Cliché

<p>Do you think about clichés in your photographs?</p>

<p>While I find myself trying to avoid them, I also realize I can't. So sometimes I actually embrace them, but I try to make them work for me.</p>

<p>What's the line between a cliché and a symbol or an icon?</p>

<p>Here's a dictionary definition: <em>A </em><strong><em>cliché</em></strong><em> (from French), is a saying, expression, idea, or element which has been overused to the point of losing its original meaning or effect, rendering it a stereotype, especially when at some earlier time it was considered meaningful or novel. The term is frequently used in modern culture for an action or idea which is expected or predictable, based on a prior event. It is likely to be used pejoratively. A cliché may sometimes be used in a work of fiction for comedic effect.</em></p>

<p>Because so many subjects have already been photographed, can we buck the definition and use this word non-pejoratively? The last sentence of the definition seems to provide an out. Can we USE clichés effectively, perhaps transcend them through their own use, use them for emphasis, for familiarity (even intimacy), without falling into a trap. (Example: Are slatted shadows from the use of Venetian Blinds bound to be a cliché and therefore most often a negative in our photos, or can we overcome the cliché or utilize it in a significant way?)</p>

<p>What's the difference between "stereotype" and "universal"?</p>

<p>How important is "novel" to our photographs? I find myself sometimes relying on predictability in order to express myself and communicate photographically. Does it require some element of chance or imprecision offsetting the predictability to avoid cliché? Or, if the cliché is in tension with spontaneity, luck, or happenstance, is it then less likely to be looked down upon?</p>

<p>Developing a voice, which seems to rely on some consistency, would also seem to rely on at least some degree of predictability, even if only in retrospect (We could've seen that coming . . . ). Yet no one wants to be known as predictable . . . or do they?</p>

<p>Is it a matter of genuineness? If I admit to clichés and don't run from them, am I more likely to present something significant than if I'm blind to my use of them?</p>

<p>My personal policy on this is, well, this: I don't try to duplicate the ideas of others, but if my own vision covers subjects that the vision of others have already covered, so long as I am working in my own vision I don't give a rats you-know-what.</p>

<p>I never head out with the specific intention of replicating someone else's work/style/etc, but I also try never to limit my own vision and expression thereof just because someone else may have made a similar photograph or worked in a similar style. As has been stated many times in many places, just about everything has been photographed already. Why, just last week I saw a print that I myself had made a few years back in the pages of a Brett Weston book - I never knew that he made that particular photograph, and even had I known I would still have made the one I made because it meant something to me and was an expression of my personal vision. As long as what I am creating is something that means something to me, I'm not concerned with what other people are going to say about it. <em>I</em> know that it was not created to imitate someone else's vision and that's all I care about.</p>

<p>As I see it, so long as you are expressing <em>your own</em> vision you are working in your own style. You cannot, I don't believe, pick something as your style and then work in it. You can certainly pick a medium, but your style is an extension of you and already exists. It's just up to you to make it visible to others. If someone thinks that you work is stale, or derivative, or whatever, that's their opinion and they are certainly entitled to it, but keep this in mind: you will never please all of the people all of the time. Work for <em>you</em> . Express <em>yourself</em> in your work. Let everyone else worry about what they think. If you do that, then you are genuine as far as I'm concerned...</p>

