Repetition – Recycle – Ready-madeness – Reappearance

<p>In the late 1990’s, within a country known generally for its tolerant and polite denizens, a student of the renowned art college in one of Canada’s largest cities purposely overate his breakfast, walked over to the neighbouring provincial art museum, found a room housing mainly contemporary versions of classical paintings, and regurgitated much of what he had eaten onto a few of the paintings. His recalcitrant act raised much dismissive response in the media at the time. In retrospect, the apparent reason of his disobedience was a sense of repulsion in the face of the redundancy and “déjà vu” present in some art and his rejection of traditional art forms.</p>

<p>In the light of the lively discussions in recent OP’s, like Kenneth Smith’s “Purposeful Photography”, and the comments in regard to the current POW, I think it of interest to consider the question of originality and independence in our photography. Firstly, and possibly like some others, I seek to invoke no particular originality in making shots of family or places that I do simply as a record for myself and friends, however important those images might be to me. I wish to refer in this OP mainly to photographs made with an intent of creativeness, aesthetics or some other communicative and artistic intent that provides at the same time a raison d’être for their diffusion and, hopefully, appreciation by others.</p>

<p>It seems to me that the acts of recycling, repetition, reappearance and ready-madeness permeate many of the images seen here or on other places of communication of photographic art. Let me say that I am not seeing that from some high pedestal. On the contrary, I recognise that tendency in some, and perhaps even many, of my own images. That I want to avoid that trap I do not hide. The penchant for reconstruction or refashioning of the well-known view or subject matter, the use of prefabricated compositions, and the complacency with redundancy, is not new, but is seldom discussed.</p>

<p>The reappearance of similar views or approaches (even without invoking the extended chromatic and visual palate that Photoshop can offer, with or without taste) is in my mind often an excuse to reassure the viewer that what he is seeing has already been awarded “the seal of good imagemaking” or is adequate to please elves or salon judges who need no more than to place their pre-set callipers against the new imitator of some accepted model.</p>

<p>Is this presence of recycling or repetition of past approaches - this refashioning of subject matter within previously delineated limits - this tendency to reassuring redundancy - something that provokes a response within you? Does your photography seek originality and freedom from those prior visual constraints? What do you believe one must do to be more independent as a photographer? To make original art?</p>

<p>(P.S.) -- In order to keep this discussion on topic I have purposely ignored giving examples of what I consider redundant and repetitious photography, but I don’t think that will hamper anyone’s imagination in regard to this subject.</p>

<p>One can be creative at the same time recognizing that we are historical beings. We exist in time, we have histories and cultures, and we are at least in some ways bound to the influences and determinism that is being human. So creating art is a balancing act. We don't create <em>ex nihilo</em>, but we do create. In some aspects of art, originality is important. In other aspects, it's not. The Photo of the Week in question, which most people saw as a reference to Vermeer, has references to that Dutch style of painting, whether the photographer intended that or not. We don't critique photographs based solely on photographer's intention. We critique based on what we see. Any "interpretation" we give, whether it be to suggest certain symbols, etc. is going to be some kind of "rehashing." A symbol only gets to be a symbol because it is a thing rehashed. </p>

<p>One corollary to originality in art is homage and dialogue throughout the ages of art. Often, one "school" of art comments on the ideas of previous schools. Tchaikovsky paid certain homages to Mozart. Painters and photographers reference each other all the time.</p>

<p>Art, in being creative and even in being original, is born of humanity. It is alive. And thus, it is connected to past . . . sometimes more and sometimes less overtly.</p>

<p>Your objection to the "already contrived or simple completion of the expected" is not a new objection.</p>

<h2>⁹ What has been will be again, <br /> what has been done will be done again; <br /> there is nothing new under the sun.</h2>

<h2>Ecclesiastes 1:9 </h2>

<p>Agreed, Fred, about the importance of traditions and what has gone before, which obviously are important. However, my point is more related to the trap of repetition, the reappearance of oft viewed compositions/scenes, the refashioning of the fashionable, and recurrent approaches that can rob the image of originality and independence.</p>

