Jump to content

Do subjects get "used up" in photography?


Recommended Posts

Does subject matter get "used up"? Is this peculiar to photography?

 

Think of the most common overdone subject matter: sunsets, babies, pets,

vacation/travel snaps, flowers. But also think of green peppers, nautilus

shells, urban ugliness, the Half-Dome, nudes in traditional poses [add your

personal list of overdone, or "claimed" generic subjects]. With 2 billion

images on Flickr, with more people making and more people looking, will fresh

subject matter become ever harder to find? Where does this lead?

 

While it is literally impossible for a photographer to take a perfect

recreation of the subject of an existing photograph, it's nevertheless, very

easy to make something that qualifies as an imitation -- and which will be seen

as an imitation by viewers. While light and timing are **the** creative tools

used by photogaphers and are what makes a picture bad or good, nevertheless,

what he primarily gets credit/blame for is the generic subject matter and its

arrangement in the frame.

 

In photography, it's relatively easy to imitate.

 

A technically savvy photographer is probably able to do an adequate imitatation

of just about any great photographer. After all, they both use cameras, both

understand technique (from exposure, to lighting and printing), and both have

access to the same subject matter.

 

Conversely, it's quite hard not to imitate.

 

If you happen to want to do the same subject matter as has been famously done

by some other photographer -- without having your pictures being seen as

imitation, what can you change? You can't give up the camera, you can't do too

much with technique without getting into manipulation, and, in photography the

subject matter is what it is.

 

This seems to lead to the photography of ever more weird subjects, and also to

a lot of different-for-different's sake pictures which are, paradoxically,

therefore still responding to (caused by) an awareness of "used up" subject

matter.

 

Of course, there are some subjects that never get used up. Such as puppies.

Preferably, chubby puppies.

 

-Julie

[who has escaped this question by moving into compositing]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 79
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I'd question the premise that lighting and timing are *the* creative tools. And I think it depends on the kind of photograph you're talking about.

 

Photos of babies and brides will always be important, because brides and babies are unique as well as universal. Family albums will remain filled with them, an important use of photography, because it's the particular bride and the particular baby that will always be important.

 

Imitation and representation are not the limits of photography, creation is, as in any art form. Lighting and timing are not the only tools. When subject matter becomes a tool, photographs become interesting. What gets boring is when the same subject matter is the *end* in itself over and over. But if the sunset or pepper is the beginning of something, I'm interested.

 

Lighting and timing are two of the significant aspects of photography that are used to tell stories and express feelings. We may run out of new subjects (don't worry, we won't), but we won't run out of stories or feelings.

 

Photography is too easily seen as just a mirror of nature, thus words like "imitation" and "representation" are used. Add *imagination* and we shouldn't worry about good, new photographs running out. It's in the imagination that subject matter can both be itself and transcend itself.

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the notion of "subject" inherently causes a forced perception.

 

Forced perception is perfectly kosher if the point is to represent (someone or something or some phenomenon). "This is my motorcycle."

 

If, however, the photographer's hope is to indirectly or suggestively convey or hint something, that something is probably so ephemeral that it's not nearly as likely to get "used up." On the other hand, it's much more rare, and much less likely to be successful...in my experience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's just the problem I'm grappling with right now as I plan my entries to a rather prestigious art show. Hoping to get some guidance, I asked a prominent artist (watercolorist) to critique my proposed entries from the perspective of someone not steeped in photography.

 

Naturally, he commented on composition, use of space, color and those factors with which he was very familiar and, on coming to a B&W portrait of a sad-looking elderly woman in a public market said,"I think the judges will say either 'it's been overdone as a subject,' or it'll knock their socks off emotionally."

 

In the realm of landscape photography, it's a real challenge to bring anything new to the party, considering how many years the popular subjects have been done and redone but, as John said, perhaps the key to remaining fresh and interesting is the exploration of the subtle nuances of a subject rather than plunking your tripod's legs into the time-worn sockets in the canyon's rim where thousands have gone before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I really never need to see another photograph of a mountain reflecting in a lake....