<p>- Randy</p>

<p>We've touched on genuineness, authenticity, sincerity, affectation, sentimentality, un/sophistication, and the whole family of such many times in the past.<br /><br />It all comes down to your audience and your purpose. Are you pleasing them, or challenging them? Speaking their language, or scolding/chiding them for not speaking yours? Is your audience hungry for nuance, irony, and tension, or looking for the photographic equivalent of comfort food?<br /><br />These audiences aren't mutually exclusive. I know highly trained artists who've forgotten more about semantics and symbols than I'll ever know... who will also gleefully buy some of my photographs in the form of greeting cards with puppy pictures on them. I sometimes like crazy new-fangled jazz, driven by history and giving a nod to it, but which also seeks to use fresh interpretation and technique to poke tradition in the eye. Those same musicians can also swoon at hearing a fifty year old bluegrass recording.<br /><br />Communication (and thus visual art, which is a subset - including photography, an even smaller sliver) only works when you and the person to whom you're communicating have something in common - even it's just some overlapping visual icons or clues that cause one to love, and the other to hate the same photograph. A cliche is only a cliche in the mind of the viewer. Even if you <em>mean</em> to speak in cliches, it only works if the audience gets that it is such. And as we've all seen here a thousand times, there are cliches you don't even know you're using, until someone points it out - a common affliction among new communicators of all kinds.<br /><br />But I'll stick my neck out and say that it's usually evident when the artist has intentionally trotted out Old Faithful to help make a point, or a jest, or to ease the delivery of some other element in the art. Nothing wrong with that! Doesn't mean it will be well received - such efforts are sometimes glorious, and sometimes completely tone deaf.<br /><br />I don't find much distinction between "stereotype" and "universal" other than in connotation. Someone will describe an element as a stereotype because they dissaprove of the reason the artist used it. One man's icon is another man's stereotype, because each man's world view involves a different framework. I've stopped worrying, Fred, and use the symbols and icons and cheesy cliches I like or find effective or amusing or sobering as needed. If I'm using them without realizing it, then they're not (for me!) a cliche. But I don't get out much.</p>

<p>Cliches are part of life and as the saying goes there is much truth in them. It´s not something I worry about that much though when it comes to my own photography. Speaking about cliches</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Because so many subjects have already been photographed</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Novel is something else I don´t worry about. If you do you, you end up with work that is no longer yours. I photograph in a very traditional style, not because I would like to emulate other people or because the way I was trained but because it feels good for me personally and helps me to convey that what I want to bring across (without any pretense btw).<br /> I like some of the contemporary conceptual photography but just to look at and explore. taying true to yourself is what matters, including cliches.</p>

<p>I generally ignore stereotype/cliche' element in <strong>other</strong> people's photos, sometimes along with the photos themselves: baby/bathwater. Sometimes I miss something worthwhile as a result.</p>

<p><strong>In my own work time-honored cliche's abound</strong>. I don't consider myself a "landscape" photographer, but I've driven several hundred miles, three times so far this Summer, just to study a particular graveyard. Maximum cliche'! The weather hasn't given me the skies I've wanted..If I lived on a cliff over the Pacific I'd inevitably do some faux-Weston, but I live in the fabulous-sky-Southwest...when I was raising a son I made thousands of "kid-with-attitude" photos.</p>

<p>Right now I'm struggling to schedule portraits of two people who have influenced my life over the past several years I won't demean the individuals by reducing them to Karsh cliches...and they won't be "iconic," that's for sure. </p>

<p>The most significant photos seem to me to live in the realm of "interpersonal", "matter of fact," "illustrative," and even "banal." The best is rarely labeled "iconic'..a term that means popular recognition, as authorized by somebody other than oneself.</p>

<p>Several Vietnam images are called "iconic," usually by people who seem to have no awareness of historic context beyond the regurtation of factoids about the individual shots and photographers. </p>

<p>Is this stuff "iconic?" (Capa would have admired it).<br>

<a href="http://hosted.ap.org/specials/interactives/_international/wardak_soldiers/">http://hosted.ap.org/specials/interactives/_international/wardak_soldiers/</a></p>

 

<p><strong>Randall, Matt, Ton, and others who may respond--</strong></p>

<p>I'll wait for a few more responses before giving some further specific thoughts on the subject. Just want to say at this point that I meant this philosophically. I'm not concerned with what others will think about my work. I'm wondering what you, as photographers, think about clichés and how you use them. I'm not "worried" about clichés, I'm thinking about them.</p>