<p>When Tchaikowsky is influenced by the approach of Mozart that to me is another thing. Nobody will say that the creativity of Pietr Ilyovich was a clone of that of Mozart, or that his music bears great similarity, but many photographers seem happy to produce the same cookie cutter type image without furthering a more independent approach. It is not a yes-no situation, or one that reflects on me or us, but I think one that sincerely merits a useful curiosity about photographic approaches and what constitutes admirable originality and art in photography.</p>

<p>Steve - A nice general quote, but one that no longer holds, I believe. Our world is not that simple as to be so predictable. When Darwin produced his major work, the age of the earth was measured only in tens of thousands of years and at the most, a few hundred thousand years. Opportunity for the new, and for unique forms of expression, abounds.</p>

<p>Arthur, you'd have to ask photographers who adopt a cookie-cutter approach what they are after. I'm thinking sunsets. I use sunset light sometimes for effect but I don't generally photograph sunsets themselves or beaches in sunset. Many do. I'm not sure they are trying to be original or trying to be artists. I think they find sunsets beautiful and want to capture that beauty for themselves. Even though someone else already may have, they want one of their own. Most who visit the Statue of Liberty, for example, can buy a postcard of it, but they take their own picture of it because it personalizes the experience to some extent. Taking photos, to some extent, can personalize experiences and particularly memories. Most sunset photos, IMO, are like family photos. It is the personal nature, not the originality, that is significant to the photographers.</p>

<p>The vast majority of people using cameras are not artists nor are they looking for originality. And, even when looking for it, it's not often found.</p>

<p>Some think art is subjective. I think art is hard.</p>

<p> After reviewing your portfolio, it appears that you have accomplished both:<br>

1. Excellent photography<br>

2. Unique perspective<br>

(Now we can all start to copy these concepts). i hope you realize that I am laughing at this unfortunate circumstance. We all, (at leas I do), try to recreate things that we have seen and like. If we come close to succeeding then we call it "our own".</p>

<p>Steve, in regard to your (slightly sardonic?) referral to my portfolio, I should remind you of what I acknowledged in the OP:</p>

<p>"On the contrary, I recognise that tendency (<em>recycling, repetition, reappearance and ready-madeness)</em> in some, and perhaps even many, of my own images. That I want to avoid that trap I do not hide."</p>

<p>I agree with you that a valid objective might be, as you say, "to recreate things that we have seen and like" (I promise to also look at your portfolio for your examples). I don't worry very much about calling the product of that my own, but I do like to present what I see (your word "recreate") in my own way, perhaps not seen in that way before by others, and perhaps not influenced by how others have previously photographed the same subject or type of subject.</p>

<p> Well I am not an Artist or an Art critic. I just like what I see or not I suppose. Around here the museums and galleries show film based black and white photography. It's the Monterey Bay area. Somebody said that the Kim Weston photos are hybrid photography but to me they are just real nice boob pictures however he did them. Nothing new about naked lady pictures. I guess if you wanted to be different you could do naked men pictures. Not much of that around.<br>

I suppose the landscape guy would stand a shot at getting something different if he was willing to walk more then a hundred feet from his car. I frequent Yosemite and you never see photographers venturing much beyond their cars but that is why the pictures you see of the park are all the same 4 views. Grab a backpack and start hiking and in a few hours you will see something different to shoot. I guess you could say that photographer is willing to work at it.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"...and regurgitated much of what he had eaten onto a few of the paintings."</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>If he'd have made this act know in the right circles prior to executing it to show advance planning and a keen sense of irony, one could classify it as performance art.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>What do you believe one must do to be more independent as a photographer? To make original art?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I think you need to photograph what you see personally, nothing more, nothing less - if that includes creating the entire image in a darkroom or computer, it doesn't matter. Just show what you see in your mind that you find interesting. I'm fairly sure I don't need to see another photograph of a mountain at sunrise / sunset relflected in a lake, unless you can show me something totally unique that has NOT been seen in the previous 31,513 images of the exact same subjects.</p>

