Henry Holmes Smith on routine images

Henry Holmes Smith in the mid 1970's said....

 

" People are competing to win at a game that is a loser's game. The game is

to have better routine images than someone else's routine images. If you

want a perscription for routine images, you just have to go through any

students portfolio"

 

Do you think the same can be said today?

 

Sally<div></div>

It's really easy to be cynical in that way and it impresses some people some of the time, especially when there's a grain of truth wrapped up in the rubbish.

 

Of course most pictures are routine, that's as self-evident a statement as saying that most people's height clusters around the median. A more helpful statement would be that, if people seek the outre all the time, they end up as jaded as someone force-fed on pate-de-foie-gras.

 

I've never heard of this chap before and if that's the level of his thinking I'd rather hear no more of him.

That sounds like a routine statement, so he must have been a loser. Or am I missing something here?

Harvey, I'm guessing you feel pretty strongly about this issue. Consider this if

you would. The photo insert is from a 2004 publication which offers advise

and practical methods for taking good photographs. I have to wonder if this

kind of thing doesn't stop people from taking risks and pushing the envelope?

Granted, regaurdless of the medium eveyone needs to learn the basics. But I

have to tell ya I find photography to be one of the most rigid in it's acceptance

of new methods. There are countless images on photonet that I sware were

taken with the instruction booklet in the other hand.

 

I didn't raise the point with the intent of being negative or overtly cynical. I

truely am interested in what motivates people to take photographs .

 

Sally

Henry Holmes Smith was a Farm Security Administration photographer who influenced and taught a number of different photographers. His later images were nearly all abstract and in color. He was shooting color in the early to mid-'40's before anyone thought of it as being a medium to use for personal expression.

 

Of course the same thing can be said today. The trick is to know what your looking at, why your looking at it, and then how to translate all of that into an interesting and most importantly unique photo.

 

Rather than routine images, I'd say that people are trying to take the same images of the same subjects trying to equal something they've seen previously. How many photos of mountains reflecting in lakes at sunset have you seen? Do you really need to see another one? I don't unless you're showing me something out of the ordinary or you make it more than just another pretty photo.

 

I would, however, love to have Mr. Smith look at Eggleston's "Democratic Forest" and hear his reaction.

Stephen, I don't believe Smith meant "loser" quite the same way you did. For

what it is worth , he had some good ideas. If you are passionate about your

craft and are interested in this type of thing maybe you should check him out

before labelling him or his ideas. Smith by the way is only a vehicle for the

discussion.

 

Sally

Dead right Steve, thanks for the background.

"But I have to tell ya I find photography to be one of the most rigid in it's acceptance of new methods."

 

Only if you're worried about being accepted. Once you don't care anymore and start producing photographs that you like, then acceptance becomes a moot point. Unless, what you are doing is commercial photography of some type, and then you need to meet the client's requirements.

 

Photography is a vast field of endeavor with nearly endless possibilities from stock black and white or color photographs to manipulated photos, to alternative processes like gum bichromate or even photo-lithographs. With the advent of digital photography, the options have expanded even further.

 

If you feel confined or constrained by being accepted, or making acceptable photographs, then I'd say do the opposite. Make the photos that you want to see - don't pay any attention to what other people like.

 

If you have an idea of what you want to see in the final image, THAT is exactly what you should do.

For the benefit of those you might know <a href="http://www.photo.net/

photodb/photo?photo_id=2231624"> Eggleston's "Democratic Forest"<a/>

 

Sally

Opps...sorry I just learned how to post a link and looks like I need more

practise.

"Harvey, I'm guessing you feel pretty strongly about this issue."

 

Not really. It's hard to inject your tone of voice into the characters on the page <g>.

 

I'll amplify my reply and say that there's nothing wrong with taking a lot of routine pictures because tht's how you aquire the skills to take the exceptional picture when it comes along.

<i> Harvey, I'm guessing you feel pretty strongly about this issue. </i><p>

 

You do realize that he is not here, and he was quoted as having written this 30 years ago....

Aargh: Harvey, Henry... never mind.

 

Harvey: if you don't know who Smith is, and you don't care to, that's your business. But

being proud of your ignorance is a little strange.

<i> there's nothing wrong with taking a lot of routine pictures because tht's how you

aquire the skills to take the exceptional picture when it comes along. </i><p>

 

There's nothing wrong with aiming to take excellent, original images. Most people take

routine images because they don't understand that they are routine, or because they take

comfort in them being routine.

<p>Routine can have multiple meanings; routinely bad, routibnely original, routinely saddening. For someone who only photographs flowers, wildlife, or buildings, flowers, wildlife and buildings would be routine. Wouldn't it be the same for a photographer who routinely makes original or abstract photos, they would just be routine photographs. Considering this, I do not believe you can define <i>routine</i>, each photograph is a different case and should be looked at the same way, without considering whether it is a routine image for the particuler photographer. Great photographs are great photographs, bad photographs are bad photographs, its not too hard.<br><br>--Dominic</p>

Smith was one of most influential fine art photography teachers of the mid 20th Century.