<p>Wouldnt worry about them.</p>

<p>Bruce Willis says in one movie: "Cliche? Good! Will be easy to recognize!" while checking his pistols.</p>

<p>Jack Nicholson says in another: "Cliche? Cliche! But truth..." while smoking sigar</p>

<p>Both may be taken as general aprovement by people who know damn thing inside out.</p>

<p>A Russian photographer was taken by one of my photos of round haybales in a field. They don't have round bales in his part of the world. Here in the Midwestern U.S. it's definitely a cliche, because we all see so many. I've apologized to a few people more artistically sophisticated than I, about many of my photos probably being cliches. I love barns, flowers, storm clouds at sunset, winding streams, etc. A full time professional sculptor whom I highly respect asked me in June not to apologize. He said, "If your work is pleasing to other people and they find meaning in it, there's no need to apologize for it being a cliche." We have a local interest magazine that's doing very well financially, mostly because its target audience is happy and recommending it to others. One or two of my photos appear in almost every issue, and the photo editor is now asking me to submit additional specific subjects, dimensions and lighting effects. It has become a nice source of income. When I see my work in the magazine it fits well, and loses the connotation of cliche that would probably disqualify it from an art competition or exhibit. Beauty is truly in the eye of the beholder. </p>

<p>It's a great observation, Howard. There are many subjects that appear cliched to an average viewer because they aren't familiar enough with niche subject matter to get the point of the photograph. I get that a lot with dogs. Breeders and trainers will see and revel in things that the audience at an art show would laugh off as being "a dog picture." Doesn't bother me! I know who knows.</p>

<p>...or "<strong>may be taken as approvement</strong>" by people purchase cliches from people who write them for cliche'd character actors :-)</p>

<p>Sometimes I'm afraid that if it weren't for cliches, I wouldn't have any pictures at all.<br /> Seriously, we're coming up on more than a 185 years of photography, more or less, and absolute novelty is getting pretty hard to achieve. Just when you think you've got a "new take" on something, some old timer will turn out to have done it back in the 20s. Sometimes, it's less "novelty" than it is simply doing the best you can do and achieving your goals in doing it.</p>

<p>It's some overemphasis on "novelty" that gives us the art works made of urine and feces. They may be novel, but they're still pieces of sh*t. Of course, by now, they're not even novel..... that's always the problem of the avant garde.</p>

<p>JDM: As me dear ol' Pappy used to say, "Every cutting edge eventually gets dull, but a sharp mind can always cut through the crap."<br /><br />OK, he never said that, and I never called him Pappy. But you can see his point. Well, if he'd ever <em>said</em> that, which he didn't, but I'm his son, and I said it, and that's close enough.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'm wondering what you, as photographers, think about clichés and how you use them.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ah, I see (I think - please correct me if I'm off base). I <em>don't</em> think about them, to be honest. I'm not really interested in that sort of approach in my own photography. I tend to focus (no pun intended) on line and form (which is certainly not new, but I see that as more of a universal concept rather than something that it mostly associated with photography) and although I've seen, and tried (and occasionally succeeded) to appreciate, the work of those who work more philosophically, photographically speaking, it's not really something that holds a lot of interest for me.</p>

<p>Rather than considering what is clichéd and how it could be used to present a new message I tend to work in a more isolated manner, following my own ideas. I mean, no body can <em>completely</em> isolate their thoughts from those of others, we are surrounded by ideas and our life experiences have influenced what we have become and how we think and see, but I don't <em>actively</em> consider what I am doing in relation to previous ideas. I just photograph what captures my eye so that I can present it to others as I saw it...</p>

<p>Fascinating question, Fred. I look forward to reading everyone's thoughts on this...</p>

<p>- Randy</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It's some overemphasis on "novelty" that gives us the art works made of urine and feces.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>you sure do have a point there JDM. On the other hand, intended or not, Serrano's "Piss Christ" did expose the narrowmindedness of a lot of people where that in itself became far more valuable than the photo itself. As such it became a true work of art.</p>