 

<p>Fred, I really like the comments / viewpoints you expressed in your second post. I've often thought of sunsets as cheap beauty -- beautiful, yes, but so easy to capture, and everyone does it. Still, some are more striking than others, IMO.</p>

<p>Arthur, people participate in photography for varying reasons, and I think these reasons will determine 1) their need for originality and 2) perhaps their success is being original. </p>

<p>My photographs are ultimately influenced by my life experiences. If one of my photographs resonates with me, that's all that I really care about. I hope some of my photographs will resonate with other viewers as well; that's the icing on the cake. I care less about originality than I do about aesthetics and capturing the "essence" of a place from my point of view. Furthermore, I care less about my own photograph than I do about being in a landscape and really experiencing that landscape. I find that having a camera in my hand helps me to experience a landscape more intently at the moment I'm there. The experience is primary; the photograph is secondary; both are very important. A photograph will be a very nice reminder weeks, months, or years later of the experience I had. [side Note: if you understand this, you will understand my greater reluctance relative to many photographers on this site for a landscape image to rely on digital alterations to achieve its aesthetic appeal.]</p>

<p>Note: I really don't know what you mean by originality; most everything on earth has been photographed before, so at what point does an image really become original? How do I know an "original" photo when I see it? I have a feeling that what is redundant (and maybe by implication less appealing) to you may have more originality to my eye and hence more appeal. Perhaps we participate in photography for different reasons and therefore have different goals and hence different thresholds regarding originality.</p>

<p><em>Is this presence of recycling or repetition of past approaches - this refashioning of subject matter within previously delineated limits - this tendency to reassuring redundancy - something that provokes a response within you?</em><br>

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

My own, in my eyes, original answers -- I guess, I don't know, or don't think about it that much! It doesn't seem to matter that much to me in my current state. Part of "reassuring redundancy" to me means I still "got it."; "I still know what I am doing and can still 'capture the light' just fine."<br>

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

<em>Does your photography seek originality and freedom from those prior visual constraints? What do you believe one must do to be more independent as a photographer? To make original art?</em></p>

<p>To not have a day job. To have a benefactor or to be independently wealthy -- that way I could pursue photographic independence with little time & location constraints. It's that simple.</p>

 

<p>I think some tolerance should be considered when viewing other peoples photos. Copyng another person's approach to a photo or capturing something similar may just be that photographer's moment of success in learning. After all of their failures they have a success and they want to share it. And of course they will take more. The repetition will reinforce their skills and knowledge base. Growth of their own visual approach will be a maturing of skills, much like developing a good eye for composition.</p>

<p>One thing I have found out about my own photography is it hard to change. I look at other people's images and long to create something with the quality of the colors, or the depths of the black and white as it impacts my eyes. I will not shoot the same subject but it is the visual depth and impact I seek. I study other people's creations but still find I appear locked into the same approach I use. Each person has their own approach and I seem to have found mine.</p>

<p>That visual sameness on subject matter in photography is bound to happen. Look at the ease of a decent capture anymore for anyone. The world of quality photography and printing is ever abundent only to be degraded by the presentation on the web. Too many people see through only the web at its low quality level. So a decently printed good photo will be great compared to the lesser works. As digital rises to match the quality of film, the bar gets raised on quality and lowered on the web presentation. Sigh. Also consider that there is just so much stuff on this planet to photograph but a lot of photographers chasing after it. Hence you will see the same stuff over and over. Some done well and others being lesser. I suspect this may also be due to the fact that they have seen so much of the same material presented online or in books, it is burned into their brains and they try to get the same type of image. Originality is difficult for me but I do endevour to break out of my own box and limitation of skills.</p>

<p>Now for:</p>

<h2>⁹ What has been will be again, <br />what has been done will be done again; <br />there is nothing new under the sun.</h2>

