The Making of A Photographic Identity

Something else that I have been pondering for the longest time:

 

1. What goes into the making of a photographer's identity? That one common

thread/theme/mark - overt or not - that enables one to identify the

distinctive maker of an image?

 

2. Can this be taught or be influenced or does it come entirely from within?

 

Thank you.

Another great

<a href="http://bermangraphics.com/press/ralphgibson.htm">Ralph Gibson quote</a>

on the subject, based on his experiences with Dorothea Lange and Robert Frank:<p>

<i>"...they stressed uniqueness. You really really have to be unique. You have to come up

with your own visual signature. And it's not a question of style. Our unique way of

perceiving our own personal reality which is inherent within all of us. And it takes a while

to get that harmony with your camera. But that's where photography really begins for me

and for some of the photographers I've admired through my lifetime. For example, you

don't have to look at the signature to tell that it's a Cartier Bresson, you can see it from

across the parking lot. And it has to do with the way he puts the image together. And it's

something that's carefully thought out, researched at great personal expense. Otherwise

photography is very simple. "</i>

What do YOU mean by "photographer's identity".

adam, i have defined it at the beginning: 'That one common thread/theme/mark - overt or not - that enables one to identify the distinctive maker of an image'.

I believe that a good artist or photographer can be mentored, especially on technical

points, and guided somewhat to find his or her own voice. But the voice probably has to

come from within. If it's there, it will be recognized as an "identity." What goes into making

it is probably different for various artists. For some, technique will be consistent and

recognizable and that will be enough. In my opinion, the greater artists will have a thread

of heart and humanity running through their works, something unique and personal, overt

or subtle, that gets expressed through whatever medium they choose. I think some artists

are more "auteurs" than other, meaning some's work will be more recognizable than

others. Some will be more ecclectic. I don't necessarily think one of those groups will be

<i>better</i> than the other, just different.

By defining the idea in such broad terms make it hard to answer.

 

Basically I think that it is a question of how photographers are percieved by people at large. What work they choose to show and where they show it. This is a still that is easily learned. Adams being better at this skill than his (considerable) skill at producing images.

 

Show someone a larg, high constrast, b/w of a american national park and they will think that it's an A Adams. Show them some of this colour work and most people won't know who made the image.

Many artists spend so much time emulating the work of others that they're never quite sure what they want for themselves. As a result, they're forever following the pack. Only when they find their niche and grow in it, is there the likelihood that they'll become recognizable as having something truly unique to offer. It's the result of much dedication, skill, hard work and self-confidence -- that's why so few have accomplished it.

I have noticed pretty recently in many photographers that they have to reach a certain point

where they feel comfortable. Being comfortable in your art is actually a bad thing. So, once

you hit that glass wall, you start to focus on the negative aspects of your work. The people

who produce the most interesting work are the people that embrace those negative qualities

(they dont particularly have to be art related). I guess im trying to say is you have to go

through tons of crap and really search your self before you have a definitive identity.

' I think nearly every artist continually wants to reach the edge of nothingness - the point

where you can't go any farther. '

Harry Callahan

 

 

But until that point it's best to start with just the beginning, with who you are, with the

way you live your life at this very moment. In this way it's easy to look for your

photographic identity 'cause it's already there in the form of yourself just being yourself.

Don't search too much or you'll end up loosing yourself in the search. It can be taught and

it can be influenced but in the end it should come from within or at least from a balance

between the two. Also, I think the point of a ' photographic identity ' is that it's best never

actually found, because when one does find his/her photographic identity ( or thinks he/

she has found it ) one has stopped caring a bit less for the unknown....and it's the

unknown wich makes it all that much more interesting.

Phylo, i think you hit the nail on the head with your note. i think there should not be any conscious attempt to search for this identity and feel that the more one looks for it, the more elusive it becomes. one should remain true and embrace all that life has brought at every stage and be one (in harmony) with the camera.

Your photographic identity, your vision, your way of expressing yourself, is within you. You have to learn to free it from the influences of other photographers, or perhaps just get to the point where you could care less what others think of you and your work. That's true freedom.

A photographers identity is not always a single thing because some pictures are a result of a deep collaboration. The case of Henri Cartier-Bresson is a sharp example.