 

But, I don't maintain a database of stock photos for sale either. I have a friend who is a wild life photographer and sells a variety of stock photos. He approaches subjects with the idea that "he needs one of those" in his stock photo database.

 

So, he regularly travels all over the world taking photos you've seen at least a hundred times from numerous photographers. Whales, grizzlies, polar bears, wolves, birds, bobcats, African big game, sunsets, sunrises, mountains, etc., etc. he's got them all.

 

All well photographed, but few with a personal point-of-view.

 

I think that's what is difficult no matter what the subject - how do you see the subject uniquely?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They get used up by individuals -- you can work it till you feel you've exhausted your well of creativity and move on to a new subject. Sometimes photographers will work on a subject for decades , coming back to it as they feel a need to revisit it.

 

And of course you as a consumer of images may also lose interest in seeing any more of a subject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Steve; there will always be new subjects simply because the world is changing. We are changing, society is changing, the environment is changing, etc.

 

I also agree with Fred that personal pictures will never be "used up", and with Steve that stock work generally intentionally goes after subjects that are recognizable/familiar/generic.

 

What I'm interested in is the exhaustion of existing subjects for artistic photography, and whether this is peculiar to photography. What other artform spits out so much so easily with so many people seeking to attract attention -- and customers? The Flickr stat, right this moment, says 3739 photos uploaded this minute. If you figure that maybe 10% of that is art photos (as opposed to family/travel/pet snaps) and that Flickr gets about 5% of the pictures made in that same minute (I'm making these stats up...), then you do the math.

 

If instead of shooting whatever, wherever, we could get all 2 billion Flickr photos to be of green peppers, can we agree that at some point well before that total, we would have "used up" the subject of green peppers even if we are all very good and can do as John suggests and search out all the deepest correlations to green peppers?

 

If, instead of peppers, all 2 billion were of a person, say me or you, and they covered our lifetime from birth to death (hopefully not today), would you agree that they would have pretty thoroughly used up the subject of "person of this type"?

 

I think there is a limit. Maybe it is incredibly large/high, but I think there's a limit to any subject. If we are kicking out 3,739 pictures per minute, some subjects are likely to get pretty darn old.

 

I do agree with Ellis that the used-up-ness will vary with each person's exposure to photography. There are still wonderfully innocent people out there who are making their first sunset photo and loving it. Bless them.

 

Matt, I will have a look at "The Ongoing Moment".

 

-Julie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saying that everything has already been done, is like Fred Hoyle (the astronomer) saying that all the main facts about the universe were known and the rest of science would just be tidying up the details--in the early 50s--just before the Big Bang theory and the whole revolution in Astrophysics occurred.

 

 

There will always be new ways of seeing things, and if we could anticipate them we would be like Picasso in doing the future instead of wondering about what it will be.

 

On the other hand, some topics are like the Dilbert cartoon, to be sure, where Catbert is commenting on a million monkeys taking so many years to recreate Shakespeare on their typewriters. When faced with Dilbert's work -- he comments "three monkeys, ten minutes"

 

I'm afraid it will always be the case that most of us will fall in the "three-monkey" category.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With no malice intended, I think that sometimes we can get too concerned about doing something that no one else has ever done before. I'm a fan of photographer Jim Brandenburg. He told us near the end of one of his seminars that we should go out and enjoy making images of those subjects that most deeply stir our passions. If they sell, receive awards, are published, or not, is secondary. Jim takes many of the subjects listed in earlier posts within this thread to heights of visual pleasure and understanding that are Jim's own. Imagine him saying, "I guess I'll stop shooting wolves, because it's all been so overly done before." New images are always possible. For some, they might be cliches, but not for others.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.bythom.com/collector.htm

 

I continually go back to the same places and subjects and shoot them again and again. So much changes with each visit, different time of day, different time of year, different mood or approach, etc.; the only limitation is how I approach the task, my own creative vision, and some degree of luck. It becomes progressively harder to improve on my previous efforts, but sometimes something compelling to me emerges and I dutifully chronicle it. One of the reasons we photographers tend to become "lensaholics" is that using a different lens with a different focal length and different characteristics changes the outcome of the photograph.