<h2>Ecclesiastes 1:9</h2>

<p>This really is applicable to Hollywood and their money making machine.</p>

<p>CHEERS...Mathew</p>

<p>Stephen,</p>

<p>Your second paragraph resonates very much with me. The experience of nature, of a sidewalk café in a small European village, of a quiet discussion with a local inhabitant, of the feeling of cold snow crackling beneath my feet, of the opportunity to rise another day and to experience both something familiar and also something unexpected and intriguing provides more pleasure than photography. That may be inherent in my research background, but probably just relates to the natural human interest in our world.</p>

<p>I think we connect a bit less in regard to the concept and power of originality and the unusual. Originality for me is in part that of doing something in a manner that I haven't done before, with fresh eyes and mind. When that works I have moved out of an approach that I have previously used (call it a photographic paradigm if you wish) and have explored some new way of representing and interpreting what I am seeing. I like what Fred says about sunset shots. They are indeed personal and not meant usually to be more than that. The colour of the light and the importance of the sun to our existence is often enough of a statement for me. I usually just enjoy it and am not often incited to photographing the experience. This is not what I am suggesting in that axis of difference between redundancy and originality. I may return often to the same humble spot and photograph the subject matter multiple times, an action which some may think redundant, but which my desire for something new and different incites me to try something different in approach, whether that is complemented by (fortunate) differing light or whether I try some different position (even inches or feet of difference), a different angle, or I go as far as to include other elements in the scene or see something not previously considered. Often the result is not what I had hoped for, because perhaps I lack the genius for that, even though the new approach might be original. What Steve Swineheart refers to in his last paragraph is a good part of what I mean by seeking originality rather than repetition or recycling. Originality embodies more than this paragraph describes, but I hope this allows you a bit more insight into what I mean.</p>

Art is a money making machine, too. The amalgam is well developed. Can't wait for MOMAs to discover the virtues of prequel and sequel. I can see it now:

 

 

 

Snapshot Aesthetic II: The Return of the Native

<p>Isn't all *art* an appropriation on a few basic themes that we all own : life love sex death, work buy consume die. Yeah mon.</p>

<p>I'm not interested in being "more independent as a photographer," nor am I trying to make "original art" (two closing questions in Arthur's second-to-last OT paragraph, both seemingly central to one concern).</p>

<p>1) I actually am relatively independent as a photographer. For example, I rarely care to photograph "beauty," I am usually (not always) averse to irony or "social comment," and I work intentionally (don't "walk around"). I like to engage my subjects, rather than "capture" them.</p>

<p>2) "Original" seems one of those "magic" words that's used in lieu of honest appreciation of work. ("honest" is another magical word, but it's closer to the bone).</p>

<p>For me, photography is a long term process entailing labor, reflection and reconsideration (going back and looking at old work with perhaps-fresh eyes), and active/intentional/honest interest in the work of others, especially the work's progression and meanderings over time.</p>

<p> </p>

<p><strong>Arthur P - "</strong> The penchant for reconstruction or refashioning of the well-known view or subject matter, the use of prefabricated compositions, and the complacency with redundancy, is not new, but is seldom discussed."</p>

<p>So is this a reassuringly redundant post? Just kidding. Arthur, are you referring in the above to people just going through the motions? A large percentage of 'serious' photographers do. They are not out of ideas, they've never had one.</p>

<p>There are complications with this. For example, many top-level artists rely on a few tropes that they employ over and over. Of course, these tropes are their own. Ernst Haas openly discussed that he'd noticed he relied on an infinity-sign composition (an 8 on its side) regularly in his photographs. Eggleston said his compositions were based on the Confederate Flag (!). Ansel Adams said "I had two or three ideas in my lifetime". All photographers rely on a very limited number of compositions (and other tropes). So what? Some are unbearably boring, of course.</p>

<p><strong>AP - "</strong>Is this presence of recycling or repetition of past approaches - this refashioning of subject matter within previously delineated limits - this tendency to reassuring redundancy - something that provokes a response within you?"</p>