He studied at the Balhaus in Germany and then spend many years teaching at Indiana

Universtiy.<P>Some of his students were Jerry Uelsmann, Jack Welpot, Ralph Eugene

Meatyard and many others. <P>Jerry

Uelsmann consisted Smith as his mentor and you don't know who Uelsmann is then you

best learn something about the history of photography. He did Photoshop before it was

invented and without a computer.

Probably the reason you see so many 'routine' images here on photo.net is that most people here are learning about photography and working to improve their skills.

 

A potter starts out learning how to make a basic pot, then copies some more difficult techniques and styles from master potters, and then finally understands the technical and creative processes enough to be able to branch out in his own direction.

 

It's the same with photography. Most of us are still either learning the basic skills and rules or copying techniques from masters to hone our abilities. I guess the problem that Smith was alluding to is that not enough people progress past those stages of development and start exploring their own creativity.

It sounds like he is saying that people get in a rut of trying to make better pictures, only they are making the same pictures that everyone else has always made, so that keeps them from being any better, really.

 

This is a common complaint on photo.net, of people complaining about the pet pictures or sunset pictures, etc. One of the responses above mentions this very thing.

 

My point is, that Mr. Smith's statement then seems to suffer from exactly the same problem he sees in photography: lack of originality. So yes, it's true, but not exactly profound.

<i> I do not believe you can define routine, each photograph is a different case ... Great

photographs are great photographs, bad photographs are bad photographs </i><p>

 

So you'd not allow for a routine or cliche photo, but you embrace entirely subjective,

nebulous notions of 'great' and 'bad.' Try again.

<i> Probably the reason you see so many 'routine' images here on photo.net is that most

people here are learning about photography </i><p>

 

"The" reason? No. I think most people who upload their photos are happy with and proud of

them and want to give them exposure, curious about how others will find them. Many are

therefore shocked to learn that their photos are rated low (& sometimes not rated by some

out of politeness), and some get defensive, sniffly or even abusive as a result.

<P>Well, excuse me- but just because you find an image "routine" doesn't mean someone else does. Shall we all check with Mr. Smith before we shoot just in case that subject has been photographed before? "That mountain reflected in the lake sure does look nice; but I certainly won't take a picture of it; someone else already took that picture."

 

<P>Does that sound stupid to anyone else? Give me a break. "Routine"; What a load of sh**.

 

 

<P> And on a side note to Bailey; it is not "polite" not to rate a picture you come across. That is precisley the reason that I, for one, post images to PN. If you do not rate an image how does that help the photographer? If people can't take the ratings that are dished out; that's their fault; not yours. What would be the polite thing to would be to leave a comment with your rating to explain your thoughts.

Every dream is a routine, with our brains beïng just another machine...the routinemachine.crisp and clean.

Everybody takes routine photos. That's why Edward Weston had an archive of 30,000 or so negatives and Ansel Adams said he was happy to get 10 or 12 good photographs a year. The rest were routine or didn't express what the photographer was trying to achieve.

 

I think the difference is when you understand that a photo is routine and relegate it to the archives instead of showing it. Some people never get to that point and are just thrilled with their photos, no matter how hackneyed the subject or presentation. It's difficult to get past that point. You really have to want to push your work in a direction that is unique to yourself - and not a copy of something you've seen that you'd like to emulate.

 

The other side of the problem, especially with web based photo sites, is that many of the people are specifically looking for the photo they'd like to emulate, and are, therefore, very congratulatory to anyone who makes the photo they've been looking for.

 

The person who posts a photo outside of a standard category - "scenic" - for example, (whatever the hell that means) often gets no response because the audience is looking for the sofa-sized painting to match the living room decor, and instead got a Brancusi sculpture.

 

The response often being, "what's that about anyway?" Looking for a meaningful critique or even interaction beyond, "Another nice one, Bob," on the Internet is like finding lips on a chicken for the most part.

 

I think that's partially Sally's frustration in beginning this thread - the inability to get people to evaluate something that is new, looks different, and doesn't fall into the standard "Nice one Bob" category.

Steve, I hadn't originally intended my question to address the critiquing aspect

of the art process as it is on Pnet. You are quite right in your assumption that I

have taken issue with it earlier but now I am resolved to make what I want

and let the chips fall where they may.....hopefully far away in some cases.

 

The reasons why people take and create the images that they do is still a

fasinating topic for me to consider . Perhaps it was Harvey's most colourful

bashing of one of photography's champions that started the slippery slope

down the ratings lane? Who knows?

 

William's injection of Jerry Uelsmann into the discussion is paramount for

anyone interested in studing the notion of intent or meaning within

photography. Perhaps most striking to me is the following statement by

Uelsmann..." simply stated my hidden agenda is to amaze myself" Great

stuff!!

 

I know, what I know ...I'm more interested in what you know. Any furhter

insights would be helpful.

 

Sally

Sorry Steve I forgot to mention I agree totally with this observation and felt it

deserved to be highlighted.