 

http://imageevent.com/tonybeach/recentfavorites2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My subject for photography is Romanesque church architecture in France. My favorite

single church is Sainte Madeleine in Vezelay. I have shot there at least ten different times

and every day it is different; I see things that were missed every single time prior. The

more I understand about medieval vaulting, the more I understand about the building,

which affects the way I perceive the building, which affects the way I shoot the building.

To someone on the outside, looking at my hundreds of shots of Vezelay, they may think

that I have "used up" the basilica. To me, looking at the dozen shots that begin to capture

what I see, I have barely started.

 

And all if this is independent of time of day and time of year. It is the structure itself. Like

some people may be fascinated with the structure of a leaf, or of a flower; to me, the

stones speak.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dennis and Dick (who posted earlier), and all who have referenced their own work in this thread, I hope I have not implied that I in any way devalue work that features a popular subject.

 

A billion pictures of green peppers would not make Edward Weston's green peppers any less lovely, or Dennis's churches less fascinating. Also, I don't think it's possible for one person to use up any subject. I sure hope not becuase I shoot the same thing over and over and over.

 

I guess what I'm worried about is viewer fatique and also photographers' ... anxiety (searching for the right words) about shooting a subject that they have seen done by masters, or by millions -- already -- to the point where they avoid the subject. As Dick and John said, one could search for something more, but sometimes there's not much left.

 

In which case you can do as Anthony says and shoot for your own pleasure, without an eye to history. But that concedes the wider audience.

 

-Julie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Julie, I took no offense whatsoever. Was merely trying to say that we can really only shoot

for ourselves and a select group of people who choose to respond to the work. I

remember when I first joined this site, I was struck by the number of glorious shots of

coastlines at sunset ... rich, saturated colors, long exposures, etc. But now, no fault to the

photographers, but I barely see them anymore. It takes something extraordinary, like the

work done by Teresa Zafon, for example, to catch my eye. The work of the others is still

wonderful, when I SEE it, I still enjoy it. But I have become inured to it.

 

I don't see pictures of cats and dogs except on rare occasions, children once in awhile.

But a great street shot will always grab me, fine architectural work, and things like Carsten

Ranke's landscapes. These reach out and grab me still. Some photographers are just flat

out amazing and you can spot their shots a mile away ... Michael Ging, Richard Hans, MG

Lizi, Pnina Evental, Claire Gray, Tim Holte, Judy Ben Joud (when she posts), Pulok

Pattanayak, Wilson Tsoi and others.

 

Others show an artistry in the visual treatments of the shots that I can't resist ... Mikel

Arrizabalaga, Hekate Hek ... I could go on, there are more than 120 names on my

"Interesting People" list.

 

Other times, however, I just try to concentrate on a single portfolio and see what the

photographer is trying to do ... someone like Jack McRitchie, John Crosley, Stefan Rohner,

and others ... and then I really try to look.

 

One of the me's looking is just a guy seeing what's out there. The other is a photographer

trying to see inside another photographer. That second guy has a much tougher job, but

one with great rewards.

 

So to cap off this exegesis, for which I apologise, one of me will be saturated with imagery.

The other will always try to see into and through the shot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thinking about pre-photography-era artists, Rembrandt painted himself throughout his lifetime, Vermeer's subject throughout his life was light, Monet stared at his water lilies into his old age until they dissolved into patches of colour.

 

As Ellis says the individual can exhaust a subject and move on but it can take a long time to get that point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I had a Chinese art history class, one of the Chinese art concepts that I found interesting was the idea of the "master artist."

 

In the case of painting (as an example), a Chinese artist would be classified as a master painter; and every painter after that would make exactly the same type of paintings for the next 1,000 or so years.

 

A master painter would develop a style that had a high fore ground, and for the next 1-2,000 years all paintings had high fore grounds - until the next master painter developed paintings with low fore grounds and the cycle repeated.

