a body of work that really characterizes our approach). I think we should be very much concerned with our personal and artistic approach to our work, which I enjoy discussing with others as much as I think you do, to have feedback, to explore different postulates or ideas. Quite often I provide examples for comment by others. If I get comments back, they can enrich and nourish my thoughts or cause me to reflect on my own development, or they can simply provide me a view that is different from and possibly incompatible with my own. Both are perfectly acceptable, of course.</p>

<p>"Americans are said to be uniquely able to reinvent themselves." Of course, John, and to their credit, but it is a common trait among most thinking peoples. Thanks for your examples. I think also that in one of your examples, Georgia O'Keefe was simply saying that it was Stieglitz's choice, an appropriated one if that. And that art can represent anything we want it to.</p>

<p>Martin,</p>

<p>I agree with your points about body of work and personal approach, especially that the latter is what determines the former. Personal approach in art and photography is what determines the former, as you say, and I thought I was also alluding to.</p>

<p>Personal approach, as I see it and feel it, is a fairly complex "equation", made up of artistic constructs, personal view of what is around us, subconscious actors on our conscious responses, what someone said to us within recent time, whether we accept the world passively or passionately, our philosophy, our relation to humans, our aesthetic sense, our challenges, our defeats, our "sanity" (I wish at some times that I could enjoy lack of sanity and witness the effect on seeing things), our values, and probably many other factors.</p>

<p>It is the personal artistic approach that is important for me, rather than whether at any one time it corresponds or not to my body of work. We shouldn't forget that a body of work can also (in some cases) be an albatross on the freedom of the artistic spirit. I enjoy the freedom of not being categorised, of the fewest possible paradigms on my actions, until such time as my personal artistic approach (which is pardigm enough to deal with) is communicating what I wish it to. Now is a period of exploration.</p>

<p>Arthur-<br>

I do agree about finding a that particular vein in which to explore further. I say "finding" because sometimes the idea, the moment of realization, hits us over the head only after doing so much various types of work before we can commit to a specific program. That is growth. I do think that many people, myself included (sometimes), choose their program, their subject from the sidelines. I have been involved in events that I felt were engaging and exciting and thusly took them on as subject, with objectives and style in mind. Sometimes these things happen and we just know it. Our experience tells us wether what we are trying to communicate is going to look better color or BW, grainy or smooth, small, medium or large format, framed or unframed, video or stills. Or, like I said, it creeps up slowly and hits you over the head. I think the most important aspect is continuing- working through the bugs and creating something. Your stylistic "albatross" is important. It is important to have freedom, and that itself can be a style, but there must be enough work and a great enough grasp of the medium to show that there is a reason for it. Otherwise, parameters can be healthy. I only say this because I personally take an approach firmly outside the "normal" zone of photography in my abstract work. In a few pictures it says something- in a body of work it illustrates it. </p>