<p>Matt, I wish I'd said that, or my pappy had. I think he did tell me though, not to spit into the wind, although he didn't say "spit". ;)</p>

<p>Ton, did I ever say that it was <em><strong>bad</strong> </em> sh*t? I am Swedish, after all, and jokes about flatulence and the like are part of my cultural heritage (see Bergman's <em>Fanny och Alexander</em> , for example).</p>

<p>I stand corrected ;-)))</p>

<p>A new way of visualizing what's become cliché is sometimes very new indeed. I also think there's a difference between a cliché and a gimmick . . . something worth at least considering. Offhand, it seems like there are those who try too hard to come up with something new, and that is likely going to avoid cliché but often yields a gimmick. On the other hand, many throughout history can't help but coming up with new ways, and that's usually the exciting kind of "new". I've said before that I don't think human acts of creation begin <em>ex nihilo</em>, so there will always be building blocks.</p>

<p><strong>Ton</strong>, why separate the exposing of narrowmindedness from the photo in Serrano's case? His photo's value may simply not be limited to its physical incarnation hanging on some wall somewhere. For me, that photo is the photo and the exposé.</p>

<p><strong>JDM</strong>, Though we would disagree on our evaluation of Serrano's work, I really appreciate your point about "novelty" and its limitations. Fresh ideas do seem significant in the history of photographs but many of them are simply for the sake of themselves and come across more as gimmicks. Reading your thoughts about goals and self achievement, the word "discovery" came to mind, perhaps more useful than "novelty".</p>

<p><strong>Randy</strong>, I do sometimes set out with the idea of replicating someone else's work (or at least paying homage to or feeling influenced by). I've long been moved by what I consider a historical dialogue among photographers, painters, musicians . . . the bows and nods made to each other across centuries and even across genres and mediums. That still feels like self expression to me. I agree with you and like the way you put it . . . that you work in a more isolated manner with the recognition that you can't completely isolate yourself. Yes, it's certainly not black and white, but there are definitely degrees and different photographers will, at different times, be more or less involved with what others have done.</p>

<p><strong>Matt and Howard</strong>, Really great points both about the viewer's part in all this (what the viewer will "get") and the more social/cultural aspects of what is cliché in what context. Howard, I'm hesitant about your friend's quote. I mean, American Idol is pleasing and meaningful to a whole lot of people and I still think it should be apologized for. I realize risking elitism here. But, as you and Matt both recognize, it will depend on the purpose of the photograph. A photograph solely intended as self expression and a photograph intended to be mass produced and sold or intended to sell a product or please a publisher will allow for very different considerations.</p>

<p><strong>Ilia</strong>, Love the quotes and what's behind them. Clichés have become clichés for a reason. That's why I try not to scoff at them and I do consider them seriously.</p>

<p><strong>John</strong>, Your recognition that you may miss something worthwhile in the type of approach you discuss is honorable and significant. I don't know anyone who doesn't enjoy a good cliché now and then, even if they won't ever show it to anyone. I dare say most of us have taken that shot of sunlight falling on a subject through Venetian Blinds or of a cemetery at twilight. There's a reason, after all, they've become clichés. I think that's part of my thinking here. Once something is a cliché, that likely doesn't mean we're going to stop being drawn to it. Is there something non-superficial in it for us and can we access that? Great links. My take is that there is a lot of iconography used in those videos. Combined with a lot of down-to-Earth and personal, human, and genuine feelings. Kind of the combination/tension that was discussed in the Idealism thread. Having a hard time making sense of your second post in this thread, although it seems to be (maybe) addressing the positive aspects of clichés or at least their potential.</p>

<p><strong>P.S. JDM</strong>, Just saw your subsequent post about Serrano, so please take some of what I've said to you above in light of my originally interpreting you as Ton originally did.</p>