<p>Aside from the hacks that are simply borrowing and fulfilling the above "reassuring redundancy" by going through the motions, here's the main response it evokes from me: Artists do not live outside of time, space, DNA, history and culture. They have ancestors and descendants. If one knows their history and styles, it's not hard to see when looking at anyone's work.</p>

<p><strong>AP - "</strong>Does your photography seek originality and freedom from those prior visual constraints?"</p>

<p>No. I understand and accept that we live in a thick, multilevel web of existence. What I don't do is borrow. An astute artist does not erase his memory and start <em>tabula rasa. </em>This emphasis on originality was a big deal during Modernism, and may well be back with Neo-Modernism, but we know better now. And those prior visual constraints are loaded with largely untouched possibilities for those who have some understanding of "prior visual constraints".</p>

<p><strong>AP - "</strong>What do you believe one must do to be more independent as a photographer?"</p>

<p> Get a lobotomy? Do very heavy drugs frequently? Move to a Unabomber cabin in the woods? Drink cheap hard stuff until your brain looks like river rock? Get a very fast insignificant other?</p>

<p>Seriously, make peace with yourself, and realize that if your work looks indistinguishable from that of a few million others, you <em>are </em>very much like them. Nothing wrong with that.</p>

<p><strong>AP - "</strong>To make original art?"</p>

<p>If by that you mean art that no one has ever seen before, good luck and send us a postcard from the stratosphere. If you mean art that is individuated, like your fingerprints, just be you.</p>

 

<p>Arthur asked questions that are important to him, and he asked them in a distinctively Arthurian fashion.</p>

<p>Why disagree? He framed his own personal concerns in his own terms... which, as I noted, aren't mine and certainly weren't presented as universal truths.</p>

<p>As I am an individual I don't need to diminish what he said in order to respond. Other individuals have responded in their own terms about their own photography, which I find interesting, honorable, and honest.</p>

If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times. I never use cliches! ;-)

 

Does my photography seek originality? To a degree. I am conscious of the fact that I want my portfolios to express a

fresh perspective - otherwise, what's the point? Just buy the postcard. - but I don't obsess about originality, I simply

photograph what appeals to my eye and what I think that I might enjoy looking at after the fact. I assume that if I stick

to this objective honestly, the originality should pretty much take care of itself. No two people see the world the same

way, so the photos should be different unless one is trying to replicate someone else's shots directly.

 

What must one do to be "more independent" as a photographer? First of all, trust yourself. Trust your own ideas.

Even if they stink, you'll learn from the attempt and your next batch will be better. Eventually, you'll peel back the roughness

that exposes the gems of your own creativity.

 

Secondly, stop standing beside or behind other photographers in an effort to grab the same shot. Look around and

find a fresh perspective. Stand where the others aren't standing,. Go when the others aren't there. Even if you're at

a popular viewpoint like Mather Point at the Grand Canyon, find something that appeals uniquely to your own eyes and

shoot that. Stop worrying about the shots that you'll miss and find the ones that everyone else will miss.

 

Avoid what others do. A good way to practice this is to take a workshop and move away from the other

photographers. Watch them as they collect into a predictable herd and shoot something that they herd doesn't see.

 

If you want to take a shot made famous by others, Tunnel View at Yosemite for instance, find something unique and

emphasize that. Maybe the clouds are doing something interesting. That will never be repeated. Emphasize what is

unique about this moment in that well-photographed place.

 

Trust your own taste and your own vision. Inside you is everything that you need to be creative. Open up the package

and let the contents shine.