 

H.C-B exposed thousands and thousands of frames of film but he never knew for sure what he actually captured until he sorted through the hundreds of contact sheets that resulted. His exposures were notoriously unreliable so the maker of the contact sheets had a difficult job in making each contact frame readable. The world is richer for this task having been done successfully. The unsung hero in this case is principally Pierre Gassmann.

 

The final gelatin-silver photographs which we think of as H.C-B's work were also made mainly by Gassmann.

 

H.C-B's camera picked the subject matter and the approximate framing and Pierre Gassmann decided the blacks, whites, greys, contrasts, and tones. In effect H.C-B is responsible for what the picture is OF and Gassmann decided how the picture LOOKS.

 

A photographic identity may indeed be a composite of creative talents.

While everyone tries to be completely unique, very few really are -- even the great ones. Friedlander is wonderful, of course, a true genius -- but think of what he owes to Frank. Great artists are always indebted to their predecessors, and VERY few have a completely unique signiture. There are times, for example, where if you did not know the image was an iconic Cartier-Bresson, you might think it was a Kertesz -- I am thinking of the image in Paris, down a staircase into the street with a cyclist passing by. And vice versa, of course. I think the challenge is not to set out and find something completely unique to say, but to say something that is true to yourself, in as strong a way as possible, without worrying too much about whether you have been influenced by one photographer or another. A good friend of mine, a fine art photographer of some repute, once criticised the mentality of the art schools for insisting that their students all do something "new" and "unique". It's hard enough mastering the craft without having to worry about whether you've dug deep enough to produce something that is really original. Picasso spent years crafting his art as a draughtsman of almost photographic realism before he ventured off into other avenues, and much of his "revolutionary" work was influenced by friends and fellow artists. Try telling the difference between a Bracque and a Picasso in the cubist period -- many experts have trouble! Bottom line -- it is more important that you say something in your work, be it photography or anything else, that reflects something true about yourself, than it is to say something simply because it is new. If that truth happens to be truly original, how wonderful! (By the way, the best strategy is the simplest. Make interesting images. The rest will follow.)

In regard with the ability to identify the photog immediately. I would say that most identifiable photogs here at PN limit themselves to pretty narrow subgenre. MH was doing highly sexual fashion photos with a newtonian touch, John Peri snaps his femmes next to a sofa with a champagne glass, Aubre Cummins uses desat techinque frequently, Nicola Borissov has this ultra clear B&W style, Michael Ezra uses highly flexible models, Mauro Mazzero shoots race cars most often at Monza and straight ahead, Olli Pekonen uses often very open lighting in his fashion photos, the guys who shoot aircraft actively can be numbered with one hand fingers. Sascha Huttenhein, Stefan Steinert and Markus Arias-R�hner all have this accurate technical perfectness - "German school".<p>

Of the masters, Bill Brandt is known for his steep contrast, Newton for the hotel rooms and decadense, HCB used mostly 40mm Leica, Adams shot B&W sceneries. So, all and all, the little clues are pretty reconizable.<p>

Today to become identifiable, my bet is that one has to concentrate into a subgenre and keep producing certain elements well again and again until the viewer associates these elements automatically. I guess, you need a style of your own (did I just come back to from where I started ;)

<i>H.C-B's camera picked the subject matter and the approximate framing and Pierre Gassmann decided the blacks, whites, greys, contrasts, and tones. In effect H.C-B is responsible for what the picture is OF and Gassmann decided how the picture LOOKS. </i><p>

First, it seems that you presume that H.C-B did not consult with Gassman concerning the final rendering. Is that true?<p>

 

H.C-B controled aperture and shutter speed. It is clear that he preferred relatively small (physical) apertures. So one can say he used his camera in A-mode. Someone else did the tonal rendering. Today if he were using an automatic camera, would you then give credit to the manufacturer?<p>

It is not strictly an academic question. If rendering were entirely up to Gassman, and credit were given to him, then why not do the same today for people who work on automatic and give rendereing credits to the manufacture/model number?

Pico, we can take it a step further. Say you shoot cars in a car show. They are on very carefully designed stands and the lighting is planned by a professional of that sort giving just the right kind of emphasis to the sform and ambience. You shoot it, post it here and someone credits you for the great light. Photo is really a record of a light situation.

The car show example is a good example. "Camera held by somebody. Stage technicians

(list)"