<p>Fred, I've been thinking some more about this. Many of the visual cliches (or stereotypes, call them what you will) that find their way into thoughtfully made photographs serve, I think, the same role as idioms in written language. Sometime's they're just visual shorthand or a reference to a much larger - but well established and understood - external understanding that can be simply represented within the image through the use of a familiar look/scene/lighting/object/pose.<br /><br />It's sort of like starting a narrative with "Once upon a time." No matter <em>what</em> you say next, the reader understands some things about how the writer is about to communicate, and how to approach what happens next. I think that many visual cues work the same way, and allow the artist to focus more on what differentiates one fairy tale from the next, now that we've (through the use of shorthand) instantly established that we're in fantasy mode.<br /><br />In a way, the more pervasive the cliche, the <em>less</em> of it you need to use to communicate its role in the larger work. Kind of like basil and Italian food.</p>

<p>Trying to avoid making cliché photos is important to me, whether those clichés have been originated by a great photographer and since copied by thousands of others, or whether they are my own self-propagated clichés (a style or content of photo that I tend to self-copy). I don't succeed as often as I would like to.</p>

<p>The latter was made evident to me early on, during judged competitions (Salons) where all works were anonymous to the three judges and to the audience. As the final set of ten or so highest point photos in a category were being placed in front of all for final final selection by the judges, a few of my friends would whisper "we know which of yours are there". Was it the style of content (subject matter and its treatment) or printing style, or was it my own clichés that I was again repeating and which they remarked upon?</p>

<p>Clichés can either be those related to oft-repeated themes (Half-Domes, formal wedding shots, sunsets, flower macros, etc.) or clichés which are the manner of photograhing a particular subject, made famous by another photographer (such as Karsh multi-light portrait set-ups, Jean-Loup Sieff or Bill Brandt's wide angle shots, Weston's veggies, etc.).</p>

<p>I think that none of these subjects or methods should be excluded, as such, from one's approach or tool-kit. What should be avoided I think is the copying of the over-familiar, well-known, approach of another photographer, rather than imposing an individual aproach to a common theme or using a known technique (Ex. very wide angle perspectives of the human body) in a novel manner. Not easy, always, to do, but necessary if we want to develop a personal approach.</p>

<p>I am sure that others occasionally receive a comment like "your B&W landscape photos look like works of Ansell Adams". Whereas the comment may have been made by someone who has not looked at a lot of b&w images, my reaction has been to simply thank them, but to humbly ask them in what way they think that such and such photo is similar to one of Ansell Adams (few photographers want to be thought of as similar to another, however famous, photographer, or adopt a cliché founded on their works or style). The response often allowed identification of something in the image that was not at all similar to that of the cited master.</p>

<p>Some will say that clichés are unavoidable, as photography has been around for many years. However, so has drawing and painting, perhaps 25,000 to 35,000 years old, yet new things happen all the time. The possibilities of creating novel photographic images is not limited.</p>

<p>Ton and Fred: Not to worry, it was the obvious inference, and I was glad to have the chance to make the point clearer ;), and besides "Sh*t happens."</p>

<p>I'm not sure I'm clear where the archetype ends and the cliche begins. Or perhaps the two are different sides of the same.<br>

I always smile at the number of people who drive to Rockport and take a picture of "the motif" - featuring the dock, fishing shack, etc. And yet, I have on my list of things to shoot that very image, in an effort to perhaps do it 'right.'<br>

It's a postcard shot, and like so many of those is overdone <em>ad nauseum</em>.<br>

Honestly, I think cliches can only be cliche because there is truth in them somewhere... some part or thing that touches people.<br>

But I don't pay that much attention to cliche or think about what might be universal or acceptable. I shoot trying to catch that flash of <em>something</em> I see, and I don't anticipate any change in that. I'm kind of out there doing my own thing without too much concern over the direction of others. If what I do turns out to be a cliche - or an archetype - then that's the breaks. It's still what I do.</p>

 