<p>Arthur wondered what "we" thought about two questions. I don't think he was asking for advice so much as reflection. It happens that I don't ask myself the same questions, but I'm sure he addressed issues that concern some of us.</p>

<p>All we have to do is click on names to see how individual (or original) Arthur seems by comparison to others of "us". I don't see many standard images in his P.N gallery unless one frowns too much (the way I tend to) about the picturesque stuff that may be hard to avoid. There's little in his portfolio that seems intended to appeal to easy calendar-pic/postcard taste...IMO.</p>

<p>A year or so ago I saw an excellent photography exhibition at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York. It comprised image after image of heavy industrial plants, each featuring intricate chimney assemblies. There were scores of prints hung in a rather large space. The images were at once repetitive (i.e., a very narrowly-defined theme and look) and highly creative. The subjects themselves were interesting to some degree, but tasteful application of composition, exposure, and processing converted these hulking systems of iron and concrete into dazzling works of art.</p>

<p>Also consider blues music. Tens of thousands of great songs (or more) based on effectively the same chord progression. Repetition isn't necessarily negative. Sometimes creativity expresses itself most eloquently within the bounds of a strictly enforced framework. See also: canons, fugues, and sonatas.</p>

 

<p>I get Arthur's point. Since it's retrospection I really don't know how to respond.</p>

<p>There's so many images on the web, I don't know how anyone can come up with anything original. As a former art director and illustrator I know how and what makes something original. I know it when I see it.</p>

<p>You can't copy what you haven't seen before, so stop comparing your work to other's. Sokolsky was animate about this when hiring young photography assistants. He didn't want the visual language style from other pro photographers contaminating the methods from his assistants who they might have worked with.</p>

<p>You know fractal art created from complex math formulas copies nature's idea of a visual style on a molecular level. Just looking at it tells you this.</p>

<p>When I worked with a freelance illustrator I noticed how he drew each line which was very different from my own and thusly delivering a very unique fingerprint of his visual style in the final rendering. I think photography has to be approached from the same molecular/fingerprint level in subjects chosen and how they're photographed to come up with anything really unique and original.</p>

<p>Most folks don't live on this level of scrutiny and sensitivity to detail. But those that do can come up with wondrous things never seen before or quite the same way.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>PLIMPTON Does your photography seek originality and freedom from those prior visual constraints? What do you believe one must do to be more independent as a photographer? To make original art?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Art IS cyclical from reactionary to conventional and back again. The speed of change is accelerated in our times to an absurd quest for novelty. I say don't worry about it. Please yourself. <br>

I have the "originality" disease. It comes from attending a very competitive industrial design school where out-doing the other guys was a daily task. There were rules though. It was at a very conservative "Form Follows Function" time - talk about constraint! Fortunately I learned to manage my malady after post-modernist therapy at a Fine Art school. Now I know that anything goes. Being original is sooo 'fifties.</p>

<div></div>

<p>Alan, please call me George for short. Original has many definitions. Alan has given it a mid nineteenth century art circles cultural one. A good point, but not one that is exclusive I believe to the use of the term. Another example of originality might be embodied in a wedding photographer's present (this week's) POW.</p>

<p>I like the definition or concept of original as instead being one of a quiet and personal originality, invoking whatever makes each of us tick, and using whatever we have assimllated from past experience (education, mistakes, enlightenments), into the making of an image from some subject matter that has inspired us to recreate it, or transform (and even transcend) it. Not just an image to look different from another's peception of the same subject matter, but to visually communicate something different to the viewer. A fairly tall order. Yes. But so are the pleasures elsewhere of making a special return in tennis or bettering one's downhill ski time. </p>

<p>Tim, I appreciate your very interesting examples, as well as the points of Alan, as I am sure do others.. </p>

<p>In my earlier post, there was no sarcasm intended what so ever. Your photography is wonderfully unique and fresh. You are also courageous. I have no photos posted because I lack your courage. Be thankful for your skill and your courage to make the statements of art that you are posting. As for our present world being more complex today, I think that we can all agree that the state of human emotions is an independent entity from scientific endeavor. It would be presumptuous of us to assume that we are in some way more sophisticated “emotionally” than the masters that preceded us. I also think that we can all agree that there is an immense beauty found in the art that connects complexity with simplicity. That is the beauty of Einstein’s E=Mc2 or in Descartes “I think therefore I am”. I do see that connection in your art. It can also be seen in Ecc 1:9</p>