 

In some ways, you find that in all of the arts. People want to emulate what is "successful," "beautiful," or what they see as interesting. It's almost as if by copying or manufacturing an image that meets specified criteria they are emulating the master, style, or image type they most admire - I'm not sure they're "using up" the subject as much as replicating the Chinese master artist paradigm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A reporter friend of mine once said to me you must get tired of shooting in a small town, shooting the same things over and over again. I bet you would

really prefer shooting up in the mountains taking nature shots.

 

I had to laugh. i told him, "Day I can not find something to photograph by just walking in the town is day I hang up my gear. Besides I suck at nature

shots."

 

I am finding more and more the subject is less important than what you bring to it. We all see things differently and approach them differently. I am lucky

that I am in a profession in which I can see what other people bring to a shoot and learn and expand my skill set from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Julie, I think a correct definition of artistic photography (or painting, or art using

other media) is that which is unique.

 

Copying rarely leads to art, nor does the creation of technically impressive images

labelled fine art but which have little emotional or intellectual impact on the viewer.

 

I used to be amused by photographers of my one-time camera club period stating

that they had done everything and were leaving the medium. Knowone does

everything and a true artist has no interest in doing everything but doing only what

he is driven to do, either consciously or (more often) unsconciously.

 

"Subjects" get used up no more than "life" gets used up. Other than facing the

presence of our mortal constraints, we can never be entirely happy with a notion that

everything has been done in our life.

 

Copying gets used up (whether of peppers, of standard images of cute puppies or

whatever!), but art subjects are never limited, even though they have been treated

differently by those befopre us. Unique art creativity assures that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only obstacle to finding profoundly important new books on a weekly basis is the lack of time. I'm reading Doris Kearns Goodman's "Team of Rivals" right now: Abraham Lincoln's political career and his presidency. I'd never previously understood how gifted he was, or anything about his value system.

 

The same applies to wonderful new movies: I think I link one here just about every week. http://michaelclayton.warnerbros.com/

 

Steve Swinehart's point about imitation of masters is important, and I'll add that there's nothing wrong with that.

 

But we're talking about photography it may be that our "master" is a dancer or politician or registered nurse...

 

...photography isn't fundamentally about graphics or beauty or emotion, it's fundamentally about instants. The further it drifts into post production, the further it drifts from photography. IMO. That's not to say its kess fabulous, of less value than photography.

 

Flickr is overflowing with brilliant work from all sorts of photographrs, some of them very young, many using minimal digicams and cellcameras, with no post processing at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John, I couldn't disagree more regarding your point that photography is an instant.

Yes, it could be 1/1000th of a second exposure or 30 seconds, but the actual

consideration of the image, be it prepared (lighting, angle of the photo, timing of

various objects or subjects entering the frame, actively composing a composition

before making the image, and so on...) or subsequently modified under the projection

of an enlarger or other device, photographic imaging (creation) is definitely a non

instantaneous process.

 

These facts alone can also assure that subjects do not always get "used up",

especially in the hands of an artist-photographer.

 

You are no doubt right, though, that some fine photographs are being made with

point and shoots and cellphones and sometimes by persons who are not normally

blessed with a "photographer's eye". Certainly they are sometimes more appealing

than many over-worked Photoshop images that may excite the eye at first view but

often do not linger in the mind.

 

Perhaps an argument in favour of some subjects getting "used up" and the dregree of

copying of Amsel adams or others is the fact that quite a few images illicit no more

than a ho-hum. I know. I have made these too, but am happy to work against that.

This is pehaps what many years of photo competitions teaches us and why we

eventually throw aside all this stuff for a more personal approach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"As Dick and John said, one could search for something more, but sometimes there's not much left."

 

I think Dick and I both seek something more than new subjects. Photography appeals to me substantially because the potential seems infinite. I fail more than I succeed, but I do very occasionally succeed... the psychologist in me (learning theory) calls that a recipe for persistence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...