<p>Fred, my second post, the Mystery Statement, was a garbled wisecrack response to something said by Ilia. Made no conventional or unconventional sense :-)</p>

<p>The way to avoid cliches is to learn how and what you see uniquely and photograph that. What makes a cliche is trying to make a photograph that looks like one you've seen before and admired or wished to be able to make. The photograph of a mountain reflecting in a lake, the low angle shot of the ocean with rocks in the foreground and a long exposure to blur the water. At some point, those are more like technical exercises in photography that share a common vision rather than a singular interpretation of the subject.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If I admit to clichés and don't run from them, am I more likely to present something significant than if I'm blind to my use of them?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Recognizing what is or is not a cliche is part of the process, but learning how to turn that moment and subject into your personal interpretation is the key. I have no fear of making a photograph that's a cliche - I just never show them to anyone if I feel they are. However, making the first image of a subject that starts with the cliche can often lead to a further exploration of the subject, a better understanding of what you're photographing, and hopefully an interpretation of the subject that is yours alone.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Does it require some element of chance or imprecision offsetting the predictability to avoid cliché? Or, if the cliché is in tension with spontaneity, luck, or happenstance, is it then less likely to be looked down upon?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Someone once said, "I'll take luck over talent any day - it's far more dependable." Chance and/or luck is a key element in any photo. Find the subject (chance or luck), be there at the best time of day (chance or luck) - but the problem is seeing the image no matter what the subject or the time of day - and neither chance nor luck can help with that.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>What's the difference between "stereotype" and "universal"?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>When you show the subject in a new way or show something new about the subject. Making the un-seen in the subject visible to the viewer.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>How important is "novel" to our photographs?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm not sure I understand the question. Synonyms for novel include: new, original, fresh, different, innovative, unusual, and unique. If you think that a photograph needs to be any of those, then "novel" is an important part of a photograph.</p>

<p>Here's a question I think needs to be answered - why do so many people think a photograph needs to be beautiful? When you stop trying to make beautiful photographs and try to make interesting photographs, you find that cliches start going away, and novel and its synonyms start appearing more often. This is not to say that an interesting photograph can't be beautiful, or vice versa - just that the singular pursuit of making a photograph based solely on that one aspect often lead directly to cliches. You need to see past beautiful (and its friends - picturesque and scenic) and produce photographs that show the subject in a way that is seen only to the person making the photograph - and not like a big game hunter bringing back a trophy for all to admire.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Is it a matter of genuineness?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Is this as opposed to fake? You'll have to address this further - I'm not sure what you're getting at.</p>

<p>All of the above is predicated on spontaneous style photography or the "found photograph," and not on work that many people do that involves setting up a scene (Cindy Sherman, Joel-Pete Witkin, etc.). That type of photography does not exist within a genre where cliche is may happen as the vision needed to setup the photograph is unique within itself.</p>

<p><strong>Steve</strong>, Interesting thoughts, thanks. Just to be clear, I'm not starting from the premise that I want to avoid clichés. I am as likely to recognize and embrace them, as long as I can deal with them in some stimulating way.</p>

<p>"making the first image of a subject that starts with the cliche can often lead to a further exploration of the subject, a better understanding of what you're photographing, and hopefully an interpretation of the subject that is yours alone."</p>

<p>Great stuff. I agree wholeheartedly. But I actually think the cliché doesn't have to be the first or a separate image (that does not get shown). I think the cliché can be dealt with right there in the personal and mature photograph. The cliché can be present and also be transcended. As a matter of fact, it may be necessary for it to be there in order for it to be transcended.</p>

<p>As for the difference between "stereotype" and "universal," I'll think a little more about showing something new and its relation to "universality." Newness and universality is not something I generally connect. I was thinking more about truth (I know, it's a tough word!). While some stereotypes have a grain of truth, which is why they get started in the first place, many of them are downright false, simply created out of whole cloth. Now, there's a problem with universals, in that I think the whole notion of something applying universally is problematic. I tend to think much more individually and contextually than universally. Yet, I don't think we generally universalize in order to falsify whereas I do think we often stereotype in order to falsify. I think a problem with clichés is that they often falsify (simplify) things. Clichés, like many stereotypes, are often blindly accepted rather than deeply considered.</p>

<p>I brought up "novel" as a counterpoint to the definition's mention of predictability and overuse. Again, I think predictability and overuse can be effective tools in communication when attended to and built upon.</p>

<p>Yes, I agree that "beauty" is overrated. Interestingly, one of the qualities we're asked to rate on in the PN rating forum is Aesthetics, which people often mistake for beautiful. An image or photo with great aesthetic value does not have to be beautiful, but most people don't get that. More "beautiful" portraits and landscapes often get higher ratings than more aesthetically penetrating and moving ones. It's a shame.</p>

<p>I mean being "genuine" about clichés. If you simply use a cliché to take the easy way out, that does seem a little fake to me. We all know that a Venetian Blind setup is going automatically to engender certain reactions by many, many viewers. If we don't go a step farther, I think, we're being a bit disingenuous. Same with relying solely on the pathos, for example, of someone sleeping in filth on the street. Do something with that image, make me think about it somehow differently or effectively, and that seems more genuine than simply relying on a sympathetic (rather than empathetic) response.</p>

<p>I don't understand the difference you're asserting between spontaneous and set up with regard to clichés. I can set up as many cliché situations as I can find spontaneously. But perhaps I misunderstand you.</p>

<p><strong>Thomas</strong>, Like you, I wonder about that divide between cliché and archetype as well and I'm suggesting that there's not all that much difference and that a lot depends on <em>intent</em> and <em>execution</em>. I also agree that clichés have truth, otherwise they probably wouldn't have gotten to that status. The problem may be that the truth of a cliché may have become hollow over time. Maybe this is where Steve's idea of newness comes in. Even truths can become stale.</p>

<p><strong>Arthur</strong>, Interesting to hear your experiences at those juried shows. I've thought about that, too. The fine line between the negatives of predictability and the positives of developing a recognizable style and voice. I guess we each have to decide our own comfort level on when familiarity is working for us and when it's not.</p>

<p><strong>Matt</strong>, WOW! Wonderful. That analogy to the idiom is really a cool insight. I really can't add much to what you said but it has really opened things up a lot. Nothing wrong with a good "hook."</p>

<p>One English dictionary (Oxford) defines cliché as a hackneyed literary phrase (as common as the word Oxford, less common than Ox-Ford, if I can add a little lightness....). Roget's Thesaurus provides "truism" as well as "banality" and "commonplace" as three synonyms for cliché, which begs the question of congruency. Not much agreement, or maybe the word can indeed mean many things. I like cliché as "déjà vu". One French dictionary (Le Robert) defines cliché as a too often used idea or phrase.</p>

<p>Transposing the definitions to images, the latter few definitions probably best describe the problem of clichés, which also conforms to the original definitions you gave.</p>

<p>It might also be a truism, or it might not (the "banal" synonym). My experience is that there are very few images, at least those wanting to communicate something, or something novel, that can benefit from the use of photographic clichés, like your mention of the optical candy provided by venetian blinds. Exceptions might be those images that seek to exagerate prior clichés or incorporate cliché elements to make a point, often tongue in cheek, or sardonic.</p>

<p>Clichés - IMHO probably better avoided, unless you are cliché-ing your own style, but then that is a fine line. A difference between established personal style or approach, and cliché or déjà vu.</p>

<p>One artist friend paints only snowgeese, usually in flocks - he has been doing the same thing for many years and both his expressive and abstract paintings of snowgeese do very well from year to year (sells many in the 0.8 to 14 k$ range). His paintings are all somewhat different. Is this cliché, or style? I think it is the second, but it is a fine line.</p>